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.

• Mst. Rozina Begum vs Nawabzada Muhammad Fateh Khan and 6 others2013 CLC 1813 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Riyasat Begum vs Ejaz Ahmad and another2013 CLC 597 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia Rasheed vs Faisal Mir and 4 others2013 CLC 1203 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Bibi vs The State2013 YLR 913 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-03
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharas recoveryfemale accusedprohibitory clausebail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by a female petitioner charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of three kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman, was entitled to the concession of bail despite the offense being non-bailable under the relevant statute. The Court held that while the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioner's status as a woman brings her case within the ambit of the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making her case arguable for bail. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the recovered quantity was not sufficient to warrant the maximum punishment, and there was no evidence of prior convictions. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that the gender-based proviso in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides a significant ground for bail consideration even in narcotics cases where the offense is otherwise non-bailable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to female accused persons charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is a female accused entitled to bail in a narcotics case if the recovered quantity does not warrant the maximum punishment?
  • Does the lack of a criminal record influence the grant of bail for an offense falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Bibi vs StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 275 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-03
  post-arrest bailnarcotics offencewoman accusedproviso to Section 497 Cr.P.C.charas recoveryquantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Mst. Parveen Bibi, sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case registered under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of three kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a woman charged with a non-bailable narcotics offence, was entitled to the concession of bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that while the offence is non-bailable under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the petitioner’s status as a woman brings her case within the ambit of the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the court reasoned that the quantity of narcotics recovered suggested that the maximum sentence was unlikely to be imposed, and noted the absence of any prior criminal record. Consequently, the court granted bail, establishing the principle that the gender-based proviso in Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, provides a strong ground for bail consideration even in non-bailable narcotics cases, provided other factors like the quantity recovered and lack of criminal history support such relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to women accused of non-bailable narcotics offences?
  • Is the quantity of narcotics recovered a relevant factor in determining the likelihood of maximum punishment for bail purposes?
  • Can a woman accused of a narcotics offence be granted bail despite the offence being non-bailable under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazo vs The StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 386, 2013 MLD 1860 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-01
  post-arrest bailnarcotics traffickingcharas recoverywomen in criminal lawprima facie caseControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail petition filed by an accused woman charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a mother of a suckling baby and currently pregnant, was entitled to the concession of bail despite being found in possession of five kilograms of charas. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was prima facie connected to the commission of the offence. The court emphasized that the menace of narcotics trafficking, which affects the younger generation, cannot be mitigated by leniency toward offenders who exploit their gender or status as mothers to evade legal consequences. The court observed that organized criminal syndicates increasingly employ women and youth to smuggle contraband, hoping to secure bail on humanitarian grounds. Consequently, the court ruled that such circumstances do not automatically entitle an accused to bail when there is prima facie evidence of involvement in a serious narcotics offence. The trial court was directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of being a mother of a suckling baby or being pregnant automatically entitle a female accused to the concession of bail in narcotics cases?
  • Is an accused person entitled to bail when there is prima facie evidence of possession of a large quantity of narcotics?
  • Can the lack of independent witnesses at the time of recovery be a sole ground for granting bail in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazo vs StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 386 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-01
  post-arrest bailnarcotics smugglingcharas recoverystatutory barwomen offenders
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by the accused Mst. Nazo seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1493 dated 27.12.2012 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after her bail application was dismissed by the Special Court, Peshawar. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail on the grounds of non-association of independent witnesses, release of a co-accused, and her status as a woman, mother of a suckling baby, and pregnant woman, despite the recovery of five kilograms of charas from her personal search. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was prima facie connected with the heinous offence of narcotics smuggling, noting that organized syndicates frequently employ women and youngsters to evade strict liability, and dismissed the bail petition while directing the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. The key principle laid down is that the mere ground of womanhood or personal circumstances like pregnancy and suckling infants does not automatically warrant bail when a heavy quantity of narcotics is recovered and the accused is prima facie connected to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused found in possession of a prohibitory quantity of narcotics is entitled to post-arrest bail merely on the ground of being a woman or pregnant?
  • Does the failure to associate private independent witnesses at a highway check post vitiate the recovery of narcotics at the bail stage?
  • Whether parity can be claimed with a co-accused whose role and case are distinguishable from the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naushad Bibi vs Sher Khan and others2013 P Cr. L J 666 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-09-07
  double jeopardypolice reportprivate complaintacquittalsimultaneous trialcriminal procedureremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order of the Judicial Magistrate, which acquitted the respondents under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding charges under Section 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The acquittal was based on the Magistrate's view that the simultaneous pendency of a private complaint and a police report regarding the same occurrence violated the principle of double jeopardy. The High Court examined the constitutional and statutory protections against double jeopardy, clarifying that these provisions protect against double punishment, not simultaneous trials. The Court held that when both a police report and a private complaint exist for the same occurrence, the trial court should not acquit on the basis of double jeopardy but should instead stay the police report case and proceed with the private complaint, as established in the precedent of Nur Elahi's case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal order and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to stay the police report case and proceed with the private complaint.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of both a police report and a private complaint for the same occurrence constitute double jeopardy?
  • What is the correct procedure for a trial court when both a police report and a private complaint are filed regarding the same offence?
  • Does the constitutional protection against double jeopardy prohibit the simultaneous trial of a police report case and a private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs M.E.O. and others2013 MLD 28 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nageena vs The State and another2013 YLR 2522 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-05-21
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirywoman bail exceptionunseen occurrencedelayed statement
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner, Mst. Nageena, sought post-arrest bail after being charged in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where an unidentified headless body was recovered. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was connected to the unseen occurrence through sufficient incriminating material to warrant the refusal of bail, particularly considering her delayed nomination under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and her status as a woman. The Peshawar High Court held that the case was one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the lack of eye-witnesses and general nature of allegations, and that she was additionally entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as a woman. The court laid down the principle that at the bail stage, tentative assessment of material is undertaken without deep inquiry, and an accused is entitled to bail when no specific role is attributed in an unseen occurrence and further probe is warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person is entitled to bail when the occurrence is unseen and no specific role is assigned in the delayed statement?
  • Does a case fall under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is an absence of sufficient incriminating material at the bail stage?
  • Is a female accused entitled to the concession of bail under the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nafeesa vs Mir Bahadur and 2 others2013 PLJ Peshawar 135 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Bibi and 12 otherss vs Provincial Government of Khyber2013 MLD 1412 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-14
  contract employmenttermination of servicemisconductnatural justiceshow cause noticewrit jurisdictionright to fair hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the termination of contract employees by the Provincial Government of Khyber, who were dismissed without notice or show cause proceedings following allegations of involvement in a fake vaccination campaign. The core legal question was whether the respondents could terminate the services of contract employees on grounds of misconduct without providing them an opportunity to be heard or conducting a formal inquiry. The Court held that while contract employees may be terminated according to the terms of their appointment, any termination based on specific allegations of misconduct—such as the fake vaccination campaign—requires adherence to the principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that the petitioners were condemned unheard, which violated established legal norms. The key principle laid down is that even for contract employees, if the termination is punitive and based on misconduct, the employer must conduct a regular inquiry and provide the employee with a fair opportunity to clear their position, in accordance with the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, before passing any adverse order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract employee be terminated for alleged misconduct without a formal inquiry or show cause notice?
  • Is there a distinction between the termination of a contract employee based on the terms of appointment versus termination based on misconduct?
  • Does the principle of natural justice apply to contract employees facing allegations of misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Shaheen and 2 others vs Raza Ullah Khan and 10 others2013 PLJ Peshawar 215, 2013 CLC 1119 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehr Afzoon vs Mst. Khatoon etc2013 PLJ Peshawar 177 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehr Afzoon and others vs Aurangzeb and others2013 YLR 2380 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehmooda Begum vs Zubair Ahmad and others2013 CLC 1834 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khilafat Jan vs Principle Govt. Higher Secondary School etc2013-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kausar Zafarullah and anothers vs The State and others2013 P Cr. L J 301 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-09-14
  criminal revisionstay of proceedingscivil and criminal liabilityanti-corruptionproperty disputesub judicefraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, which stayed criminal proceedings pending the outcome of parallel civil litigation regarding property title and alleged fraud. The petitioners sought to quash this stay order. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be postponed pending the adjudication of a civil suit involving the same subject matter. The Court held that while criminal and civil liabilities are generally independent, criminal proceedings should be stayed when the criminal liability is directly dependent on the outcome of the civil litigation. This approach is necessary to prevent conflicting findings and potential grave injustice where the determination of the same issue is sub judice before a civil court. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Special Judge's discretion to stay the proceedings, noting that the criminal liability in this specific case was inextricably linked to the disputed title currently before the civil court. The petition was dismissed, upholding the stay of the criminal trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Special Judge Anti-Corruption stay criminal proceedings pending the outcome of a civil suit?
  • Under what circumstances should criminal proceedings be stayed pending the decision of a civil suit?
  • Is a private person authorized to file a criminal revision against an order passed by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ishrat Bibi vs Muhammad Arshad and anothers2013 MLD 537 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussanzad Gai vs Firdus Khan etc2013 MLD 1222, 2013 PLJ Peshawar 141 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Zadgai vs Firdus Khan and others2013 MLD 1222 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Jan and otherss vs Muhammad Yaqoob and others2013 MLD 1057 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Bibi, etc vs Akhlaq Hussain Saddiqui2013 PLJ Peshawar 199 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Bibi and others vs Akhlaq Hussain Siddiqui2013 PLJ Peshawar 199, 2013 CLC 1676 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. HAMSHIDAs vs Umar Sher and others2013 PLJ Peshawar 189, 2013 YLR 1952 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamshida vs Umar Sher and others2013 PLJ Peshawar 189 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda Bibi vs Inayatullah etc2013-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Banno Mai vs Muhammad Hussain & 5 others2013 PLJ Peshawar 211 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anar Bibi vs StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 410 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-05
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlstatutory proviso for womenfurther probecharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail petition filed by Mst. Anar Bibi, who is facing prosecution under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of contraband charas from a vehicle in which she was traveling. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, a female accused of a non-bailable narcotics offense, is entitled to the concession of bail under the statutory exceptions provided for women. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, reasoning that as a woman, her case falls within the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the court noted that the quantum of sentence is tied to the quantity of narcotics recovered, she is not a previous convict, and the question of her guilty knowledge requires further probe at trial. The key principle laid down is that female accused persons may be granted bail under the statutory proviso when their case calls for further inquiry and does not attract the maximum penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female accused charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act is entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Does the recovery of narcotics from a shared vehicle necessitate further probe regarding the guilty knowledge of a passenger accused?
  • Is a petitioner with no previous criminal record entitled to bail when the quantum of sentence is yet to be determined at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Alam Ara vs Dr. Shaista Tariq, Incharge Mother Care Hospital-12013 PLJ Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-01Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Abida vs Public Service Commission through its Chairman and 72013 PLJ Peshawar 132 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mosam Khan vs Gul Muhammad and another2013 PLJ Peshawar 74, 2013 CLC 1161 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mosam Khan and another vs Gul Muhammad and another2013 PLJ Peshawar 74 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-12-16Read full judgment →
• Momeen Khan vs Khanzada and 2 others2013 YLR 1344 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-07
  acquittal appealdouble innocenceappraisal of evidencematerial contradictionscriminal appealmurder trialocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal appeals filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a murder and attempted murder case registered under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal judgment was based on a misappraisal of evidence or if it was legally sound. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable due to material contradictions between the F.I.R. and his court statement, the absence of corroborating evidence, and the failure of the investigating officer to collect crucial forensic evidence like spent cartridges. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal by a competent court creates a presumption of double innocence, which cannot be disturbed on appeal unless the judgment is shown to be patently illegal, perverse, or fanciful, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Finding no such infirmity, the court upheld the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of an accused by a competent court create a presumption of double innocence?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Does a material contradiction between the F.I.R. and the complainant's testimony in court render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirzaman and 8 others vs Muhammad Ajmal Hussain and 2 others2013 YLR 357 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-09-03Read full judgment →
• Mirza Ali Khan vs Hidayat Ullah Khan and anotherPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 724 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-03
  quashment of orderenhancement of sentencedefamationretrospective punishmentrevisional jurisdictionsubstantive lawmagistrate powers
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a petition for the quashment of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Peshawar, whereby his conviction under Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was upheld, but his sentence of fine was enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- upon a revision petition filed by the complainant. The core legal question was whether a revisional court or magistrate could enhance a sentence beyond the limits prescribed at the time of the commission of the offence and whether substantive penal amendments apply retrospectively. The Peshawar High Court held that substantive criminal laws and penalty enhancements operate prospectively and cannot impose a penalty greater than that prescribed by law at the time the offence was committed, as protected by Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the General Clauses Act 1897. The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the lower appellate court to decide the appeal according to the law prevailing at the time of the commission of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a revisional court can enhance a sentence of fine beyond the jurisdictional limits of a Magistrate of the First Class as applicable at the time of the commission of the offence?
  • Do amendments enhancing penalties in substantive criminal statutes operate retrospectively or prospectively?
  • Whether the enhancement of a fine under Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by way of an amendment in 2004 applies to an offence committed in 1991/1992?
  • Does Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 protect an accused from the imposition of a penalty greater than that prescribed by law at the time the offence was committed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Liaq Khan vs Sarfaraz Jehan2013 PLJ Peshawar 180, 2013 MLD 1449 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-31
  defamationdamagescivil court jurisdictionadmissibility of evidencenewspaper clippingsmaliceconstitutional protection of ordinances
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge-IX, Bannu, which decreed a damages suit for defamation in favor of the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant. The core legal questions involved whether the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 remained valid and operative under constitutional saving provisions, whether civil courts retain jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code for defamation suits alongside special remedies, and whether the plaintiff successfully proved the defamatory statement and actual malice. The Peshawar High Court held that the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 was protected under Article 270-AA of the Constitution, that civil courts maintain concurrent jurisdiction under Section 9 C.P.C. unless expressly ousted, but that the plaintiff failed to prove the original statements, establish malice, or produce admissible secondary evidence regarding newspaper clippings. The key principles laid down are that a plaintiff must elect between remedies under general civil law or special defamation statutes, that newspaper reports without proof of the original speech or author are inadmissible, and that damages for defamation must be compensatory rather than speculative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 remained valid and operative under Article 270-AA of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does a civil court retain jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code to entertain suits for defamation alongside remedies provided under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002?
  • Is a newspaper report admissible as primary evidence to prove a defamatory statement without producing the original maker or speaker of the statement?
  • Can a plaintiff lead evidence on facts and details not specifically pleaded in the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Ahmad Shah vs The State and another2013 YLR 982 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-16
  criminal appealocular testimonybenefit of doubtforensic evidenceabscondanceappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Mir Ahmad Shah, for offences under sections 324 and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged inconsistencies in the ocular testimony, the unexplained delay in sending crime empties for forensic analysis, and the failure to establish the motive. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide unimpeachable evidence. Specifically, the Court found that the distance between the parties made identification difficult, the complainant's failure to specify the weapon suggested he did not see the assailants, and the significant delay in forensic submission rendered the recovery evidence unreliable. The Court reaffirmed the principle that conviction must be based on evidence beyond any shadow of doubt, and that abscondance alone is insufficient for conviction if the ocular account is untrustworthy. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unexplained delay in sending crime empties to a forensic laboratory destroy the evidentiary value of the recovery?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of abscondance if the ocular testimony is found to be untrustworthy?
  • Is the stamp of injury on a complainant sufficient to guarantee the truthfulness of their testimony?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Saeedullah Jan and others vs Mst. Nusrat Begum and others2013 YLR 2553 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mian Khan vs The State2013 P Cr. L J 182 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-07-30
  narcotics traffickingjuvenile justiceprobationconscious possessioncriminal appealsentencing discretionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for transporting narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence regarding the appellant's conscious possession of the contraband and the propriety of the trial court's refusal to grant probation to the appellant, who was a juvenile at the time of the offense. The High Court upheld the conviction, ruling that a driver in exclusive control of a vehicle is deemed to have conscious knowledge and possession of narcotics concealed within it. However, the Court found that the trial court committed an illegality by failing to exercise its discretion under Section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The High Court held that while the conviction was maintained, the case must be remanded to the trial court to specifically consider and provide reasons for the exercise of its discretion regarding probation. The judgment establishes that discretionary powers under juvenile justice laws must be actively considered rather than ignored, favoring the offender's rehabilitation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle deemed to have conscious possession of narcotics concealed within the vehicle?
  • Does a Juvenile Court have a legal obligation to exercise its discretion regarding probation under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
  • Can a conviction be maintained while remanding the case solely for the reconsideration of sentencing discretion regarding a juvenile?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Azizulhaq vs Adil International Pvt. Ltd. and others2013 MLD 310 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-12-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Watan Construction Company Government Contractor vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Public Health Engineering Department and 4 others2013 CLC 1028 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-06-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Soneri Bank Limited through AVP/Manager vs Messrs Azeem2013 CLD 1504 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sarban Textile Mills and others vs Chairman Sda and another2013 YLR 1436 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-11-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sana Enterprises through Sole Proprietor, Peshawar vs Collector2013 PTD 438, PLJ 2013 Tax Cases (Pesh.) 51 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-08-29
  demand noticeshow-cause noticecustoms dutysales tax zero-ratingadjudicationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two connected writ petitions filed by a general order importer challenging a demand notice issued by the customs department for the recovery of sales tax amounting to Rs. 5,168,867. The petitioner had imported consignments of 'Acetate Tow' and claimed zero-rating sales tax concession under S.R.O. 509(1)/2007. The department subsequently issued a demand notice alleging that 'Acetate Tow', being raw material for cigarette filter rods, did not qualify for the textile concession. The core legal question was whether a direct demand notice could be issued without fulfilling statutory prerequisites. The Peshawar High Court held that the impugned demand notice, issued without serving a statutory show-cause notice under Section 32(2)(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 and without prior adjudication, was without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The court set aside the demand notice while directing the department to issue a proper show-cause notice and conclude adjudication proceedings within a stipulated timeframe, laying down the principle that a demand notice must necessarily follow proper show-cause proceedings and adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a demand notice can be issued without serving a statutory show-cause notice under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Is 'Acetate Tow' used for making cigarette filter rods entitled to zero-rating sales tax concession under S.R.O. 509(1)/2007?
  • Whether adjudication and final determination are mandatory prerequisites before issuing a demand notice for recovery of revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Neelab CNG Filling Station through Managing Director vs Managing Director, Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Ltd. and 4 others2013 PLD Peshawar 9 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-03
  Civil Court jurisdictionReturn of plaintConsumer CourtGas billsRegular First AppealInjunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal challenges the order of the Civil Judge, Peshawar, dated 22-10-2010, whereby the appellant's plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for presentation before a Consumer Court. The appellant had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against estimated and excessive gas bills issued by the respondent company. The core legal question was whether Civil Courts retain jurisdiction to entertain consumer-related disputes regarding utility bills, or if such jurisdiction is ousted by the establishment of Consumer Courts under the N.-W.F.P. Consumers Protection Act, 1997. The Peshawar High Court held that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not barred, as the provisions of the N.-W.F.P. Consumers Protection Act, 1997 are in addition to and not in derogation or supersession of any other law for the time being in force. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, ruled that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, and remanded the case back to the trial court for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is ousted in matters cognizable by Consumer Courts established under the N.-W.F.P. Consumers Protection Act, 1997?
  • Does a Civil Court have general jurisdiction to try suits of a civil nature unless its cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred?
  • Are the provisions of the N.-W.F.P. Consumers Protection Act, 1997 in derogation or supersession of other laws for the time being in force?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Locomotive Factory Pakistan, Railways through ManagingPLJ 2013 Tax Cases (Pesh.) 20, 2013 PTD 924 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Text Book Board, Peshawar vs Deputy2013 PTD 1651 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-05-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kaghan Ghee Mills (Pvt) Limited vs Collector of Customs and others2013 PTD 1259 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-11-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gul Construction Company Private (Limited), Kohat through Managing Director_Chief Executive vs Naik Muhammad and others2013 CLC 1371 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Alam Ara vs Dr. Shaista Tariq2013 PLJ Peshawar 144, 2013 MLD 743 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-01-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Act International vs Provincial Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Authority through Chairman, Peshawar and another2013 YLR 1396 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-05-31
  constitutional petitionstendering processdisputed questions of factfundamental rightsvested rightspublic representationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Peshawar High Court disposes of three consolidated constitutional petitions challenging the tendering process for public works initiated by the Provincial Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Authority (PERRA). The core legal questions involved the nature of rights acquired from public representations by state authorities, the permissibility of altering tender conditions via subsequent office orders, and whether disputed questions of fact can be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. The court held that while an advertisement creates a right to be considered fairly, that right only matures if the petitioner takes active steps in pursuance thereof, and that disputed factual assertions—such as whether the petitioners actually applied for bidding documents—cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction without recording evidence. Additionally, the court ruled that altering published tender conditions via a subsequent administrative office order is illegal, but since the petitioners failed to establish that they were prejudiced or had applied for the bids, the petitions were dismissed. The court also directed lower courts to proceed with pending contempt proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a right arises from a public advertisement or representation made by an executive authority?
  • Can an executive authority alter the terms of a public tender or advertisement through a subsequent office order?
  • Is it permissible for the High Court to resolve seriously disputed questions of fact requiring evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a prospective bidder acquire a mature right to challenge a tender process without applying for the bidding documents in accordance with the advertisement?
  Read full judgment →
• Meraj Ud Din vs Ali Ahmad Siddiqui and others2013 MLD 882 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-12-10Read full judgment →
• Mehr-UN-Nisa vs State & 3 othersPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-11-05
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationfurther inquiryprohibitory clausemala fidecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition filed for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to Respondents No. 2 to 4 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, in a case registered under Sections 380 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion as the case against the respondents fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the same section. The court reaffirmed the principle that while pre-arrest bail requires demonstrating potential ulterior motives or irreparable harm, the scope for granting such relief has been widened by judicial precedent to allow courts to consider the merits of the case alongside the element of mala fide.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case falling under the category of further inquiry justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the demonstration of ulterior motive the sole criterion for the grant of pre-arrest bail, or can the merits of the case be considered?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehr Rehman vs Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through Registrar and another2013 PLC (C.S.) 165 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-08-09
  writ jurisdictionmaintainabilityadministrative ordersHigh Court immunityservice matterjudicial independencepromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a driver employed by the Peshawar High Court, challenged the promotion of a fellow employee to the post of Garage Superintendent, alleging supersession of his seniority. The respondent (Registrar) argued that the promotion was based on performance and that the writ petition was not maintainable against the High Court. The core legal question was whether an administrative order passed by the High Court, specifically regarding the service matters of its employees, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. Relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Court affirmed that the definition of 'person' in the Article excludes the High Court, thereby protecting all orders passed by the High Court, including administrative ones, from challenge through a writ petition before the same Court. The principle laid down is that the High Court's administrative orders regarding its staff are immune from judicial review under Article 199 to ensure the independence of the judiciary.

  Questions settled

  • Is an administrative order passed by a High Court regarding its employees amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the definition of 'person' in Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 exclude the High Court from writ jurisdiction?
  • Can an employee of the High Court challenge the promotion orders of the Chief Justice through a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehr Afzoon vs Mst. Khatoon and others,2013 YLR 2185 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Khan vs Saadullah & 3 othersPLJ 2013 Cr.0 (Peshawar) 616 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Khan and otherss vs Gulzad Khan and others.s2013,MLD 1666 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Khan Alizai vs Central Government of Pakistan through Secretary Defence, Islamabad and 5 others2013 MLD 1240 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Hussain Shah and others vs Mst. Parvaizi Bibi and others2013 YLR 1584 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-23
  civil revisionex parte proceedingsservice of summonsright of audiencecondemned unheardremand of casedeclaration and possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two cross civil revision petitions challenging the appellate judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge-III, Abbottabad, which modified the trial court's judgment regarding a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and possession. The core legal question was whether defendants could be placed ex parte and have their application to set aside such proceedings rejected without proper personal service and an opportunity of hearing. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court erred by initiating ex parte proceedings without effecting personal service and refusing to set them aside without recording evidence. The court established the principle that the law favors decisions on merits, adhering strictly to the maxim that no one should be condemned unheard, and that a party may join proceedings at any stage upon assigning reasons. Consequently, the revision petition of the defendants was allowed, the judgments and decrees of both lower courts along with the ex parte proceedings were set aside, the matter was remanded to the trial court for a decision on merits, and the cross-revision was dismissed as infructuous.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court initiate ex parte proceedings against defendants without effecting personal service?
  • Is a period of limitation prescribed for setting aside an ex parte order passed during ongoing trial proceedings?
  • Whether a party against whom ex parte proceedings have been ordered can join the proceedings at a later stage?
  • Does the law favor the adjudication of a lis on merits rather than through default proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Meer Afzal etc. vs Mst. Khapairay etc2013 PLJ Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-25Read full judgment →
• Meer Afzal and otherss vs Mst. Khapairay and others2013 PLJ Peshawar 161, 2013 MLD 1339 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-25Read full judgment →
• Meem Bahadar vs The State and anothers2013 P Cr. L J 1490 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-27
  juvenile offendermurderabscondenceprobationdeath sentence bareyewitness testimonycriminal appealenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from the judgment of the Juvenile Court/Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mardan, whereby the appellant-convict was convicted under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the assessment of ocular and circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of an accused's long-term abscondence, and the applicability of probation and sentencing limitations under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 to an offender who was a juvenile at the time of the offense but attained majority by the conclusion of the trial. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent and confidence-inspiring eye-witness testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, and that a convict who has attained majority by the time of conviction is not entitled to probation under section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 for a heinous offense like murder, while also affirming that death sentences are barred for juveniles under section 12 of the said Ordinance. The appeal and revision petition were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of close relatives of the deceased can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship in the absence of previous animosity?
  • Does long and unexplained abscondence of an accused corroborate the prosecution's ocular and circumstantial evidence?
  • Can a convict who was a juvenile at the time of the offense but attained majority by the time of trial and conviction be released on probation under section 11 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 for a heinous offense?
  • Whether a death sentence can be awarded to an offender who committed the offense while being a juvenile, in view of section 12 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Matiullah vs Ishaq Hamad and another2013 YLR 2176 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-06-19
  dishonoured chequeacquittal appealdouble innocenceSection 489-F PPCappellate interferencefictitious chequecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged dishonor of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the appellate court was justified in setting aside the conviction, given the evidence presented regarding the authenticity of the cheque. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the respondent successfully demonstrated the cheque was fictitious. Evidence showed the cheque book was issued in 1997, and other cheques from that series were encashed in 1997, rendering the 2002 date on the disputed cheque implausible. The court held that an acquittal grants an accused a presumption of double innocence, which cannot be disturbed by an appellate court unless the judgment is fanciful, erroneous, or results in a grave miscarriage of justice. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the trial court, the High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, affirming that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does an accused person earn a presumption of double innocence upon acquittal by a competent court?
  • Is the issuance of a cheque from an obsolete cheque book sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbali Khan vs The State2013 YLR 1895 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-11
  narcotic recoveryconscious knowledgepolice witnesscriminal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Actvehicle searchindependent witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for transporting 7200 grams of Charas. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's conscious knowledge of the contraband concealed in his vehicle and whether the testimony of police witnesses, despite alleged discrepancies in the number of recovered packets, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The Court established that a driver in sole control of a vehicle containing contraband is presumed to have conscious knowledge of its contents. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is reliable absent evidence of personal enmity. It was also held that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, overrides the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the necessity of independent witnesses. Minor discrepancies in the number of packets do not invalidate a recovery where the prosecution's evidence remains consistent and the accused fails to challenge the weight of the contraband at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 override the requirement for independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the driver of a vehicle in sole control presumed to have conscious knowledge of contraband recovered from secret cavities within that vehicle?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be relied upon to sustain a conviction in narcotics cases in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the number of recovered packets invalidate a narcotics recovery if the overall evidence is consistent?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbali Khan vs State2013 YLR 1895, PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 474 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-11
  narcotics recoveryconscious knowledgesecret cavitiespolice witnessescriminal appealcontrol of narcotic substances
  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 seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine following the recovery of charas from a vehicle driven by him. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the recovery and the appellant's conscious knowledge of the narcotics, and whether minor discrepancies in the number of sealed parcels vitiated the conviction. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery through consistent and trustworthy testimony of police witnesses whose presence was established, that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act overrides Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that being in sole control of the vehicle established the appellant's conscious knowledge of the concealed contraband. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must prove conscious knowledge in cases of narcotics recovered from secret cavities of a vehicle?
  • Do police witnesses hold the same evidentiary value as private witnesses in narcotics cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 override the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Whether minor discrepancies regarding the number of recovered parcels can vitiate an otherwise consistent prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and anothers vs Abdur Rasheed Khan2013 YLR 2488 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-07-01Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed, Etc. vs 1. The State 2. Mir Alam Khan2013 NLR Criminal 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-01-18Read full judgment →
• Malik Sher Rodikhel and 5 others vs Khalid Ameen and another2013 CLC 1823 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-07Read full judgment →
• Malik Kashif vs The State and another2013 YLR 538 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-04-16
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequefraudprohibitory clausecriminal breachmonetary dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this petition, the petitioner Malik Kashif sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 457 registered under section 489 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Mansehra, pertaining to the issuance of a dishonoured cheque amounting to Rs. 10,20,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail for an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite allegations of fraudulent conduct, issuance of dishonoured cheques, and dismissal of his civil declaratory suit. The Peshawar High Court held that the rule regarding bail in offences outside the prohibitory clause is not of universal application, and where an accused is involved in defrauding people through dishonoured cheques, bail may be refused on the facts and circumstances of the case. The key principle laid down is that the non-application of the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly in cases involving economic crimes and the systemic issuance of dishonoured cheques which strike at the fabric of society.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle the accused to the concession of bail?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused charged with issuing a dishonoured cheque and committing fraud despite the punishment not falling within the prohibitory cluster?
  • What is the effect of the dismissal of a declaratory suit regarding a disputed financial instrument on an application for post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Malang Shah vs The StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 254, 2013 MLD 334 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-10
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlrecovery of charasprohibitory clausechemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner Malang Shah sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after 50 kgs of Charas Garda were allegedly recovered from a vehicle driven by him. His earlier bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Peshawar High Court examined the record, noting the huge quantity of contraband recovered from the vehicle driven by the petitioner at the relevant time, the support of the prosecution case by police officials without apparent ill will, and the positive FSL report. The Court held that reasonable grounds existed to believe the accused was connected with the offence, bringing the case within the restrictive clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the embargo under section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics coupled with a positive FSL report bars the grant of bail under the restrictive statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when a huge quantity of contraband is recovered from a vehicle driven by the accused?
  • Does the recovery of 50 kgs of Charas attract the embargo contained in section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can bail be denied under the restrictive clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in narcotics cases supported by a positive FSL report?
  Read full judgment →
• Malang Shah vs StatePLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 254 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-10
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoverycharasprohibitory clausestatutory embargo
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being implicated in a case involving the recovery of fifty kilograms of Charas Garda from a vehicle he was driving, registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the huge quantity of narcotics recovered and the statutory prohibitions. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, as a huge quantity of contraband was recovered from his direct possession, the prosecution case was supported by police officials without apparent ill will, and a positive FSL report connected him to the offense. The court ruled that the case fell within the restrictive clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as well as the specific embargo contained in Section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when a huge quantity of contraband is recovered from a vehicle driven by him?
  • Does the recovery of fifty kilograms of Charas attract the embargo contained in Section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does a case involving a narcotics offense punishable under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 fall within the restrictive clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoomzada Abdul Karim vs Ajab Khan2013 CLC 1471 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-08Read full judgment →
• Major (Rtd.) Baseer Ahmad Khattak vs Government of Khyber2013 CLC 1108 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-26
  prospecting licensemining concessionpublic auctionproved mineralindefeasible rightmineral developmentwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of a Prospecting License for 200 acres of land by the Licensing Authority and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the Secretary Mineral Development Department. The petitioner sought the license, but the authorities, following an inspection, determined the area contained 'proved mineral' (Iron Ore/Laterite) and consequently rejected all applications, reserving the area for public auction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed an indefeasible right to the grant of a Prospecting License despite the area being designated for auction due to the presence of proved minerals. The Peshawar High Court held that the authorities acted in accordance with the law. The Court ruled that where an area is identified as having 'proved mineral,' no Prospecting License can be granted without open auction under the relevant rules. The Court affirmed that an applicant has no indefeasible right to a lease and must participate in the public auction process, which ensures fair competition and maximizes revenue for the government. The petition was dismissed for lacking legal merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can an applicant claim an indefeasible right to the grant of a Prospecting License for an area containing proved minerals?
  • Is a public auction mandatory for granting mining leases in areas identified as having proved mineral deposits?
  • Does the refusal of a Prospecting License in favor of a public auction process violate fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Madad Khan vs The State2013 P Cr. L J 333 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-08-17
  post-arrest bailillicit armsbailable offensenon-bailable offensesecret cavities recoverytransportation of weaponsWest Pakistan Arms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application arises from a bail petition filed by the accused petitioners seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 13 and 14 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, following the recovery of a massive quantity of illicit arms and ammunition from secret cavities of a motorcar they occupied. The core legal question addressed is whether an offense under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 is bailable or non-bailable outside the Province of Punjab. The Peshawar High Court held that due to the enhancement of punishment under section 13 to seven years via Act LII of 1973, coupled with the absence of provincial amendments to Schedule-II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 equivalent to those in Punjab, offenses under section 13 are non-bailable across all provinces except Punjab. The court laid down that given the enhanced sentence and the serious security situation, illegal transportation of vast arsenals constitutes a non-bailable offense disentitling the accused to bail, resulting in the dismissal of the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 is bailable or non-bailable in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province?
  • Does the non-compliance of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a sudden search and recovery from a vehicle?
  • Can accused persons be granted bail when a huge quantity of illicit arms and ammunition is recovered from secret cavities of a vehicle under their control?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Akram vs Razia Sultana2013 CLC 1048 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-11-05Read full judgment →
• Lutfurrehman vs Mst. Izat Begum and others2013 YLR 2211 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-16Read full judgment →
• Luqman alias Pehlawan vs Daud and another2013 YLR 381 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-09-20
  post-arrest bailunseen occurrencedelayed nominationfurther probemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a bail application filed by the accused petitioner, Luqman alias Pehlawan, seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 740 dated 19-7-2012 registered at Police Station Pahari Pura, Peshawar, under sections 302, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the refusal of bail by the lower forum. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's delayed nomination and the sufficiency of the available record, including unverified mobile phone data, warrant further inquiry into his alleged involvement in an unseen murder. The Peshawar High Court held that since the F.I.R. charged unknown persons, the subsequent nomination after a significant delay, coupled with the lack of concrete material connecting the petitioner to the offense, brought his case within the scope of further probe under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner on post-arrest bail subject to furnishing appropriate sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is nominated in an unseen crime after a significant delay?
  • Does unverified mobile phone data without its text constitute sufficient material to prima facie connect an accused to an offense for bail refusal?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali, Principal Technician PCSIR Laboratories, Complex, Peshawar vs Chairman, PCSIR, Laboratories, Islamabad and 3 others2013 PLJ Peshawar. 174 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs Ghulam Muhammad and 4 others2013 MLD 454 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-01-02Read full judgment →
• Khurram Shahzad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK)2013 YLR 2268 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-05-28Read full judgment →
• Khitamulhaq vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health, Peshawar and 12 others2013 YLR 1325 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-02-07Read full judgment →
• Khan Shahzada vs Allied Bank Ltd2013 PLJ Peshawar 222 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-30Read full judgment →
• Khan Farosh and anothers vs The State and anothers2013 P Cr. L J 1437 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-19
  post-arrest bailmurdercross-versiontentative assessmentfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the murder of the complainant's nephew. The petitioners argued that the case involved a cross-version, citing an inordinate delay in the F.I.R. and claiming that the complainant's party had actually aggressed upon them. They further contended that one petitioner was absent during the occurrence and that the case warranted further inquiry. The court, upon reviewing the record, noted that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the petitioners' house with multiple bullet wounds, and that the recovery of the weapon of offense and empty casings further connected the petitioners to the crime. The court held that at the bail stage, it is only required to perform a tentative assessment of the evidence. It clarified that the existence of a cross-version does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. Finding prima facie evidence connecting the petitioners to the offense, the court dismissed the bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • What is the scope of the court's assessment of evidence at the bail stage?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the dead body of the deceased is recovered from their premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Badshah vs Mst Noor Nama2013 CLC 379 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-10-18Read full judgment →
• Khalid, etc. vs Abdul Qayum, etc.2013 C.L.R. 1597 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-18Read full judgment →
• Khalid vs State and anotherPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 639 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-05
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausetentative assessmentFIR corroborationattempt to murdermedico-legal report
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal petition, the accused-petitioner Khalid sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 75 registered under Section 354/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Nowshera Kalan, after bail was refused by the courts below. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the direct charge in the promptly lodged first information report, corroborated by medical evidence and falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was directly charged with attempt to life, supported by medico-legal reports, and that reasonable grounds existed connecting him to an offense punishable with up to ten years imprisonment, thus attracting the prohibitory clause. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principle that tentative assessment of available material connecting an accused to a heinous or prohibitory-clause offense disentitles them to bail at the pre-trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused directly charged in a promptly lodged FIR for an offense falling within the prohibitory clause is entitled to bail?
  • Does medico-legal corroboration of injuries prevent the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is tentative assessment of record sufficient to decline bail at the pre-trial stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs The State and another2013 YLR 2076 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-05-15
  murderconvictiondeath sentencecommutation of sentenceocular evidenceinterested witnessessudden altercationmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death for the murder of the deceased following an altercation over the return of a loan, along with a murder reference forwarded to the High Court. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the credibility of related eye-witnesses, and the determination of whether extenuating circumstances existed to warrant mitigation of the death sentence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through natural and consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and prompt reporting. However, considering that the sudden altercation and heated exchange over the demand of a loan caused tempers to flare without premeditation, the court concluded that the death sentence was excessively harsh. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction but modified the sentence from death to imprisonment for life, laying down the principle that sudden provocation and heat of passion arising from a monetary dispute without preplanning serve as mitigating circumstances justifying the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration when found natural and consistent?
  • Does an unexpected altercation and sudden flare-up of tempers over a monetary dispute constitute a mitigating circumstance for converting a death sentence into imprisonment for life?
  • Is the prompt lodging of an F.I.R. without significant delay considered a strong guarantee against false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Khan vs The State2013 MLD 133 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-08-09
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsconscious possessioncontraband recoveryControl of Narcotic Substances Actcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 20 kilograms of charas from a Suzuki van driven by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as the sole occupant and driver of the vehicle, was entitled to bail despite the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics from secret cavities within the vehicle. The petitioner contended that he lacked conscious knowledge of the contraband and was falsely implicated. The Court held that the petitioner, being the sole occupant and driver, had sufficient control over the vehicle to establish conscious possession of the narcotics. Emphasizing the societal harm caused by drug trafficking and the severity of the offense, which carries a potential sentence of death or life imprisonment, the Court determined that the case fell within the restrictive provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, with directions for the trial to be concluded expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the driver of a vehicle can be held to have conscious possession of narcotics recovered from secret cavities within that vehicle?
  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics, punishable by death or life imprisonment, restrict the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the sole occupant of a vehicle presumed to have knowledge of contraband concealed within the vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Hassan Khan vs Pakistan International Air Lines through Director2013 YLR 847 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-01-16Read full judgment →
• Khaista Rehman and 2 others vs Executive District Officer Schools2013 PLC (C.S.) 142 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-06-28
  writ petitionteacher appointmentDrawing Master certificatemerit listdiscriminationconstitutional equality
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves multiple writ petitions filed against the refusal of the Education Department to appoint the petitioners as Drawing Masters despite being placed high on the merit list following tests and interviews. The core legal question is whether the respondents could lawfully deny appointment to qualified candidates on the ground that their Drawing Master certificates, obtained from institutions in Jamshoru and Karachi, were not recognized or equivalent, and whether such denial violated the principle of equality. The court held that the certificates were genuine and issued by recognized institutions, and that the department's actions were discriminatory, mala fide, and in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioners to the posts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the refusal to appoint candidates based on unverified or incorrectly questioned professional certificates constitutes discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can a government department deny appointment to higher merit candidates while appointing lower merit candidates who possess certificates from the same institutions?
  • Whether Drawing Master certificates obtained from recognized institutions in Jamshoru and Karachi fulfill the requisite qualification criteria for public employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Khaista Bacha alias Bacha vs Habib Khan and anothers2013 P Cr. L J 492 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-11-08
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancesinterested witnesspost-mortem examinationsudden provocationlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and mother-in-law. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular accounts of the deceased's close relatives, medical reports showing firearm injuries, and the recovery of blood-stained earth from the crime scene. The appellant contended that the First Information Report was delayed, the witnesses were interested and closely related, and the lack of a post-mortem examination was fatal to the prosecution. The Peshawar High Court held that the delay in lodging the report was sufficiently explained by the remote location and lack of transport. It ruled that close relationship alone does not discard a witness's testimony unless a motive to falsely implicate is shown. Furthermore, the non-conduct of a post-mortem is not fatal where the cause of death is apparent and the local custom/heirs requested its omission. However, finding that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without premeditation following an altercation, the Court converted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness's testimony be discarded solely on the ground of close relationship to the deceased?
  • Is the non-conduct of a post-mortem examination fatal to the prosecution's case when the cause of death is otherwise apparent?
  • Does an altercation occurring on the spur of the moment without premeditation constitute a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Illahi vs State & 2 othersPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 691 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-10
  quashment of FIRfugitive from lawinherent powers of High Courtright of audienceabsconderdue process of lawnon-bailable warrants
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Sections 17, 18, and 22-B of the Emigration Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether a petitioner who is a fugitive from law, against whom non-bailable warrants have been issued and proceedings under Sections 87 and 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 initiated, is entitled to seek relief from the High Court under its inherent powers. The Court held that a fugitive from justice is not entitled to an audience before the Court. The ratio is that the Court will not act in aid of a person who is avoiding lawful arrest and has not submitted to the due process of law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing the principle that a person who flees or escapes from the law loses the right of audience and must surrender to the court's process before seeking judicial relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person who is a fugitive from law entitled to seek relief under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a fugitive from justice lose the right of audience before the High Court?
  • Must a petitioner surrender to the process of law before invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Elahi vs The State and 2 othersPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 691, 2013 P Cr. L J 1727 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-10
  quashment of FIRfugitive from lawright of audienceinherent powersabscondercriminal procedure
  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 against the petitioner under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sections 17, 18, and 22-B of the Emigration Ordinance 1979. The core legal question addressed was whether a person who is a fugitive from law and has avoided arrest pursuant to warrants issued by a competent court is entitled to audience or relief under the inherent powers of the High Court. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a fugitive from justice loses their right of audience and cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court to seek relief without first surrendering to the process of law. The key principle laid down is that the superior courts will not act in aid of a person who is a fugitive from justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a fugitive from law seek relief under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a person avoiding arrest pursuant to warrants issued by a competent court is entitled to audience before the High Court?
  • Does an accused who flees from justice lose normal rights available under the law regarding the entertainment of a quashment petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Elahi and 2 others vs Mst. Nasim Bibi and another2013 YLR 526 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-02-24
  quashment of orderalteration of chargetrial court jurisdictionabuse of process of courtcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the petitioners seeking the quashment of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed their revision petition against the trial court's order holding that prima facie an offence under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was attracted instead of section 354, P.P.C., and that the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether the trial court's order altering or noting the applicability of a graver section after recording evidence warranted interference under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. The Peshawar High Court held that the petition lacked merit as the trial court had taken cognizance based on evidence and the object of the petition was not to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. The court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that High Court intervention under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is unwarranted when lower courts pass orders on sound legal footing after evaluating evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can quash an order under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. where the trial court finds a graver offence is attracted after recording evidence?
  • Does an order of the revisional court dismissing a revision petition against the trial court's view on applicable penal sections warrant interference under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can be maintained to defeat the advancement of a proper trial based on evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamdar Khan and 7 others vs Hazrat Akbar and 5 others2013 P Cr. L J 256 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-08-09
  Illegal Dispossession Actland grabbingcivil litigationcriminal revisionmaintainability of complaintconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the dismissal of a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The petitioners, claiming ownership and possession of specific land, alleged that the respondents, described as habitual land grabbers, illegally dispossessed them by ploughing the property. The trial court dismissed the complaint as non-maintainable after considering an inquiry report from the local police. Upon review, the High Court observed that the parties were already engaged in protracted civil litigation regarding the same property, with a civil revision currently pending. The Court held that the petitioners were attempting to use criminal proceedings to circumvent the ongoing civil litigation, which is impermissible. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of evidence establishing the respondents as members of a land-grabbing gang or police findings confirming illegal dispossession. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the High Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the impugned order neither perverse nor arbitrary. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed in limine, as the complaint lacked legal sustainability.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be maintained when the parties are already engaged in pending civil litigation regarding the same property?
  • Is it permissible to initiate criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 after failing in civil litigation concerning the same land?
  • Does the absence of evidence regarding the status of respondents as 'land grabbers' render a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 non-maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamal vs Muhammad Asif and anotherPLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 816 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-25
  post-arrest bailabsconsionproclaimed offenderprohibitory clauseattempt to murderocular evidencemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 391 registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Charsadda, after his bail was refused by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail despite being charged with a serious offense, specifically named in the F.I.R., supported by medical and ocular evidence, and having a history of long unexplained absconsion. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, as there were reasonable grounds connecting him to the crime which carried a punishment falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, compounded by his status as a proclaimed offender. The key principle laid down is that an accused who is a proclaimed offender and whose case falls within the prohibitory clause, supported by consistent ocular and medical evidence, does not merit the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused who has absconded for a long period entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does a case falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 disentitle the accused to bail when supported by ocular and medical evidence?
  • What is the effect of being declared a proclaimed offender on a bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Kalu Khan and 6 others vs Abdul Aziz2013 YLR 2481 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-10Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Ullah vs The State and another2013 YLR 1837 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-26
  post-arrest bailtraffic accidentrash and negligent drivingdriving without licencenon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of orders passed by the lower courts declining post-arrest bail to the accused Kaleemullah in case F.I.R. No. 14 dated 17-1-2013 registered under Sections 279 and 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gomal University, D.I.Khan, relating to a fatal traffic accident. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail where he is charged with causing death by negligence while driving a vehicle without a valid driving licence. The Peshawar High Court held that the offence under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is non-bailable, the accused is prima facie connected to the crime through eyewitness accounts and his own statement admitting to driving without a licence, and therefore he is not entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that driving without a valid licence resulting in a fatal accident is a serious matter involving non-bailable offences disentitling the accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when charged under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing death by negligence while driving without a valid licence?
  • Does the lack of an initial nomination in the F.I.R. automatically entitle an accused to bail when subsequently nominated through a supplementary statement and eyewitness accounts?
  • Is an offence under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable or non-bailable?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Ullah vs State and another2013 YLR 1837, PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 628 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-26Read full judgment →