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.

• State through Muslim Khan vs Mumtaz Ali2013 P Cr. L J 820 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-09-04
  criminal revisionsummoning of witnessesabandonment of witnessesdiscretionary powers of courtprosecution evidencetrial procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the complainant against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which rejected an application to summon two prosecution witnesses who had been previously abandoned by the complainant's former counsel. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon these witnesses under the discretionary powers granted by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Peshawar High Court held that while the court possesses ample powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon any witness for a just decision, such discretion must be exercised judiciously. The Court observed that the witnesses were abandoned by the complainant's counsel nearly ten months prior, and the application was filed only after the prosecution had closed its evidence and the case was ripe for conclusion. The Court ruled that allowing the examination of these witnesses at such a belated stage, after the prosecution's case had been exposed through cross-examination, would be improper. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming that the trial court's order was well-reasoned and legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complainant seek to summon witnesses previously abandoned by their counsel after the prosecution has closed its evidence?
  • Does the court have the discretion to refuse an application to summon witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it permissible to allow the examination of witnesses at a belated stage after the prosecution case has been exposed through cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Dag vs Namatullah and othersPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 190 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-09-28
  criminal acquittal appealcondonation of delaylimitationdepartmental delayacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the State through DAG against the judgment and order of the Special Judge (Central) Anti-Corruption and Emigration Peshawar, whereby the respondents were acquitted under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The primary legal questions were whether the State showed sufficient grounds for condoning a delay of over eleven months in filing the appeal, and whether the acquittal on merits was sustainable. The Peshawar High Court held that the delay caused by late departmental instructions did not constitute a circumstance of a compelling nature beyond the appellant's control, and that the trial court's evaluation of the weak prosecution evidence was not perverse or illogical. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred and on merits. The key principle laid down is that delay in filing an appeal against acquittal cannot be condoned unless the appellant satisfactorily explains each day's delay and demonstrates compelling circumstances beyond its control preventing timely filing.

  Questions settled

  • Can delay in filing an appeal against acquittal be condoned on the ground of late departmental instructions?
  • What must an appellant demonstrate to obtain condonation of delay in filing a criminal appeal against acquittal?
  • Is an acquittal order liable to be interfered with when the trial court's appreciation of evidence is not perverse or illogical?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation and otherss vs Mst. Shumila and others2013 CLD 1525 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-10Read full judgment →
• Siyar etc vs Ibrahim2013-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through S.M.B.R., Peshawar and another2013 PLJ Peshawar 168 · Peshawar High Court
  deceased government employee quotaappointment of dependentswrit petitionBPS-1 to 10government employment policyrevenue department
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking appointment as a Naib Tehsildar or a similar position in the revenue department under the quota reserved for children of deceased government employees. The respondents contested the claim, arguing that the petitioner's brother had already been appointed under this quota. Upon review, the Court found that the brother's appointment was based on merit, not the deceased employee quota. The Court examined the relevant government notification and the applicable legal framework, specifically noting a 2012 notification that amended the rules regarding the appointment of children or widows of deceased government employees to BPS-1 to 10. The Deputy Advocate General conceded the petitioner's claim in light of this policy. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to a position in BPS-1 to 10 in accordance with the government's policy and the notification dated 31st August 2012. The judgment affirms the right of eligible dependents to seek employment under the established quota system when previous appointments were not made under that specific provision.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointment made on merit preclude a family member from claiming a quota reserved for children of deceased government employees?
  • What is the scope of the quota for children of deceased government employees regarding BPS-1 to 10 positions under the 2012 notification?
  • Are appointments to BPS-1 to 10 falling under the purview of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission eligible for the deceased government employee quota?
  Read full judgment →
• Siraj vs The State and another2013 YLR 684 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-09-20
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular accountabscondancemedical evidencecontradictionscapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in death sentences and imprisonment. The core legal questions involve evaluating the trustworthiness of the ocular account, the corroborative value of medical evidence and recoveries, the proof of motive, and the legal weight of abscondance. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to major contradictions between the eyewitnesses and the investigating officer, failure to specify weapons, non-corroboration by independent witnesses, and discrepancies in medical and physical evidence. The court laid down the principle that when ocular testimony is untrustworthy and inspires no confidence, abscondance alone cannot sustain a capital conviction, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case must be resolved in favor of the accused, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether abscondance alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge when the ocular testimony is disbelieved?
  • Does the non-specification of weapons of offence in a promptly lodged FIR create doubt regarding the presence of eyewitnesses?
  • Whether contradictions between eyewitnesses and the investigating officer regarding the timing of site inspection and recording of statements are fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for a capital crime be maintained on weak and unimpeachable evidence merely because two persons were killed?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Vvali and anothers vs The State and another2013 YLR 1442 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-28
  acquittal appealabductiondouble presumption of innocenceadverse inferencestar witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused-respondent, who was tried under Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in case F.I.R. No. 670 dated 27-9-2010 registered at Police Station Topi District Swabi, and acquitted by the trial court on 20-2-2012. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence and acquitting the accused where the alleged abductee denied the abduction and stated she went for a job. The Peshawar High Court held that the abductee's statement shattered the prosecution case, and the trial court rightly drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 due to the non-production of a material witness. The court affirmed that an acquitted person earns a double presumption of innocence, and dismissed the appeal in limine, finding no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned trial court judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal that enjoys a double presumption of innocence?
  • Does the denial of abduction by the alleged abductee shatter the prosecution case?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 for withholding a material witness in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Rehman vs The State2013 MLD 1703 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-08
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancescontraband recoveryprohibitory clausequantum of punishmentdiscretionary bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail petition concerns the petitioner, Sher Rehman, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of three kilograms of Charas from his vehicle. The petitioner sought post-arrest bail, arguing that the contraband was not in his personal possession and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed the application, citing the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the positive forensic report. The Court held that in narcotics cases, the quantity of contraband and the potential sentence are critical factors for bail consideration. Observing that the recovered quantity was less than ten kilograms, which carries a maximum sentence of fourteen years, the Court determined the petitioner was unlikely to receive a sentence exceeding two years. Furthermore, noting the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and lack of prior convictions, the Court exercised its discretion to grant bail, emphasizing that the specific quantity recovered justified the concession of bail in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of less than ten kilograms of contraband under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 automatically preclude the grant of bail?
  • Should the potential quantum of punishment be considered when deciding bail applications in narcotics cases?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to bail if the recovered narcotics were found in a vehicle rather than on the person of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Rahman and others vs The State2013 P Cr. L J 1028 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-12
  surety bondsforfeiture of bondscriminal revisionabsconding accusedbail bond forfeituremitigation of penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a criminal revision petition against an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Charsadda, forfeiting their bail bonds to the extent of Rs. 50,000 each after the accused for whom they stood surety absconded during trial following his involvement in a subsequent murder case. The core legal question was whether the forfeiture of surety bonds was justified and proportionate under the circumstances where the sureties had initially fulfilled their obligation of producing the accused for trial. The Peshawar High Court held that while sureties bear responsibilities, courts must maintain a balance between undue leniency and undue severity, considering the sureties' compliance prior to the subsequent incident and their poor financial status as daily wage laborers and pensioners. The Court reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 each, laying down the principle that humanitarian aspects, the financial condition of sureties, and the specific circumstances of an accused's subsequent abscondance must be factored into the forfeiture of surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the forfeiture of surety bonds is justified when the accused absconds due to involvement in a subsequent criminal case?
  • How should courts balance undue leniency and undue severity when determining the extent of surety bond forfeiture?
  • Can the financial status of sureties be considered while mitigating the penalty for breach of surety bonds?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs State2013 MLD 1793, PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 827 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-05-29
  criminal jail appealqatl-e-amdocular testimonymedical evidencemotiveeyewitnessbenefit of doubtfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tank, whereby the appellant, Sher Khan, was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Rashid Khan. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, recoveries, and a proven motive, notwithstanding minor contradictions and the absence of a dying declaration. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt through prompt FIR registration, reliable eyewitness accounts from independent witnesses who were arbitrating a dispute, corroborative medical evidence showing multiple firearm injuries, and positive forensic reports. The Court established that where an eyewitness account is confidence-inspiring, natural, and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, minor discrepancies are immaterial, and the failure to record a dying declaration does not vitiate the conviction when the victim was rushed to the hospital and succumbed swiftly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor contradictions in prosecution witnesses' statements are sufficient to discard an otherwise reliable ocular account?
  • Does the absence of a dying declaration vitiate a murder conviction when the injured person expires on the way to the hospital?
  • Whether prompt lodging of an FIR rules out the possibility of deliberations and false implication in a murder case?
  • Does failure to cross-examine a prosecution witness on material aspects amount to an implied admission of the facts stated?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Illahi vs Mr. Fazal Rehman2013-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2013-05-31Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 2013 Criminal Cases 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-11-05
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycommon intentionfacilitation rolecriminal liabilitybail adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns the bail application of an accused charged under Sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for allegedly facilitating a co-accused by catching hold of the deceased during a fatal stabbing incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was assigned the role of 'catching hold' of the deceased, was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the nature of his alleged involvement. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, reasoning that the case required further inquiry. Key factors influencing this decision included the absence of a motive, the petitioner's advanced age of 62, discrepancies in witness statements regarding the place of occurrence, and the lack of blood recovery at the crime scene. Relying on established precedents where co-accused charged with similar roles were granted relief, the Court determined that the petitioner's guilt necessitated further investigation. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, with the caveat that these observations were tentative and should not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused charged with the role of 'catching hold' of a deceased entitled to bail when the case requires further inquiry?
  • Does the absence of blood recovery at the crime scene constitute a ground for granting bail?
  • Can the advanced age of an accused be a relevant factor in determining entitlement to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Alam vs Mst. Fozia Tabassum Afridi2013 CLC 1777, 2013 PLJ Peshawar 156 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-26Read full judgment →
• Sher Alam vs Mst Fozia Tabassum Afridi2013 CLC 1777 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-26Read full judgment →
• Sher Akbar vs The State2013 YLR 2260 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-27
  narcotics smugglingconscious possessioncriminal appealburden of proofbenefit of doubtControl of Narcotic Substances ActQanun-e-Shahadat Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of two appellants, Sher Akbar and Said Karim, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for transporting 50 kilograms of heroin concealed in a truck. The core legal question concerned whether the appellants, found inside the vehicle, could be held criminally liable for the contraband despite their defense that they were merely passengers who had taken a lift. The Peshawar High Court held that while the driver, Sher Akbar, was in conscious control of the vehicle and thus liable, the passenger, Said Karim, could not be linked to the contraband absent evidence of his conscious possession or involvement. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction of the driver but acquitted the passenger, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that mere presence in a vehicle containing narcotics does not automatically establish criminal liability; the prosecution must establish conscious possession, particularly when the accused attempts to discharge the burden of proof under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of a passenger in a vehicle containing concealed narcotics establish conscious possession for the purpose of conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the driver of a vehicle containing concealed narcotics presumed to have conscious knowledge of the contraband?
  • How does the burden of proof shift under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in cases involving the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Wajahat Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Secretary Industries and 3 others2013 YLR 2132 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-04
  constitutional petitionlease deedcancellation of allotmentcontractual obligationlachesfactual controversyarbitration clauseindustrial plot
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the cancellation of a 99-year industrial plot lease and its subsequent allotment to a third party. The petitioner alleged that the cancellation order dated 02-02-2010 was illegal and that possession was forcibly taken in connivance with official respondents. The court observed that the cancellation order was dispatched via registered post, creating a presumption of receipt under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court held that the dispute involved contractual obligations and factual controversies arising from a lease deed, which cannot be enforced or resolved through a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the petition was found to be barred by laches, having been filed sixteen months after the impugned order. The court emphasized that where an arbitration clause exists and factual disputes are present, the appropriate remedies lie in civil suits for specific performance or damages rather than constitutional litigation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Khezar Hayat vs StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 844 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-05-06
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlcharas recoveryFSL reportfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner Shehzad Khizar Hayat seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 168 dated 28/03/2013 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Nasir Bagh, Peshawar, following the alleged recovery of five kilograms of Charas from a vehicle he was traveling in. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the non-availability of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report regarding the recovered contraband at the bail stage makes the case one of further inquiry. The Court held that the absence of the FSL report creates doubt as to whether the substance was actually contraband, thereby bringing the case within the scope of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The key principle laid down is that the non-availability of an FSL report regarding allegedly recovered narcotics constitutes sufficient grounds for further probe, entitling the accused to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-availability of an FSL report regarding recovered narcotics entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the absence of a chemical examiner's report brings a narcotics case within the ambit of further probe under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAYANPetitloner vs Met, Zahida Nageen and another2013 YLR 1172 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-19
  post-arrest bailjuvenile offenderattempted murderprohibitory limbdiscretionary reliefbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from an FIR registered under sections 324 and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, concerning an alleged attempt to murder a fellow student at a school. The petitioner, a sixteen-year-old student, sought bail on grounds of minority and alleged false implication. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s minority status entitled him to bail as a matter of right, particularly when prima facie evidence connected him to a heinous crime committed with an automatic weapon. The Court held that minority does not ipso facto entitle an accused to bail, nor does it grant a license to commit violent acts. The Court emphasized that the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 uses the discretionary term 'may' rather than 'shall,' requiring courts to assess each case on its own merits. Finding sufficient prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement and maturity of mind, the Court dismissed the bail application, directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the minority of an accused person entitle them to bail as a matter of right in non-bailable offences?
  • Does the use of the word 'may' in the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant the court discretion in granting bail to minors?
  • Is a deep appraisal of evidence permissible at the bail stage when the challan has already been submitted to the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharifullah vs Abdul Waheed and another2013 YLR 1293 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-06
  cancellation of bailfurther inquiryliberty of the subjectrecovery of stolen propertyidentification paradecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent-accused by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving charges under sections 397, 302, 201, 202, 203, 411, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the bail order was patently illegal or erroneous, warranting the cancellation of bail. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish strong and exceptional grounds for cancellation. It noted that the accused was not named in the F.I.R., no identification parade was conducted, and the recovery of the stolen motorcycle was inconsistent and doubtful, rendering the case one of further inquiry. The Court affirmed the principle that the considerations for cancelling bail are distinct from those for granting it. Bail, once granted, should not be cancelled lightly, as it interferes with the liberty of the individual. Cancellation requires substantive proof of miscarriage of justice or perfunctory reasoning in the initial order, rather than mere allegations or prior criminal history without convictions.

  Questions settled

  • What are the distinct legal considerations for the cancellation of bail versus the grant of bail?
  • Does the mere registration of prior F.I.R.s against an accused constitute sufficient grounds for the cancellation of bail?
  • Is the court required to cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely because the offence is punishable by death or life imprisonment?
  • Does the existence of inconsistent versions regarding the recovery of case property render a case one of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Nawaz and another vs The State and others2013 PLD Peshawar 78 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-30
  criminal appealbenefit of doubttracker dog evidencelast seen evidencecircumstantial evidenceDNA evidencemurder convictionevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility and evidentiary value of tracker dog evidence, the reliability of delayed 'last seen' testimony, the admissibility of DNA profiling from non-notified laboratories, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence. The court ruled that tracker dog evidence is inherently frail and insufficient for conviction without rigorous scientific validation. Furthermore, the court determined that 'last seen' evidence, when delayed without explanation, lacks credibility, and that DNA reports from non-notified institutions are inadmissible. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The key principle laid down is that criminal convictions cannot rest on weak circumstantial evidence or animal sensibilities; the prosecution must provide a complete, unbroken chain of reliable evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is evidence derived from tracker dogs sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction?
  • What is the evidentiary value of 'last seen' testimony when it is reported with significant delay?
  • Are DNA reports issued by non-notified laboratories admissible in criminal proceedings?
  • Does the recovery of a non-bloodstained weapon provide sufficient proof to connect an accused to a murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Nawaz and another vs State and others2013 PLD Peshawar 78, PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 643 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-30
  murdertracker dog evidencesniffer dogslast seen evidenceDNA test admissibilitybenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidencedelay in section 161 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected criminal revision arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by the trial court. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including sniffer/tracker dog evidence leading to the appellant's premises, delayed statements of 'last seen' witnesses, recovery of an un-stained axe, mobile phone call records, and a DNA matching report from an un-notified laboratory. The Peshawar High Court re-appraised the evidence and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that sniffer dog evidence is inherently weak and inadmissible to establish guilt without qualifying the handler and establishing strict reliability protocols. Furthermore, delayed 'last seen' statements without plausible explanation carry no evidentiary value, and DNA reports from private laboratories not officially notified by the government, where representatives refuse to testify in court, are inadmissible in criminal trials. Consequently, the revision petition for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What conditions must be satisfied before tracker or sniffer dog evidence can be relied upon in a criminal prosecution?
  • Whether 'last seen' evidence recorded after an inordinate and unexplained delay can form the basis for conviction in a murder trial?
  • Is a DNA profiling report issued by an un-notified laboratory whose staff refuses to give evidence in court admissible in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzeb Khan vs The State and anothersPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 546, 2013 P Cr. L J 907 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryattempt to murderfirearms expert reportcross-versionnon-vital part of body
  Summary & questions settled

  Shahzeb Khan sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner fired at the complainant, hitting him in the left thigh over a dispute regarding a water drain. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given that a single fire shot was attributed to a non-vital part of the body without repetition of the act, coupled with a cross-version and a negative firearms expert report. The Peshawar High Court held that a prima facie case for further inquiry was made out and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where a single fire shot is attributed to a non-vital part of the body without repetition, alongside a cross-version and negative forensic evidence, the applicability of penal provisions like Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 becomes a matter of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a single fire shot on a non-vital part of the body without repetition makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the existence of a cross-version and a negative firearms expert report justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be determined at the bail stage when the injury is on a non-vital part without bone fracture?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzeb Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 546 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryattempt to murderfirearm expert reportcross versionnon-vital part injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Shahzeb Khan facing charges under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 of the relevant arms law in connection with FIR No. 348. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where a single fire shot was attributed to a non-vital part of the body, the firearm expert report was negative, and a cross-version of the incident exists. The Peshawar High Court held that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and accordingly allowed the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where an injury is inflicted on a non-vital part without repetition of the overt act, coupled with a negative firearms report and a cross-version, reasonable grounds exist for further inquiry into the applicability of penal provisions like Section 324.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when a single firearm injury is sustained on a non-vital part of the body without repetition of the act?
  • Does a negative report from the firearms expert regarding the weapon and empties create a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of a cross-version recorded in a criminal case when considering a petition for post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid vs The State2013 YLR 1840 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-05-06
  post-arrest bailCNSAnarcoticscharas recoveryprohibitory clausequantum of punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner Shahid seeking post-arrest bail after being refused by the lower court in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, regarding the alleged recovery of 4000 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail considering the quantity of contraband recovered and the quantum of sentence likely to be imposed. The Peshawar High Court accepted the bail application and held that since the quantity recovered did not necessarily warrant the maximum punishment under Section 9(c), and considering that the investigation was complete, the accused was not a previous convict, and his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose, he was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that for the purpose of bail in narcotics cases, the quantity of contraband recovered and the expected quantum of punishment are vital factors to be considered, and lesser recovery within a prohibitory clause may justify the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when the recovered quantity of contraband does not attract the maximum punishment?
  • Does the completion of investigation and the non-previous conviction status of an accused justify the grant of bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid vs StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 372 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-02
  narcotics recoverydelay in sending samples to FSLbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalcontradictory evidenceCNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses criminal appeals arising from the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, who were sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution's case regarding the recovery of narcotics, unexplained delay in dispatching samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and inconsistencies concerning the alleged cross-firing and injuries sustained by inmates without corresponding bullet marks on the vehicle. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to glaring lacunae, including a 26-day delay in sending samples to the FSL, failure to examine the Malkhana moharrir or the police official who transported the samples, and implausible circumstances regarding the vehicle chase and firearm injuries. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of over three weeks in sending narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the absence of bullet marks on a vehicle despite alleged cross-firing during a police chase creates a serious doubt in the prosecution story?
  • Is the conviction sustainable when material witnesses fail to prove the safe custody and transmission of contraband samples to the chemical examiner?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mehmood and 7 others vs Muhammad Afzal2013 YLR 930 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-11-12Read full judgment →
• Shahid and others vs The StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 372, 2013 YLR 1453 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-02
  narcotics recoverydelay in sending samples to FSLsafe custody of samplesbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealpolice encounter inconsistenciesacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, resulting from the alleged recovery of narcotics from a vehicle. The core legal questions concern whether an unexplained delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory and inconsistencies in the prosecution's version regarding cross-firing and vehicle damage vitiate the conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that a 26-day unmitigated delay in transmitting samples to the laboratory, combined with the lack of safe custody evidence and improbable circumstances surrounding injuries to the accused without corresponding bullet marks on the vehicle, created serious doubts in the prosecution case. The court established the principle that material discrepancies regarding police encounters and failure to establish the safe custody and timely dispatch of narcotic samples to the forensic laboratory entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and acquittal of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of several weeks in sending narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiate the conviction?
  • Whether the absence of bullet marks on a vehicle despite alleged cross-firing during a police chase casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce evidence regarding the safe custody of contraband samples until their receipt at the forensic laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaib vs StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 641 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-18
  post-arrest bailconscious possessionnarcoticsjuvenile offendersecret cavitiescontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Shah Zaib sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the recovery of 50150 grams of chars from secret cavities of a vehicle under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved whether a passenger in a vehicle can be held in conscious possession of narcotics found in secret cavities without direct proof, and whether a juvenile accused can be granted bail in an offense carrying capital punishment. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as the principal accused had exonerated him in a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was no prima facie evidence connecting him to the ownership of the car or narcotics, and he was a juvenile with no criminal history. The key principles laid down are that a person seated in a vehicle cannot be blindly held responsible for contrabands kept in secret cavities without establishing conscious knowledge, and that police statements exonerating an accused can be considered for bail purposes despite not being substantively admissible at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person seated in a vehicle be held responsible for narcotics recovered from secret cavities without proof of conscious possession?
  • Whether statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be considered for the purpose of bail when they prima facie detach the accused from the crime?
  • Is the large quantity of recovered narcotics an absolute bar to granting bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a juvenile accused be released on bail in an offense carrying capital punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Rukh vs The State2013 P Cr. L J 237 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-09-05
  dying declarationcriminal appealmurderocular evidencefitness certificateSection 342 Cr.P.C.acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for murder. The prosecution's case rested primarily on a dying declaration (the FIR recorded from the injured deceased) and the testimony of an alleged eye-witness. The core legal question was whether the dying declaration could be relied upon to sustain a conviction given the medical evidence indicating the deceased was semi-conscious and lacked a fitness certificate, and whether the ocular evidence provided sufficient corroboration. The Court held that the conviction could not be maintained, as the prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was in a fit mental state to make a coherent statement. Furthermore, the eye-witness failed to support the prosecution's case, and the failure to put incriminating evidence to the accused during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendered the conviction unsustainable. The Court reaffirmed that a dying declaration is a weak type of evidence requiring strong, independent corroboration and that blind reliance on it without scrutiny is dangerous.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon for conviction if the declarant's fitness to make a statement is not certified by a medical officer?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence to an accused during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the use of that evidence for conviction?
  • Is a dying declaration sufficient to sustain a conviction without strong, independent, and reliable corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Jehan vs Feroz Shah and others2013 CLD 1807 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-22Read full judgment →
• Shah Hussain vs Farad and anothers2013 P Cr. L J 675 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-08-31
  post-arrest bailmurderabsconsionocular accounttentative assessmentprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Shah Hussain, who was charged in an F.I.R. for offences under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the murder of the complainant's father. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the allegations of direct involvement, the presence of an ocular account supported by medico-legal evidence, and the petitioner's subsequent status as an absconder. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, dismissing the application. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that in bail proceedings, the court must conduct a tentative assessment of the material brought on record by the prosecution, including the F.I.R. and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding that a prima facie case existed against the accused, particularly noting the specific role attributed to him and his period of absconsion, the Court declined to grant relief, leaving the final determination of truthfulness to the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of a court's inquiry when deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  • Does the status of an accused as an absconder impact the court's discretion in granting bail?
  • Is a tentative assessment of prosecution material sufficient to deny bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Munir vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Education, N.-W. F. P . , Peshawar and 5 others2013 PLC 1455 · Peshawar High Court
  regularization of servicescontract appointmentwrit jurisdictionpublic school employeesstatutory interpretationgovernment service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions filed by individuals seeking regularization of their services as Principals of Mufti Mehmood Public School, Dera Ismail Khan, under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. The petitioners challenged the re-advertisement of their positions, arguing they were entitled to regularization under the aforementioned Act. The core legal question was whether employees of a public school managed by a Board of Directors, rather than directly by the Provincial Government, fall within the scope of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. The Peshawar High Court held that the Act applies exclusively to employees appointed against government-sanctioned posts. Since the petitioners were employees of a public school governed by a Board of Directors and not the Provincial Government, they did not meet the definition of 'employee' under the Act. Furthermore, the court noted that one petitioner was appointed after the Act's commencement. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions, establishing the principle that statutory regularization benefits are restricted to government employees specifically covered by the governing legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 apply to employees of a public school managed by a Board of Directors?
  • Are employees of a public school considered government employees for the purpose of regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained for regularization of service in the absence of statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Ullah Khan vs Nek Muhammad Khan and others2013 YLR 2663 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-19Read full judgment →
• Shad Muhammad Khan vs The State and another2013 YLR 71 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-06-06Read full judgment →
• Senator Haji Ghulam Ali and anothers vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Olympic2013 PLD Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-21Read full judgment →
• Sayed Shah Khalid vs The State2013 YLR 1746 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-15Read full judgment →
• Sarhad Dall Mills, Post Office Road Havelian, District Abbottabad2013 PLJ Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sarfaraz vs Ehsanullah and 6 others2013 PLJ Peshawar 170, 2013 YLR 2203 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sardoor Khan vs The State2013 YLR 1874 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-11
  narcotics controlcriminal appealbenefit of doubtrecovery of charasappellant acquittalinsufficient evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to life imprisonment for the alleged recovery of 40 kilograms of charas from a truck. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was linked to the vehicle and the recovered narcotics. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any connection between the appellant and the truck, noting that he was neither the owner nor the driver, no incriminating evidence was recovered from his personal search, and material contradictions existed in the testimonies of police witnesses. The court laid down the principle that in criminal cases involving capital or heavy sentences, the prosecution must provide unimpeachable and strongly corroborated evidence to sustain a conviction, and mere suspicion or unverified informer tips are insufficient to prove guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unverified information from an informer is sufficient to link an accused to recovered narcotics in the absence of corroborative evidence?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act be sustained when the accused is neither the owner nor in proven possession of the vehicle carrying the contraband?
  • Does the absence of independent corroboration and documentary proof linking an accused to a seized vehicle warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt and subsequent acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Wali vs The State2013 YLR 2292 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-12
  post-arrest bailparity of treatmentforged passporthuman traffickingjudicial discretionbail rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from the refusal of the Special Judge (Central), Peshawar, to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Sardar Wali, who is charged under sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Corruption and Human Trafficking Ordinance, sections 18(a) and 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance 1979, and section 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offenses and the stage of the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the offenses charged carry a maximum punishment of seven years or less, making bail the rule and refusal the exception. Furthermore, the Court observed that the investigation was nearly complete, the petitioner was no longer required for further inquiry, and a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court established the principle that parity of treatment in bail matters is essential when the circumstances of the accused are similar to those of co-accused already released.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offenses punishable by seven years imprisonment or less?
  • Does the principle of parity apply when a co-accused in the same case has already been granted bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Aslam vs S.H.O./Incharge, Police Station Mirpur2013 YLR 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-04-17
  quashment of F.I.R.dishonest issuance of chequeconstitutional petitionmala fidecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, alleging the dishonest issuance of a cheque that was subsequently dishonoured. The core legal question was whether the criminal proceedings and the underlying F.I.R. were false, fabricated, and based on mala fides, particularly given that the complainant failed to disclose any business, familial, or loan relationship justifying the exchange of such a large sum of money, and police investigation suggested the cheque was obtained as security under the guise of securing government employment. The court held that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where no legitimate monetary obligation or loan transaction was established and the transaction appeared dubious, the F.I.R. was false and fabricated. The court laid down the principle that a criminal prosecution under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 requires a genuine underlying obligation or loan, and an F.I.R. lacking foundational validity and tainted by dubious circumstances is liable to be quashed under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an F.I.R. registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 be quashed when the complainant fails to establish a legitimate loan or financial obligation?
  • Whether an F.I.R. found to be false and fabricated during police investigation is liable to be set aside under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the issuance of a cheque as security for securing government employment attract the penal provisions of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ahmad vs Mst. Zeenat Bibi2013 YLR 2439 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-05-27
  dissolution of marriagedowermutation cancellationunregistered agreementimmovable propertycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for the cancellation of a property mutation and the return of a plot given to the respondent in connection with their proposed marriage. The core legal question was whether a former wife can retain property transferred to her pursuant to an agreement when the marriage is subsequently dissolved prior to consummation and the property does not form part of her dower. The Peshawar High Court held that upon the dissolution of the marriage, the respondent was not entitled to retain the benefit of the agreement, especially as the unregistered document did not bestow valid title and the plot was not part of the dower. The court established the principle that property transferred in contemplation of marriage ceases to be retainable by a party once the matrimonial tie is broken, and that agreements affecting immovable property exceeding one hundred rupees require compulsory registration under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a former wife is entitled to retain property given pursuant to an agreement when the marriage is dissolved prior to consummation?
  • Does an unregistered agreement regarding immovable property bestow valid legal title on the beneficiary?
  • Whether a plot transferred in connection with a marriage must be returned to the husband upon the annulment or dissolution of the marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib and otherss vs Muhammad Afzal2013 MLD 375 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-23Read full judgment →
• Samiuddin vs Nadeem Ahmad and 2 others2013 YLR 2218 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-29
  quashment of F.I.R.dishonoured chequecriminal liabilitycivil liabilitySection 561-A Cr.P.C.Section 489-F P.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against him regarding a dishonoured cheque issued to the respondent, arguing that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that the F.I.R. was lodged with mala fide intent. The respondent contended that the dishonour of the cheque for insufficient funds constituted a clear criminal offence under the relevant statute. Upon review, the Court declined to quash the F.I.R., noting that the case had been registered following a proper inquiry and that the trial had already commenced. The Court held that it was inappropriate to interfere at this stage, emphasizing that the petitioner possessed alternative legal remedies. Specifically, the Court directed that the petitioner could seek relief by filing an application before the trial court under Section 265-K or Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which would be adjudicated in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an F.I.R. be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 once the trial has already commenced?
  • Is the remedy for a dishonoured cheque exclusively civil, or can it be pursued through criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the appropriate procedure for an accused to seek acquittal during the trial stage if they believe the case against them is groundless?
  Read full judgment →
• Salim Khan vs StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 818 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-07-03
  post-arrest bailControl of Narcotic Substances Actinvestigation by ASIFSL report delayedfurther inquirystatutory violationcontraband Charas
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of ten kilograms of contraband Charas under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the investigation and recovery conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector, being below the rank of Sub-Inspector, violated mandatory provisions of the law, and whether the delayed Forensic Science Laboratory report warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Peshawar High Court held that the entire action from inception to end by an officer below the prescribed rank was violative of the statutory scheme, and the pending FSL report left the exact nature of the substance unverified. Consequently, the court accepted the bail petition, ruling that the case fell within the ambit of further probe under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that investigation and recovery by officers below the authorized rank under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, coupled with a delayed FSL report, make out a case for further inquiry and entitlement to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the arrest and investigation of a narcotics case by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector violate the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the absence of a timely FSL report bringing the nature of the recovered substance into doubt make the case one for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the foundational investigation from its inception is carried out in violation of mandatory statutory provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Salam Noor vs StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 388 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-01
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharas recoveryconscious knowledgevehicle driver liabilityControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 381 dated 24.12.2012, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, following the recovery of 40 kilograms of charas from the spare tyre of a truck driven by him. The core legal question was whether the driver of a vehicle carrying a large quantity of narcotics can claim lack of conscious knowledge to be entitled to bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the driver of a vehicle is presumed to be the custodian of the vehicle and its contents, making the plea of ignorance self-defeating at the bail stage. The court ruled that the huge quantity recovered, supported by affirmative FSL reports, prima facie connects the petitioner to the offense. The petition was accordingly dismissed, distinguishing the petitioner's case from that of the co-accused who was not the driver.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the driver of a vehicle can claim lack of conscious knowledge regarding narcotics recovered from the vehicle's spare tyre for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics disentitle an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the driver of a vehicle carrying contraband distinguishable from a co-accused passenger regarding possession responsibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjadulhaq vs Directorgeneral, Peshawar Development Authority2013 CLC 893 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-12-18Read full judgment →
• Sajjad-Ul-Haq vs Director General, Peshawar Development2013 CLC 893, 2013 PLJ Peshawar 60 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-12-18Read full judgment →
• Sajjad vs The State2013 P Cr. L J 557 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-04
  narcoticscharasrecoveryforensic science laboratorydirectory provisionscriminal appealwitness contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, who was found guilty under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the possession of 175 kilograms of charas recovered from a vehicle he was driving. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, whether minor contradictions in witness testimony regarding the source of the weighing scale vitiated the recovery, and whether the delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory rendered the evidence inadmissible. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution's evidence was consistent and confidence-inspiring. The Court ruled that minor discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the prosecution's case when the recovery is otherwise proven. Furthermore, the Court established that the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, regarding the timeline for sending samples to the laboratory are directory rather than mandatory, and non-compliance does not invalidate the recovery or the substantive conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor contradiction regarding the source of a weighing scale used during a narcotics recovery vitiate the entire prosecution case?
  • Are the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, regarding the timeline for sending samples to the laboratory mandatory or directory?
  • Does the delay in sending contraband samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the recovery evidence inadmissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad vs The State2013 YLR 1667 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-13
  narcotics smugglingburden of proofrecovery of contrabandcriminal appealfalse implicationstatutory burdendrug trafficking
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of two appellants by the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, for the smuggling of a large quantity of narcotics (charas and opium) discovered in a truck. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the contraband beyond a reasonable doubt, or if the appellants were falsely implicated as alleged by the defence. The Peshawar High Court upheld the convictions and sentences, finding that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent and unshaken during cross-examination, and that the defence failed to provide evidence of false implication or animus. The Court held that the appellants failed to discharge the statutory burden of proof required under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, particularly given their failure to produce defence witnesses or testify on oath. The key principle laid down is that in narcotics cases, once the prosecution establishes a consistent case of recovery, the burden shifts to the accused to provide cogent evidence of innocence, and the absence of such evidence, combined with consistent testimony, justifies a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to produce defence evidence or testify on oath strengthen the prosecution's case in narcotics smuggling trials?
  • What is the effect of Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 on the burden of proof for an accused found in possession of narcotics?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics smuggling be sustained solely on the basis of consistent testimony from prosecution witnesses despite allegations of false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali Shah vs General Manager Water and Power Development2013 PLC (C.S.) 715 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-11-20
  daily wage employeetermination of serviceregularizationwrit petitionmaintainabilitycontractual obligationcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a daily wage Senior Clerk in WAPDA, challenged his termination order dated 4-1-2012 and the exclusion of his name from the regularization list through a constitutional writ petition before the Peshawar High Court. The core legal questions involved whether a daily wage or temporary employee can invoke writ jurisdiction for termination of service and whether such an employee has a vested right to regularization. The Court held that temporary or daily wage employees governed by contract cannot claim any legal character or enforce contractual obligations through writ jurisdiction, and their services can be terminated in accordance with their terms of employment without the court examining motives of alleged mala fides. The key principles laid down are that a temporary employee whose services are terminated in conformity with their employment terms has no cause of action for a writ petition, and that contractual employment disputes are not maintainable under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a daily wage or temporary employee invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court against termination of service?
  • Does a temporary employee have a legal character or vested right to claim regularization?
  • Can a temporary employee challenge the termination of their service on the ground of mala fides when terminated in accordance with their contract?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of contractual obligations of employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifulabbas vs The State2013 MLD 1078 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-19
  narcotics smugglingconscious knowledgestatutory burden of proofrecovery of charscriminal appealdrug trafficking
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court, Peshawar, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine for transporting 185 kgs of chars concealed in secret cavities of a motor car driven by him. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt and whether the appellant successfully discharged the statutory burden regarding lack of conscious knowledge under the statute. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were consistent, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by the chemical examiner's report, and that the appellant, being the driver found in control of the vehicle, failed to discharge the statutory onus under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 to prove his ignorance of the concealed narcotics. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of narcotics from the vehicle driven by the appellant?
  • Does the onus lie on the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 to prove lack of conscious knowledge regarding narcotics concealed in a vehicle under his control?
  • Can minor discrepancies in the statements of police witnesses negate the entire prosecution case in a narcotics recovery matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ur Rehman vs The State and anothers2013 P Cr. L J 114 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-03-06
  quashment petitionfalse evidenceperjuryjudicial restraintpolice reporttrial proceedingsinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector/Station House Officer, filed a quashment petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging a portion of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, D.I. Khan, which directed the petitioner's prosecution under sections 193, 195, and 203 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by invoking section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the legality of the trial court's order directing an inquiry and separate trial for giving false information and evidence based on discrepancies between the police report and prior newspaper clippings regarding an arrest and recovery. The Peshawar High Court held that the observations and consequential directions for trial were rooted in material facts regarding conflicting dates in the police report and press accounts, and that interfering at this preliminary stage would adversely affect the trial proceedings. The court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that the high court should exercise judicial restraint in quashing preliminary directions or remarks regarding perjury where factual controversies require a full trial, and that the aggrieved official should instead raise such pleas before the trial court through available statutory remedies like acquittal provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court quash observations and directions for prosecution made by a Sessions Judge under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an accused police officer can seek expunction of adverse judicial remarks through a quashment petition when such remarks arise directly from disputed facts in a criminal case?
  • Is it appropriate for the High Court to interfere with an order directing a separate trial for giving false information before the trial has commenced?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah etc. vs Mst. Salma Baseer2013 PLJ Peshawar 87 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-12-21Read full judgment →
• Saidulhaq vs Janas Khan2013 PLJ Peshawar 42, 2013 MLD 350 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-05Read full judgment →
• Said-Ul-Haq vs Janas Khan2013 PLJ Peshawar 42 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-05Read full judgment →
• Said Hakim vs The StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 362, 2013 YLR 1390 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-28
  Post-arrest bailNarcotics offenceInquiry reportNew ground for bailConscious knowledgeContraband recoveryBail petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This second bail petition concerned an accused involved in a case under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for allegedly transporting 11 Kgs of charas in a truck. His previous bail applications were rejected by the trial court and the High Court. The core legal question was whether a subsequent inquiry report, initiated on the court's direction and later by the DPO, declaring the petitioner innocent and identifying the truck driver as the real culprit who fled, constituted a new and fresh ground for bail. The High Court held that while the petitioner was found in the vehicle, nothing was recovered from his personal possession or on his pointation, and there was no evidence of his conscious knowledge of the contraband or association with the co-accused. The inquiry report, which pointed to the driver as the primary culprit, created a new ground. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the accused was granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subsequent inquiry report declaring an accused innocent constitute a new ground for bail after previous rejections?
  • Is conscious knowledge of contraband essential for conviction in a narcotics transportation case where the accused is merely a passenger?
  • What factors are considered when granting bail in a case involving recovery of contraband from a vehicle where the accused is not the driver or owner?
  • Does the absence of recovery from personal possession or pointation weaken the prosecution's case for bail purposes in a narcotics offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Hakim vs StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 362 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-28
  post-arrest bailcontraband charasconscious knowledgeinquiry reporttransshipment of narcoticsfresh ground for bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a narcotics case where the petitioner was allegedly arrested while sitting on the front seat of a truck transporting eleven kilograms of charas, while the driver fled. The core legal question is whether the subsequent police inquiry declaring the petitioner innocent and the defense of having taken a mere lift constitute a fresh ground for granting bail after an earlier dismissal. The Peshawar High Court held that since nothing was recovered from the petitioner's immediate possession, there was no evidence of his conscious knowledge regarding the contraband, and he was not shown to be an associate of the absconding driver, the petition ought to be allowed. The key principle laid down is that the mere presence of an accused as an inmate in a vehicle transporting narcotics, absent proof of conscious knowledge or personal recovery, does not disentitle them to bail, particularly when supported by subsequent inquiry findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of an accused person as an inmate in a vehicle carrying narcotics establish conscious knowledge of the contraband?
  • Can a subsequent police inquiry report declaring an accused innocent serve as a fresh ground for a second bail petition?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no recovery is made from his immediate or personal possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Safi Ullah Jan and others vs The State2013 YLR 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-09-20
  narcotics traffickingrecovery of contrabandconfiscation of vehicleburden of proofControl of Narcotic Substances Actcriminal appealpublic witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction of the appellants for transporting a large quantity of narcotics in a truck, and a separate appeal regarding the confiscation of said vehicle. The core legal questions addressed were whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, whether the absence of public witnesses invalidated the recovery, and whether the vehicle was correctly confiscated. The Court held that the prosecution’s evidence, including the ocular account of the raiding party and the FSL report, was consistent and credible, thereby establishing the appellants' guilt. The Court affirmed that under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, the burden of proof shifts to the accused once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and that the confiscation of the vehicle was lawful under Section 32(2) of the same Act, particularly given the owner's failure to timely assert a claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate public witnesses during a narcotics recovery invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is a vehicle used for the transportation of narcotics liable to confiscation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Are drivers of a vehicle presumed to have knowledge and control over the articles found within the vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Nawaz and anothers vs The State2013 P Cr. L J 454 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-09
  narcotics recoveryconscious possessionFSL reportdelay in sending samplesdirectory provisionscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, recorded by the trial court following the recovery of a large quantity of charas from a vehicle occupied by them. The core legal questions involved whether minor discrepancies in the number of packets and a delay in transmitting samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiate the prosecution case, and whether conscious possession of narcotics was established against the occupants of the vehicle. The Peshawar High Court held that minor contradictions do not shatter the credibility of consistent eyewitness testimony, that the rules regarding the timeframe for sending samples to the laboratory are directory rather than mandatory, and that the prosecution successfully proved conscious possession and recovery of the huge quantity of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that procedural timelines for sending samples are directory and not fatal to the prosecution case, and that criminal cases must be adjudicated upon their own peculiar facts and circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delay in transmitting recovered narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory is fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Are the rules prescribing timeframes for sending samples to the government analyst mandatory or directory?
  • Does a minor contradiction regarding the number of recovered contraband packets vitiate the recovery proceedings?
  • Whether the occupants of a vehicle can be held to be in conscious possession of narcotics recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Iqbal, Intelligence Officer Customs Intelligence, Peshawar vs Hasanat Akhtar and another2013 PLJ Peshawar 270 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saeed Iqbal Intelligence Officer Customs Intelligence vs Hasant2013 PTD 2038 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-31Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad Khan vs State & anotherPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 384 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-01
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequefurther inquirySection 489-F PPCprohibitory clausebail
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a case registered under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The petitioner challenged the orders of the lower courts declining bail. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case, including a significant delay in lodging the FIR and discrepancies in the alleged outstanding amount. The Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry. It observed that the cheque amount did not reconcile with the figures provided by the complainant, and the complainant's inclusion of loans obtained from other third parties was irrelevant to the charge. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, applying the principle that where the prosecution's case involves factual ambiguities and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case involving a dishonoured cheque under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when there are significant discrepancies between the cheque amount and the actual outstanding debt alleged by the complainant?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR, when coupled with factual ambiguities regarding the alleged offence, entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadaqat Ali vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others2013 PLC (C.S.) 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-02-15
  one step up promotionservice lawequality before lawadministrative directiveRules of Businessdiscriminationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought a writ to compel the implementation of a directive issued by the Chief Minister of N.-W.F.P. regarding a one-step up promotion for officials who served during the Swat Operation. While the Chief Minister announced this promotion, the government restricted the petitioner's benefit to a higher pay scale for salary purposes only. The core legal question was whether the government could unilaterally modify the Chief Executive's policy directive and whether the denial of the promotion to the petitioner constituted unlawful discrimination. The Court held that the directive was clear and unambiguous, and the Finance Department lacked the authority to restrict the policy without referring the matter back to the Chief Executive, as required by the N.-W.F.P. Government Rules of Business 1985. The Court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to the promised promotion, noting that denying him the same benefit granted to other similarly situated employees violated the principle of equality before the law. The Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the one-step up promotion, personal to him, without affecting seniority or other employees' rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Finance Department unilaterally restrict a policy directive issued by the Chief Executive without referring the matter back to the issuing authority?
  • Does the denial of a benefit granted to other similarly situated employees constitute a violation of the right to equality before the law?
  • Is a government directive for one-step up promotion enforceable when the government attempts to limit it to pay scale only?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadam Hussain vs State and anotherPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 785 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-19
  post-arrest bailunexplained delay in FIRidentification paradefurther inquiryrecovery of stolen propertycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, who was charged under Sections 382 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged theft of a motorcar. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that the accused was entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's case suffered from significant weaknesses. Specifically, the court noted an unexplained ten-day delay in lodging the First Information Report, the absence of a description of the accused in the report, the lack of a voluntary confession, the failure to recover the stolen vehicle from the accused's direct possession, and the absence of a formal identification parade. The court determined that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the accused was connected to the offence, thereby justifying further inquiry into his guilt under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the bail application was accepted subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained ten-day delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of bail?
  • Is the absence of a formal identification parade a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to recover stolen property from the accused's direct possession entitle the accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir vs The State and another2013 YLR 1787 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-18
  Qatl-e-amdDiyatCompromiseMinor heirWaliaBadl-i-SulhCriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation. Following the conviction, the parties reached a compromise, prompting the court to examine whether the guardian (walia) of a minor legal heir could waive the right to Diyat or merely defer its payment. The Court held that while major legal heirs may waive their right to Qisas and Diyat, a guardian of a minor legal heir is not competent to forego or waive the minor's right to Diyat. However, the guardian may validly enter into an agreement to defer the payment of Badl-i-Sulh (compensation) on behalf of the minor. Consequently, the Court accepted the compromise on the condition that the appellant fulfills the deferred payment agreement. The key principle established is that the rights of a minor heir to Diyat must be protected and secured by the guardian and the court, prohibiting waiver but permitting the deferment of payment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a guardian (walia) of a minor legal heir waive the minor's right to Diyat?
  • Is a guardian of a minor legal heir competent to enter into an agreement to defer the payment of Badl-i-Sulh?
  • Does the waiver of Qisas by major legal heirs affect the rights of minor legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Rozi Khan vs The State and 5 othersPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 821, 2013 P Cr. L J 1706 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-24
  post-arrest bailhonour killingsiyahkariqatl-e-amdprohibitory clausepreplanned murdercompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Rozi Khan, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the double murder of his wife and another individual. The petitioner argued that the case fell under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and relied on a compromise with the legal heirs of one deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of 'siyahkari' (honour killing) and the nature of the offence. The Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner's own FIR admission indicated a preplanned murder. The Court emphasized that no individual has the right to take the law into their own hands to execute culprits in the name of honour. It affirmed that honour killings are un-Islamic, unconstitutional, and illegal, and that such acts do not provide valid grounds for bail, regardless of any purported compromise or the alleged motive of 'ghairat'.

  Questions settled

  • Does a murder committed on the pretext of 'siyahkari' or 'ghairat' constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  • Can a compromise reached between the accused and the legal heirs of a victim automatically entitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
  • Is the killing of a woman in the name of honour considered a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Rozi Khan vs State and 5 othersPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 821 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-24
  post-arrest bailhonour killingsiyahkariQatl-i-Amdprohibitory clausepreplanned murder
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Rozi Khan, sought post-arrest bail in a double murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the killing of his wife and another man. The petitioner argued that the case fell under Section 302(c), PPC, which is outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and relied on an alleged compromise with the legal heirs of his deceased wife. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner confessed to a preplanned double murder based on suspicion of illicit relations. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, emphasizing that no individual has the right to take the law into their own hands to execute others, regardless of the motive of 'honour' or 'siyahkari'. The Court affirmed that such killings are un-Islamic, unconstitutional, and violate fundamental rights. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the tentative assessment of the record revealed sufficient grounds to deny bail for the alleged offence of Qatl-i-Amd.

  Questions settled

  • Does a murder committed on the pretext of 'siyahkari' or honour constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  • Can a compromise with legal heirs in a murder case automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Does an offence under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 necessarily fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rifat Ullah Khan vs The State and 2 others2013 P Cr. L J 1012 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-04
  quashment of FIRinherent jurisdictioncognizable offencecriminal procedurefrivolous FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 934, registered under Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the allegations contained within the F.I.R. were entirely false and frivolous, thereby warranting the court's intervention to quash the criminal proceedings. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash an F.I.R. when the contents thereof disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Upon reviewing the record, the Court held that the F.I.R. clearly constituted a cognizable offence, necessitating a proper investigation and the recording of evidence before a court of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, holding that it is inappropriate to quash criminal proceedings at the initial stage when factual disputes require trial. The petition was dismissed in limine, reaffirming the principle that inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should not be invoked to stifle legitimate criminal investigations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash an F.I.R. under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the contents disclose a cognizable offence?
  • Is it appropriate to quash criminal proceedings based on claims of falsity before the completion of an investigation?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to dismiss a quashment petition in limine when no substance is found in the petitioner's arguments?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed and 3 others vs Central Government through Secretary, Prime Minister Secretariat, Islamabad and 4 others2013 CLC 1291 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-11-30Read full judgment →
• Ret. Brig. Ijaz Akbar and anothers vs The State and anothers2013 MLD 250 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-07-11
  quashment of FIRinherent powersabuse of processsuicidecriminal liabilityschool administrationSection 561-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under Section 322/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, against school staff following the suicide of a student. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' conduct could be legally attributed as the cause of the student's suicide, thereby justifying criminal proceedings. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any illegal act by the petitioners that could be linked to the suicide. Evidence, including the deceased's own letters, indicated the suicide stemmed from the student's psychological distress and intense dislike for hostel life, rather than any maltreatment by the school administration. The Court emphasized that the initial reports did not implicate the petitioners and that the subsequent allegations were unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Court ruled that continuing the investigation would constitute an abuse of the process of law. The principle laid down is that where record evidence demonstrates no nexus between the accused's conduct and the alleged offense, and the prosecution lacks a prima facie case, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR where no illegal act is attributed to the accused?
  • Does the mere allegation of 'bad behavior' by school staff, without evidence of an illegal act, constitute sufficient grounds to sustain a charge under Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an investigation that lacks evidence of a nexus between the accused's conduct and the victim's death considered an abuse of the process of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Zeb vs The State and others2013 P Cr. L J 864 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-12-05
  capital punishmentmurder referencerelated eyewitnessabsconsionplea of mental disordermitigating circumstancessudden and grave provocationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of his brother and wife, sentencing him to death on two counts, along with compensation under section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved whether the belated plea of mental disorder could be entertained, whether related eyewitness testimony required independent corroboration, and whether an alleged motive of 'zun' (suspicion regarding a woman) constituted a mitigating circumstance warranting a lesser penalty. The Peshawar High Court held that the plea of mental disorder, raised for the first time in the grounds of appeal without supporting evidence or trial-stage assertion, was untenable; that related eyewitnesses were natural and reliable whose testimony was sufficiently corroborated by recoveries, medical evidence, and the appellant's prolonged absconsion; and that the brutal, pre-planned nature of the double murder—committed while one victim was sleeping and the other offering prayers—precluded any finding of sudden and grave provocation. The court dismissed the appeal, answered the murder reference in the affirmative, and confirmed the death sentence. The key principles laid down include that a plea of mental incapacity must be raised and proved during trial, that mere familial relationship does not render an eyewitness 'interested' without proof of animosity, and that a pre-planned murder of defenceless victims does not attract lesser penalties under the guise of mitigating motives.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of mental disorder raised for the first time in the grounds of appeal be considered without any trial-stage evidence or medical board verification?
  • Does the testimony of closely related eyewitnesses require mandatory independent corroboration to sustain a conviction for capital murder?
  • Is mere familial relationship with the deceased sufficient to classify a witness as an 'interested witness' under criminal jurisprudence?
  • Does a suspicion of illicit relations (motive of 'zun') constitute a mitigating circumstance warranting a lesser penalty than death for a pre-planned double murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Razi Rizwan vs Vice-Chancellor Gomal University, Khan & 3 other2013 PLJ Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-24Read full judgment →
• Razaullah vs The State2013 NLR Criminal 265 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-14Read full judgment →
• Razaullah vs State etc2013 NLR Criminal 265, PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 601 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-14
  murderabscondenceFirst Information Report admissibilityocular evidencejuvenile offendermedical corroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and proof of the First Information Report following the death of the complainant during the appellant's sixteen-year abscondence, the reliability of the sole eye-witness testimony after lengthy cross-examination, the impact of technical lapses in investigation, and the effect of delayed post-mortem examination. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the First Information Report is a public document provable under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, that the ocular testimony of the related eye-witness remained unshaken despite rigorous cross-examination, and that minor technical lapses or cosmetic discrepancies do not outweigh trustworthy direct evidence. The court laid down the principle that the death of a complainant during a prolonged, unexplained abscondence of an accused does not invalidate the prosecution case when the First Information Report is corroborated by natural eye-witness testimony, recoveries, and medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the contents of a First Information Report can be proved under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the complainant dies during the abscondence of the accused?
  • Does a prolonged, unexplained abscondence of an accused for sixteen years preclude them from challenging technical lapses in the prosecution's investigation?
  • Whether minor discrepancies and cosmetic contradictions in the testimony of a rustic eye-witness are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained primarily on the testimony of a single related eye-witness when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs The State through Additional Advocate General, Peshawar2013 MLD 810 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-12-26
  post-arrest bailabscondenceproclaimed offendermurderbail application dismissalacquittal of co-accusedfugitive from law
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused, Raza Khan, following the refusal of bail by the forum below. The petitioner was charged under sections 302/34 PPC and 19 A.A. for murder. Initially granted bail before arrest, he subsequently absconded for approximately fifteen years, was declared a proclaimed offender, and was arrested in 2012. The central legal question was whether the petitioner's prolonged and unexplained abscondence disentitled him to the concession of bail, notwithstanding the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that a fugitive from law loses certain normal rights, and unexplained abscondence is sufficient to disentitle an accused to bail, irrespective of the case's merits or the acquittal of co-accused, as evidence recorded in an accused's absence cannot be used for or against them. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan vs Bashir2013 MLD 1026 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-25Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmed Khan vs Tribunal F.C.R., Peshawar through Chairman2013 P Cr. L J 1071 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-12-03
  Federally Administered Tribal AreasFrontier Crimes RegulationWrit jurisdictionConstitutional barTribal AreasDiyatJurisdiction of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed seeking the enhancement of compensation awarded to the legal heirs of a deceased victim of a kidnapping and murder incident occurring within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The petitioner challenged the orders of lower fora constituted under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, requesting that the compensation be increased to the prevailing Diyat amount. The core legal question addressed was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging proceedings conducted under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, for offenses committed within the Tribal Areas. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on the constitutional framework, the Court affirmed that Article 247(7) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts in relation to matters concerning the Tribal Areas, unless Parliament provides otherwise. The Court established that the location of the commission of the crime is the determining factor for ousting the jurisdiction of superior courts in such matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding proceedings conducted under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, for an offense committed in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas?
  • What is the determining factor for ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court under Article 247(7) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 in criminal matters?
  • Does Article 247(7) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 exclude the jurisdiction of superior courts in relation to matters of the Tribal Areas?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramzan alias Jan Qazi vs The State and another2013 YLR 1307 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-23
  post-arrest bailcross-versionfurther inquiryconcealment of injuryprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Ramzan alias Jan Qazi seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 848 registered under sections 324, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Mirpur. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of a counter-version, cross-cases, and an injury sustained by the petitioner in the same transaction which the prosecution allegedly concealed. The Peshawar High Court held that since a single injury on a non-vital part of a minor was attributed without repetition, the petitioner sustained injuries in the same transaction, and the prosecution concealed the petitioner's injuries, the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court allowed the bail petition, emphasizing that keeping the accused behind bars for an indefinite period pending trial would serve no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when a cross-version exists and both parties have sustained injuries in the same transaction?
  • Does the concealment of the accused's injuries by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when a single injury on a non-vital part is attributed without any allegation of repetition?
  Read full judgment →
• Qemat Baha and anothers vs Govenrment of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2013 YLR 2403 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-19Read full judgment →
• Qazi Faisal Wajid vs Munir Ullah Khan and others2013 P Cr. L J 400 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-07-24
  quashment of FIRdishonest issuance of chequefulfilment of obligationcriminal liabilitysimultaneous civil and criminal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the dishonour of a cheque issued in connection with a property transaction. The core legal question was whether an F.I.R. under Section 489-F, P.P.C. can be quashed when the petitioner admits issuing the cheque as a guarantee for the fulfilment of an obligation, and whether civil and criminal proceedings can run simultaneously. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner prima facie fell within the ambit of Section 489-F as issuing a cheque as a guarantee constitutes the fulfilment of an obligation, and civil and monetary disputes do not bar criminal proceedings for issuing a bad cheque. The court laid down the principle that a cheque issued as a guarantee or security for fulfilling an obligation attracts the mischief of Section 489-F, P.P.C., if dishonoured, and investigation at an initial stage does not warrant quashment of an F.I.R.

  Questions settled

  • Can an F.I.R. under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be quashed when the issuance of the disputed cheque is admitted?
  • Does a cheque issued as a guarantee or security fall within the scope of fulfilment of an obligation under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can civil and criminal proceedings proceed side by side in the case of a dishonoured cheque?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding property transfer bar criminal proceedings for the issuance of a fake or dishonoured cheque?
  Read full judgment →
• Qayyum Khan vs Muhammad Yamin2013 CLC 1650 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-12-17Read full judgment →
• Qari Hazrat Ali and 2 others vs The State and another2013 PLD Peshawar 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-08
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycross-versioncounter-versionprohibitory clausedelayed FIRSection 22-A Cr.P.C.tentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a murder case registered under Section 302/34 PPC. The incident involved a cross-version scenario where two separate FIRs were lodged regarding the same occurrence. The first FIR was registered immediately by the petitioners' side, while the second FIR, naming the petitioners, was registered after a delay of over two months following an application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. The core legal question was whether the existence of counter-versions and the delay in reporting justified the grant of bail under the rule of 'further inquiry'. The Peshawar High Court held that in cases of counter-versions, determining the aggressor and the veracity of competing claims is the domain of the trial court after recording evidence, thus bringing the matter under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Court criticized the trial court's 'stereo-type' refusal of bail based solely on the prohibitory clause, emphasizing that bail is a right when reasonable grounds for guilt are absent. The petition was allowed, establishing that the commencement of trial is no bar to bail if the accused is otherwise entitled on merits.

  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Naeem vs S.H.O. Police Station Cantt., Abbottabad and 3 othersPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 533 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-25
  quashment petitionregistration of FIRJustice of PeaceSection 22-A CrPCcognizable offencestatutory duty of policeSection 154 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This quashment petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed against the order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, which rejected the petitioner's application under Section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR. The core legal questions were whether the police officer was under a statutory obligation under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to register an FIR when allegations disclose a cognizable offence, and whether the Justice of Peace erred in refusing to order the registration of a criminal case. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order, holding that upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, a police officer is under a statutory duty to record an FIR without conducting an inquiry or hearing the accused. The Court laid down that while a Justice of Peace must apply a legal mind, refusing to order registration of a case when a clear cognizable cause of action is disclosed constitutes a perverse and arbitrary exercise of powers.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police officer bound under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to register an FIR without holding a preliminary inquiry when information discloses a cognizable offence?
  • Can an Ex-officio Justice of Peace refuse to direct registration of an FIR under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. when the application discloses a cognizable offence?
  • Does a police officer's failure to enter information disclosing a cognizable offence in the FIR register constitute a failure to discharge statutory obligations?
  Read full judgment →
• Qalander Said vs The State and another2013 YLR 759 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-11-06
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtwithholding of material witnessesadverse presumptionocular testimonymedical discrepanciesattempted murderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 324 and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the solitary statement of the injured complainant, notwithstanding the withholding of material eye-witnesses and glaring discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused due to the withholding of natural witnesses, drawing an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, material improvements in the complainant's testimony regarding the weapon, and serious contradictions in the medical evidence and site plan. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant on the basis of benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that the withholding of natural and material eye-witnesses creates an adverse presumption against the prosecution, and a conviction cannot be sustained on dubious ocular testimony fraught with material contradictions and improvements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-production of natural and material eye-witnesses by the prosecution warrants an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the solitary statement of an injured complainant when it is riddled with material improvements and contradicts the medical evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of an Investigating Officer's failure to send recovered crime empties for forensic science laboratory analysis?
  • Does the presence of an injury on the complainant's body serve as an absolute guarantee of the truthfulness of the ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Provincial Police Officer (I.G.P.), Peshawar and another vs Farid Ullah2013 PLC (C.S.) 1413 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-10
  civil servantseniority listjurisdiction of civil courtterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunaldate of birth correctionArticle 212
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which directed the police department to correct the respondent's date of birth in his seniority list. The core legal question is whether a civil court possesses the jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding the correction of a date of birth in a civil servant's seniority list, or if such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in assuming jurisdiction. The court reasoned that seniority, and by extension the date of birth recorded therein, directly impacts a civil servant's tenure, promotion, pay, and pension, thereby constituting a matter relating to the 'terms and conditions of service.' Consequently, under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal Act, 1974, such disputes are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The court set aside the lower courts' judgments and returned the plaint to the respondent for presentation to the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking the correction of a date of birth in a civil servant's seniority list?
  • Is the correction of a date of birth in a seniority list considered a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar civil courts from adjudicating matters related to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Wali Khan and otherss vs Niaz Badshah and others2013 C.L.R. 579, 2013 MLD 1106 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-24
  civil revisionestoppel by conductmutation challengeevidence beyond pleadingslimitation periodadverse possessionminority plea
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a declaratory suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs challenging Mutation No. 31689 attested in 1943 in favour of petitioners-defendants, which was decreed concurrently by the trial and appellate courts. The High Court examined the validity of the challenge instituted after more than fifty years, the doctrine of estoppel and waiver, the admissibility of evidence beyond pleadings, and limitation. Setting aside the concurrent judgments, the High Court held that the plaintiffs were estopped under Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, having actively instructed the mutation entry, acquiesced to the defendants' open possession for decades, and purchased land from them. Furthermore, evidence regarding the minority of a plaintiff could not be considered without an underlying plea in the plaint. Even assuming minority, the suit was barred by limitation under Articles 44 and 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court reiterated that concurrent factual findings can be overturned under Section 115 C.P.C. where tainted by misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party lead evidence on or succeed upon a factual plea that was never raised in their pleadings?
  • Does an unchallenged statement made in examination-in-chief amount to an admission by the adverse party?
  • Is a plaintiff estopped from challenging an inheritance mutation after decades when they actively instructed its entry and acquiesced to the adverse party's open possession and construction on the land?
  • Does the principle of a recurring cause of action from adverse revenue entries apply when the defendant has been in open, uninterrupted possession and made constructions on the suit property?
  • Can the High Court interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure with concurrent findings of fact where the courts below misread or ignored material evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Wali Khan and 12 others vs Niaz Badshah and others2013 C.L.R. 579 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-24Read full judgment →
• PESCO vs Umer Gul and others2013 YLR 920 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-12-03Read full judgment →
• P.M. International through Partner and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance through Secretary and 6 others2013 PTD 794 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-11-01Read full judgment →
• Obaidullah vs Seemab Akhtar and 2 others2013 YLR 650 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-02Read full judgment →
• Not vs Sirajulislam and 11 others2013 PLJ Peshawar 118, 2013 YLR 1548 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-13Read full judgment →
• Noshad Ali vs Mst Afzanat Rauf and 5 others2013 PLJ Peshawar 36, 2013 CLC 492 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-16Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunications Company Ltd. through President and 52013 PLC 345 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-09-11
  Voluntary Separation Schemepensionary benefitspre-training service periodindustrial and commercial establishmentterms and conditions of servicetransferred employeesdiscrimination in pensionLabour Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Peshawar High Court disposes of a series of writ petitions filed by the Pakistan Telecommunications Company Limited (PTCL) challenging the concurrent orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal controversy involved whether the pre-training service period of employees who opted for the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) should be counted towards their pensionary benefits and commutation, or whether service should be calculated solely from the date of completion of their training. The court held that training is an integral part of service, and employees are entitled to pensionary benefits from the date of their initial joining/assumption of charge. The court ruled that altering terms and conditions of service to the disadvantage of employees transferred from statutory corporations violates statutory protections and fundamental rights regarding equality and due process. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain grievance petitions filed by PTCL employees regarding pensionary benefits under the Voluntary Separation Scheme?
  • Does the pre-training service period of employees who opted for the Voluntary Separation Scheme have to be counted towards their pensionary benefits?
  • Can an employer vary the terms and conditions of service of employees transferred from statutory corporations to their disadvantage?
  • Whether training constitutes an integral part of service for the purpose of calculating length of service for pension?
  Read full judgment →
• Northern Bottling Company Peshawar vs Federation Of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.PTCL 2013 CL. 671 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Northern Bottling Company (Pvt) Ltd Industrial Estate, Peshawar vs Federation of PakistanPTCL 2013 CL. 671, 2013 PTD 1552 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-17
  income taxaudit noticeaudit selectionFederal Board of RevenueCommissioner Inland RevenueIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001Finance Act, 2010computer ballotwrit petitionjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an audit selection notice issued by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Audit-II) for the Tax Year 2009, issued in 2011, under Section 177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The petitioner contended that after amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2010, and the insertion of Section 214C, the Commissioner lacked the authority to select cases for audit, as this power now exclusively rested with the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) through computer ballot. The petitioner also argued that the notice was time-barred as no deficiency notice under Section 120(3) was issued within the stipulated period. The Peshawar High Court, relying on a Lahore High Court precedent, held that the power to select cases for audit lies solely with the FBR, with the Commissioner's role limited to conducting the audit after FBR selection. The Court further noted that selecting past tax years for audit without objective criteria and after the stipulated time offends the equality clause and violates FBR instructions. Consequently, the impugned notice was declared illegal, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Commissioner Inland Revenue is competent to issue an audit selection notice under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, after the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2010, and insertion of Section 214C?
  • Does the power to select cases for audit under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, rest with the Federal Board of Revenue or the Commissioner Inland Revenue after the Finance Act, 2010?
  • Can a tax case for a past tax year be selected for audit if no notice of deficiency under Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was issued within the stipulated time?
  • Is the selection of a taxpayer for audit of its tax affairs without an objective criteria permissible under law?
  • Are instructions issued by the Federal Board of Revenue binding on the Commissioner Inland Revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• Noorulbasar vs Mian Adnan Bacha and another2013 CLC 1510 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-15Read full judgment →
• Noor Wali Khan vs Essa Mir and 4 others2013 YLR 1006 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-04-03
  appeal against acquittalpresumption of double innocenceeyewitness evidencedelay in FIRunproven motivebenefit of doubtmaterial contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal under Section 417(2)(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, D.I. Khan, acquitting five accused respondents of murder and unlawful assembly charges under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The central legal questions concerned whether the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt in light of material contradictions between eyewitness and police testimony, unexplained delay in lodging the report, unproven motive, and whether the trial court's order of acquittal warranted appellate interference. The High Court affirmed the acquittal and dismissed the appeal, holding that conflicting accounts regarding the lodging of the report and handling of the body created fatal doubts. The Court reiterated the established principle that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, which cannot be overturned unless the trial court's findings are shown to be fanciful, arbitrary, or resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court set aside an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  • How does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR affect the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • What is the impact of material contradictions between the statements of the complainant and the investigating officer on the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Salam and 5 others vs Muhammad Aslam2013 YLR 1883 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-07Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Khan and otherss vs Haji Mufrah-Ud-Din and others2013 MLD 1427 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-15Read full judgment →