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.

• Rehmanullah vs The State and another2010 P Cr. L J 1319 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-26
  post-arrest bailmurderdeeper appreciation of evidenceplea of alibiabscondenceblood feud
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Rahmanullah seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 88 registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Domel, District Bannu. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail based on contentions regarding discrepancies in the site plan, medical evidence contradictions, identification issues, and a plea of alibi. The Peshawar High Court held that the contentions raised require a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage, and that the petitioner was specifically nominated in a promptly lodged F.I.R. for a daylight crime, had absconded for a considerable period after the occurrence, and shared a similar role to a co-accost whose bail was earlier dismissed. Consequently, the court declined the bail petition and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether discrepancies between the site plan and medical evidence warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can a plea of alibi be evaluated in detail at the bail stage without recording evidence?
  • Whether abscondence following the commission of an offense disentitles an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Does the commencement of the trial serve as a ground for the refusal of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman Ghani and others vs Shahzada Khan and others2010 PLJ Peshawar 103 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-09-08Read full judgment →
• Rehman Ghani and others vs Shahzad Khan and others2010 CLC 610 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-09-07
  inheritance mutationpre-deceased songrandchildren inheritanceMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceFederal Shariat Courtconstitutional lawrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the plaintiffs' suit seeking declaration, injunction, and possession regarding an inheritance mutation was dismissed. The core legal question involved the entitlement of grandchildren, whose father predeceased the propositus, to inherit under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, and the effect of a Federal Shariat Court declaration holding the said provision un-Islamic when such declaration stands suspended pending appeal before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court under Article 203-D of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Peshawar High Court held that the lower courts correctly applied Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1916 read with Article 203-D of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as the suspension of the Shariat Court's judgment means the law remains operative until the final disposal of the appeal. The petition was dismissed in limine, with the court also emphasizing that trial courts must vigilantly apply their minds at the inception of suits to avoid frivolous litigation and unnecessary trials.

  Questions settled

  • Are the children of a pre-deceased son entitled to inherit from their grandfather under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1916?
  • What is the legal effect on a statute declared un-Islamic by the Federal Shariat Court while an appeal is pending before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court?
  • Does a revision petition lie against concurrent judgments upholding an inheritance mutation under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1916?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Ullah vs The State and another2010 P Cr. L J 936 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-03-25
  criminal revisionabsconding accusedstatement in absence of accusedscheduled offencetrial in absentiasuppression of terrorist activitiessummoning of witnessrequisitioning of record
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bannu, dismissing two applications and leaving a third pending in a criminal case against the petitioner. The core legal questions involve the admissibility and transferability of evidence recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in relation to scheduled offences under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975, the necessity of summoning a former police officer to clarify discrepancies in witness statements, and the requisitioning of record from a previous criminal case. The Peshawar High Court held that evidence recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a Magistrate who is not competent to try a scheduled offence cannot be transferred to the trial Court, as the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975 provides a specific mechanism for trials in absentia. The Court further held that summoning the former police officer and requisitioning the prior case record are necessary in the interest of justice. The revision petition was accepted accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether evidence recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a Magistrate in a scheduled offence can be transferred to the file of a Special Court?
  • Does the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975 implicitly substitute the provisions of section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding absent accused persons?
  • Is a Magistrate competent to try a scheduled offence under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975?
  • Whether the summoning of a former police officer is necessary to clarify a witness statement regarding evidence recorded in the absence of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rast Baz Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, Civil2010 PLC (C.S.) 1218 · Peshawar High Court
  constitutional petitionpromotionlength of servicejurisdictionService Tribunaleligibilityterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a Deputy Public Prosecutor seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to BPS-18 by correctly calculating his length of service in light of a departmental notification dated 8-12-1983. The core legal questions involved were whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 199 in matters of promotion, and whether the petitioner possessed the requisite length of service for promotion. The Peshawar High Court held that the matter related to eligibility and determination of fitness for promotion rather than terms and conditions of service simpliciter, thereby falling outside the bar of the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction and making the constitutional petition maintainable. The Court further ruled that the petitioner's length of service was complete when calculated properly, and his non-consideration for promotion was illegal and discriminatory. The petition was accordingly allowed, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 is maintainable in matters relating to the promotion and eligibility of a civil servant?
  • Does the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal bar a High Court from entertaining a petition concerning the determination of fitness and eligibility for promotion?
  • How is the requisite length of service for promotion to be calculated when factoring in previous service under relevant government notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Raqibaz Khan vs The State and another2010 YLR 1700 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-23
  post-arrest bailbail on medical groundsmurdercompound fracturebed-ridden accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by the accused Raqibaz Khan seeking post-arrest bail on medical grounds in a case arising from F.I.R. No. 2 dated 25-1-2009 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Kakki, District Bannu, involving the murder of four persons and injuries to another. The core legal question was whether an accused charged with heinous offences and whose earlier bail application was dismissed on merits is entitled to bail on medical grounds due to incapacitation and lack of specialized treatment facilities within the jail. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for bail on medical grounds alone, as the medical certificate and record established that he suffered a compound fracture of the right femur, was bed-ridden, required one year of bed rest and physiotherapy, and that such specialized facilities were unavailable inside the prison premises. The key principle laid down is that where an accused demonstrates through reliable medical evidence that he is incapacitated and that necessary medical or physiotherapy treatment cannot be provided within jail, he is entitled to the concession of bail on medical grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused charged with multiple murders entitled to post-arrest bail on medical grounds?
  • Does the absence of specialized physiotherapy treatment facilities inside the jail justify granting bail on medical grounds?
  • Whether an accused suffering from a bed-ridden injury and requiring long-term treatment can be released on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Raqibaz Khan vs Malik Abdul Ghaffar Khan and 9 others2010 YLR 1691 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-23
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailfurther inquirycommon intentionmiscarriage of justicefirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition moved by the complainant seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the accused respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question involves determining whether sufficient, strong, and exceptional grounds exist to warrant the cancellation of bail already granted, and whether the case falls within the scope of further inquiry. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the application, holding that considerations for the cancellation of bail are entirely distinct from those for its grant, and that once bail is granted, it cannot be cancelled lightly without proof of misuse of concession, tampering with evidence, or that the order is patently illegal and results in a miscarriage of justice. The court laid down the principle that where multiple accused are charged for a single injury on a non-vital part of the body and the specific attribution is unclear, the case calls for further inquiry, making bail cancellation unwarranted.

  Questions settled

  • Are the considerations for the cancellation of bail different from the considerations for the grant of bail?
  • What grounds are required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a competent court?
  • Does a single firearm injury on a non-vital part of the body attributed generally to multiple accused make out a case of further inquiry?
  • Whether bail can be cancelled in the absence of evidence showing misuse of bail or tampering with evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Nadeem Ahmed vs Javed Iqbal, Manager, Allied Bank the MallPLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 777 · Peshawar High Court
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybank fraudtampered chequeidentity theftoffences in respect of bankscriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case where the petitioner was accused of fraudulently withdrawing funds from a bank account using a tampered cheque. The core legal question was whether, given the evidentiary discrepancies and the complainant's statement exonerating the petitioner, the case warranted further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the scope of "further inquiry." Key principles laid down include that where the prosecution's case rests on documentation whose authenticity is strongly contested—supported by expert opinion stating the signatures did not match—and where the complainant has explicitly exonerated the accused, continued incarceration is unwarranted. The Court further observed that internal bank inquiries had implicated bank officials in the irregularities, casting doubt on the petitioner's sole culpability. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner could not be detained indefinitely pending trial, especially when the trial was not imminent, and granted bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case qualify for 'further inquiry' when the complainant exonerates the accused and expert evidence contradicts the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when internal bank inquiries suggest the involvement of bank officials rather than the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the trial is not likely to commence in the near future?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Nadeem Ahmad vs Javed Iqbal and another2010 P Cr. L J 623 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-01-04
  post-arrest bailbank fraudfurther inquiryfake accountdocumentary evidencecriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by Raja Nadeem Ahmad, who was accused of fraudulently withdrawing funds from a bank account via an online facility into an account allegedly opened in his name. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the disputed identity, conflicting documentary evidence, and the complainant's subsequent statement exonerating the petitioner. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that bank formalities were overlooked, bank officials were implicated in the departmental inquiry, and the primary complainant had exonerated the accused. Consequently, the court allowed the bail petition, directing the release of the petitioner subject to furnishing reliable sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the primary complainant exonerates him during the investigation?
  • Does a case qualify for further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when bank account opening formalities are disputed and internal bank officials are implicated in irregularities?
  • Whether an accused can be denied bail under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 without reasonable grounds connecting him to the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahima Gul vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, through Secretary and 3 others2010 PLC (C.S.) 705 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-02-16
  regularization of servicescontract employeestatutory interpretationconstitutional petitionservice lawFemale Subject Specialist
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order dispensing with the services of the petitioner, a Female Subject Specialist appointed on a contract basis, and sought regularization of her service under the N.-W.F.P. Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having been employed on a contract basis, was entitled to regularization by operation of law under the aforementioned Act. The Court held that since the petitioner's employment fell within the scope of Section 3 of the Act, her services stood regularized by operation of law upon the commencement of the Act. The Court emphasized that once the statutory conditions for regularization are met, the employer is merely required to issue a formal notification for administrative purposes, such as maintaining service records, and lacks the discretion to deny this status or dispense with the employee's services arbitrarily. The key principle laid down is that regularization under the N.-W.F.P. Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, is a statutory right that takes effect automatically, rendering further consent or confirmation from the employer unnecessary.

  Questions settled

  • Does the N.-W.F.P. Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, operate to regularize contract employees automatically upon its commencement?
  • Is the consent or confirmation of the employer required for the regularization of a contract employee under the N.-W.F.P. Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009?
  • Can an employer dispense with the services of an employee who has already attained the status of a regular employee by operation of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Shah vs 1. The State 2. Mst. Tasleem Jana2010 NLR Criminal 159 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-06-07
  attempt to commit qatl-i-amdhurtsole witness testimonycomposite offenceenhancement of sentencecriminal appealjudicial confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the convict, Rahim Shah, against his conviction and sentence for firing at and injuring the complainant, Mst. Tasleem Jana, and a revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of that sentence. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 324 and Section 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the conviction could be sustained based on the sole testimony of the injured complainant despite alleged discrepancies in medical evidence and recovery, and whether the failure to frame a separate charge for the offence under Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 vitiated the conviction. The Court held that the complainant’s testimony was intrinsically true and corroborated by medical evidence, and that Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constitutes a composite offence covering both the attempt and the resulting injury, rendering a separate charge unnecessary. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing both the appeal and the revision petition, noting that the absence of prior enmity justified maintaining the original sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constitute a composite offence that includes the punishment for injuries caused during an attempt to commit qatl-i-amd?
  • Is a separate charge required for an offence under Section 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the accused is already charged under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the same occurrence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based solely on the testimony of an injured complainant when there is no corroborating recovery evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq and another vs The State2010 P Cr. L J 567 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-01-21
  conscious possessionnarcoticssecret cavitiesopium recoverydriver liabilitypassenger liabilitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of two appellants sentenced to life imprisonment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 45 kilograms of opium from secret cavities of a vehicle. The core legal questions involve the determination of conscious knowledge and possession of contraband in a vehicle occupied by multiple persons, and whether mere presence or driving establishes such possession. The Peshawar High Court held that conscious possession and knowledge must be affirmatively proved; while the mere presence of a passenger (Gulab Khan) without proof of knowledge or ownership of the contraband does not warrant conviction, a driver found in exclusive control of the vehicle carrying narcotics in secret cavities possesses the requisite knowledge and control. The court laid down the principle that possession of narcotics under the statute must be conscious and intelligent, and whereas a driver's exclusive control and conflicting pleas establish conscious possession, a passenger cannot be convicted without independent evidence of their knowledge and participation in the transportation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of a passenger in a vehicle carrying narcotics establish conscious possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act?
  • Is a driver of a vehicle presumed to have conscious knowledge of contraband recovered from secret cavities of the vehicle?
  • What constitutes conscious and intelligent possession in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafi-Ullah and another vs Mst. Sobia and another2010 MLD 155 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-01-12
  post-arrest bailzinaabductionfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two post-arrest bail applications filed by accused petitioners in relation to FIR No. 606 registered under criminal charges including abduction and Zina at Police Station Jangle Khel Kohat. The core legal question involves determining whether reasonable grounds exist for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused petitioners, given the absence of corroborative medical evidence and independent sources, the unverified whereabouts and non-cooperation of the complainant's husband and parents, and the peculiar conduct of the complainant herself. The Peshawar High Court held that the lack of immediate corroboration and the questionable conduct of the complainant created sufficient room for further inquiry into the petitioners' guilt. The court allowed both bail applications, directing the release of the petitioners subject to furnishing appropriate bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether absence of corroborative medical evidence and independent sources justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the unnatural conduct of a complainant in repeatedly escaping create sufficient room for further inquiry into the guilt of accused persons?
  • Whether non-cooperation of the complainant's family and unknown whereabouts of the complainant weaken the prosecution case at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Rabnawaz Khan and another vs Mst. Waziran Mai and 3 others2010 MLD 1311 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-27Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Gul Adam Khan and another2010 P Cr. L J 905 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-03-12
  bail cancellationenticing awayjactitation of marriagesection 164 statementNikahcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the accused respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, D.I. Khan, in a case involving allegations of enticing away a woman who was purportedly already married. The core legal question was whether the grounds presented by the petitioner were sufficient to warrant the cancellation of the bail previously granted to the accused. The court observed that the alleged abductee had recorded a statement under section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, asserting she was unmarried and had married the accused of her own free will, a claim supported by an affidavit and a pending suit for jactitation of marriage against the alleged first husband. The court held that the case against the accused was arguable and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any misuse of bail or tampering with evidence. Consequently, the court refused to cancel the bail. The key principle laid down is that the criteria for the grant of bail and its cancellation are distinct; for bail cancellation, the petitioner must establish strong reasons, such as misuse of bail or evidence tampering.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
  • Does the existence of a pending suit for jactitation of marriage impact the determination of bail in an abduction case?
  • Is a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to create an arguable case for the accused in a bail matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Qismat Ali Khan and anothers vs Muhammad Yousaf Khan through legal2010 YLR 829 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-12-14
  post-arrest bailmurasiladying declarationdelay in FIRdeeper appreciation of evidencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks post-arrest bail for two accused individuals charged under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in respect of an FIR registered at Police Station Naurang, District Lakki Marwat. The core legal questions involve the effect of a brief delay in lodging the FIR, the evidentiary value and reliability of a murasila treated as a dying declaration when recorded in a hospital without a Magistrate, and whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible at the bail stage. The Peshawar High Court held that the delay was adequately explained by the necessity of providing immediate medical treatment to the injured complainant and his mother, that a murasila recorded in a hospital emergency room is not inherently defective, and that tentative assessment rather than deeper appreciation of evidence governs the bail stage. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that the petitioners were prima facie connected to the offences through the prompt report and subsequent dying declaration.

  Questions settled

  • Does a brief delay in lodging an FIR become fatal when the complainant and witnesses are injured and priority is given to medical treatment?
  • Can a murasila recorded in a hospital emergency room be treated as a dying declaration and used to connect the accused to the crime at the bail stage?
  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence regarding conflicting theories permissible when deciding a post-arrest bail petition?
  • Does the absence of a Magistrate or Medical Officer when recording a dying declaration invalidate its tentative use at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Qismat Ali Khan & another vs Muhammad Yousaf Khan and 5 othersPLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 435 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-12-14
  post-arrest bailmurasiladying declarationdeeper appreciation of evidencetentative assessmentFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by two accused persons charged under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions addressed were whether a delay in lodging the FIR, the registration of an FIR based on a murasila (report recorded in the hospital), and the reliance on a dying declaration warranted the grant of bail. The court held that the bail application must be dismissed. It reasoned that the delay in the FIR was sufficiently explained by the need to prioritize medical treatment for the injured victims. Furthermore, the court held that a murasila recorded in a hospital setting is not inherently defective, and at the bail stage, the court is restricted to a tentative assessment of evidence rather than a deeper appreciation, which is reserved for the trial. The court affirmed that the murasila, given the subsequent death of the complainant, serves as a dying declaration connecting the accused to the offence, and that defense pleas like alibi are matters for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of an FIR based on a murasila in a hospital setting render the prosecution case doubtful at the bail stage?
  • Is a court permitted to conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence, such as evaluating competing theories of the case, during the hearing of a bail application?
  • Can a delay in lodging an FIR be excused when the delay is attributed to the necessity of providing medical aid to the injured complainant?
  • Should a plea of alibi be adjudicated at the bail stage or reserved for the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Khan vs The State Etc.2010 NLR Criminal 441 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-28Read full judgment →
• Qasim Khan vs The State and others2010 YLR 1792 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-28
  murderrelated witnessinjured witnessdelay in FIRabsconsionrecovery of emptiesmedical evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder and attempt to commit murder under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related and injured eye-witnesses, the effect of delay in lodging the First Information Report, the evidentiary value of long-standing absconsion, and the necessity of Forensic Science Laboratory examination of recovered crime empties. The Peshawar High Court dismissed both the appeal for acquittal and the revision for enhancement of sentence, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of spent bullets from the spot, despite a delay in the FIR and minor discrepancies due to the passage of time. The court reaffirmed that a related or injured witness is reliable if their testimony is confidence-inspiring, that mere relationship is no disqualification, that delay properly explained is not fatal, and that absconsion coupled with other evidence serves as a strong incriminating circumstance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration if found confidence-inspiring?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report become fatal to the prosecution case when adequately explained?
  • Can long-standing absconsion of an accused be used as a corroborative piece of evidence against him?
  • Is the non-examination of crime empties by the Forensic Science Laboratory fatal to the prosecution case where other sufficient evidence exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadar Khan alias Doctor Khan alias Gul Muhammad vs The State2010 YLR 284 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-05-09
  narcotics controlpost-arrest bailjudicial confessionretracted confessionfurther inquiryheroin recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two separate bail applications arising from the same First Information Report involving charges under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the first petitioner was apprehended at an airport with two kilograms of heroin concealed in his suitcase. The second petitioner was subsequently implicated based solely on the judicial confession of the first petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the evidence. The Court held that the first petitioner, having been caught red-handed with a substantial quantity of narcotics, failed to make out a case for bail, particularly as his medical claims were unsubstantiated. Conversely, the Court granted bail to the second petitioner, reasoning that the sole evidence against him—a retracted judicial confession—rendered his case one of further inquiry. The judgment reaffirms the principle that while recovery of narcotics from an accused’s possession generally precludes bail, implication of a co-accused based solely on a retracted confession of a principal accused constitutes grounds for further inquiry and bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when caught red-handed with a significant quantity of narcotics?
  • Does the implication of a co-accused based solely on a retracted judicial confession constitute grounds for further inquiry for bail purposes?
  • Can a bail application be dismissed if the medical grounds asserted by the accused are not supported by evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Sabir Shah vs Mst. Hajran Begum and 42010 YLR 1172 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-01-14Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Sabir Shah vs Mst. Hasina Begum through Legal Heirs and 6 others2010 YLR 913 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-01-14Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Sabir Shah vs Mst. Hasina Begum (deceased) through her2010 PLJ Peshawar 56 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Peshawar Development Authority and others vs Awal Khan2010 PLD Peshawar 99 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-24Read full judgment →
• PESCO through Chief Executive Peshawar and 5 others vs Shah Jahan2010 PLJ Peshawar 134 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• PESCO through Chief Executive PESCO and 5 others vs Shahjahan Kundi2010 YLR 1876 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-03-25Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Television Corporation Limited vs Messrs Interconstruct2010 PLD Peshawar 34 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-02-25
  arbitration awardrule of the courtlimitation periodobjections to awardbank guaranteesremand of caseTV licence fee
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court wherein the trial court had dismissed objections against an arbitration award and made it a rule of the court. The core legal dispute involved the encashment of irrevocable bank guarantees following a contractor's failure to achieve targets for collecting TV licence fees under an agreement, leading to arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The High Court examined whether the trial court correctly dismissed the objections on the ground of limitation and whether it adequately evaluated the merits of the award. The court held that the trial Court adopted a cursory and mechanical approach, acting as a passive consenter rather than an active dissenter, and failed to evaluate the evidence, findings, and terms of reference. The High Court laid down the principle that a court evaluating an arbitration award must not act as a mere forwarding agency but must minutely examine and discuss every aspect of the award and evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can make an arbitration award a rule of the court without minutely evaluating the evidence and findings of the arbitrator?
  • What is the proper judicial role of a court when evaluating objections against an arbitration award?
  • Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the objection petition solely on the ground of limitation without proper consideration of service and notice requirements?
  • Is a mechanical and cursory glance of an arbitration award permissible under the law when dealing with objections?
  Read full judgment →
• Osman Khan through Attorney vs Aisha Naz and 2 others2010 CLC 475 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-01-14
  Jactitation of marriageEx parte decreeSetting aside ex parte decreeFamily CourtCivil Procedure CodeInterlocutory orderAppealabilityWrit petitionConstitutional jurisdictionSubstantial justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns a plaintiff's challenge to the maintainability of an application filed by the defendant to set aside an ex parte decree for jactitation of marriage. The plaintiff had obtained an ex parte decree from the Family Court, which the defendant sought to set aside under Section 12(2) C.P.C., alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiff objected, arguing that C.P.C. provisions, except Sections 10 and 11, were inapplicable to Family Courts, and that Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965 provided the specific procedure for setting aside ex parte decrees. Both the trial court and the appellate court, however, held that Section 12(2) C.P.C. was applicable due to the allegations of fraud. The High Court, while acknowledging that the lower courts' approach to the relevant law was incorrect, particularly regarding the non-applicability of C.P.C. and the non-appealability of interim orders under Section 14(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, declined to interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court held that substantial justice had been done, and writ jurisdiction should not be exercised against interlocutory orders to avoid fragmentary decisions and delays.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. maintainable to set aside an ex parte decree passed by a Family Court?
  • Is an interim order passed by a Family Court, such as one dismissing an objection to the maintainability of an application, appealable or revisable?
  • Can the High Court exercise its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere with interlocutory orders, even if based on a wrong legal approach, if substantial justice has been done?
  • Does the principle of substantial justice override technicalities in judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Khan vs The State and 7 others2010 YLR 2249 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-17
  FIR cancellationSection 173 Cr.P.C.Police Order 2002quashment of proceedingsspeaking orderalternate remedyprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his revision petition by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had upheld a Magistrate’s order cancelling an FIR registered under sections 324/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be submitted strictly by an S.H.O. and whether evidence must be recorded at the stage of such a report. The Court held that under the Police Order 2002, the investigation department is reorganized, allowing reports to be submitted by the Incharge Investigation, thereby validating the police report. Furthermore, the Court clarified that recording evidence is a function of the trial stage, not the section 173 reporting stage, where the Magistrate must merely exercise judicial discretion in reviewing the police's findings. Finally, the Court noted that the petitioner had already pursued an alternate remedy via a private complaint, which was dismissed, and had concealed this fact. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the Magistrate’s speaking order was legally sound and the matter had attained finality.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalid if submitted by an Incharge Investigation rather than an S.H.O.?
  • Must a Magistrate record evidence before accepting a police report seeking the cancellation of an FIR?
  • Does the filing of a private complaint constitute an alternate remedy that precludes a petition for quashment of proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ayaz Khan vs Siraj Khan and another2010 MLD 1042 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-11-10
  injured witnessattempt to murderquantum of sentenceabscondenceocular testimonycriminal appealsentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal and criminal revision challenging the judgment of the Sessions Judge Bannu, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 324 and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with fine and payment of Arsh. The core legal question involved the appreciation of evidence regarding the direct ocular testimony of an injured witness, corroboration by medical evidence and motive, abscondence of the accused, and the quantum of sentence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through a promptly lodged F.I.R., consistent medical evidence, and the reliable testimony of the injured complainant, which remained unshattered. However, considering minor evidentiary dents such as the non-recovery of empties or blood-stained earth from the spot, the court held that the quantum of sentence warranted mitigation. The High Court laid down the principle that while the testimony of an injured witness carries immense weight and is not lightly discarded unless shattered, mitigating circumstances like minor investigative shortcomings can justify reducing the quantum of imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured witness can be discarded without being shattered by the defence?
  • Does the absence of crime empties or blood-stained earth from the spot constitute a ground for acquittal or for awarding a lesser punishment?
  • Whether abscondence without a plausible explanation supports the prosecution's case against an accused?
  • Can appellate courts reduce the quantum of sentence while maintaining the conviction based on minor mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah and 2 otherss vs Aminuddin alias Ghalib and another2010 YLR 1066 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-01-11Read full judgment →
• Neik Nawaz and 4 others vs Mst. Rahim Jana Bibi and 14 others2010 CLC 1379 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-10Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Tahir Binyamin etc vs WAPDA through Chairman and 42010 PLJ Peshawar 4 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nawab Ali Khan and 9 otherss vs Muhammad Nazif Khan and 14 others2010 YLR 1153 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-01-18Read full judgment →
• Naushad Aslam Khan and anothers vs The State and another2010 YLR 1223 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-02-02
  criminal revisionsummoning of witnessadditional evidencejust decision of the casebank recordleave applicationpost-evidence application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arises from an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lakki Marwat, rejecting an application filed by the complainant under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon a bank witness along with a short leave application to establish his presence at the time of the occurrence in a murder case under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in refusing to summon the document and witness at the conclusion of evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that since the complainant had raised the plea of taking short leave during his examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the production of such evidence was essential for the just decision of the case. Setting aside the impugned order, the High Court established the principle that a trial court must afford parties a full opportunity to substantiate their material stances and should summon relevant witnesses or documents under section 540 Cr.P.C. if their evidence appears essential for a just decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court refuse to summon a witness or document under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the evidence is essential for the just decision of the case?
  • Whether a complainant is entitled to produce bank records to substantiate a plea of alibi or presence taken during cross-examination at the conclusion of trial evidence?
  • Does the power of the court under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to summoning witnesses and documents at any stage of an inquiry or trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs Muhammad Wahid and others2010 CLC 1776 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-17Read full judgment →
• Nasirullah vs Wahid, Etc.2010 NLR Revenue 22 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-17Read full judgment →
• Naseer Khan vs Said Qadeem and another2010 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-02-15
  absconding accusedrecording of evidence in absence of accusedsection 512 Cr.P.C.transfer of statementsprocuring attendance of witnesses abroadrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III Swabi, which dismissed an application seeking to transfer the statements of two eyewitnesses—recorded during proceedings under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of the absconding accused—onto the main trial file. The core legal question was whether the presence of eyewitnesses who are abroad in the UAE for employment constitutes a situation where their attendance cannot be procured without unreasonable delay, expense, or inconvenience under section 512. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court erred in law and facts by refusing to transfer the statements, finding that Pakistani laborers in Middle East countries cannot easily return without losing their visas and work permits, thus falling squarely within the exceptions of section 512. The court established that section 512 is designed to preserve evidence for eventualities where a witness's attendance is unreasonably difficult to procure, and setting aside the impugned order, allowed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an absconding accused be transferred to the trial file when the witnesses are working abroad?
  • Does the absence of witnesses in a foreign country for livelihood constitute unreasonable delay, expense, or inconvenience in procuring their attendance under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseeb Khan vs The State2010 YLR 561 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-10-13
  narcotic substancescharas recoveryreduction of sentencequantum of punishmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine for transporting 10 kilograms and 800 grams of Charas. The core legal question revolves around whether the sentence of life imprisonment was disproportionate given the quantity of the narcotic substance recovered and the circumstances of the case. The Peshawar High Court held that while the conviction stands unchallenged on merits, the sentence of life imprisonment was too harsh for the specific quantity recovered, maintaining a fair and equitable balance between the crime and punishment. The court laid down the principle that punishments under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act must be adjusted proportionately against the varying quantities of narcotics recovered, following precedent from the apex Court, and consequently converted the sentence of life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for seven years while keeping the fine intact.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of life imprisonment is appropriate for the recovery of 10 kilograms and 800 grams of Charas under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act?
  • Can the appellate court reduce a sentence of life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment keeping in view the quantity of the recovered narcotic substance?
  • Whether a fair and equitable balance must be maintained between the crime and punishment in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Najeeb Ullah Khan vs Badshah Khan and 28 others2010 MLD 1605 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-10-30Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pak China Fertilizers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs District Coordination Officer,2010 NLR Criminal 227 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Orix Leasing Pakistan Ltd., through Branch Manager, Peshawar vs2010 PLJ CrC. (Peshawar) 241 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Lal Ghee Oil Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation Of Pakistanand 9 OtherPTCL 2010 CL. 1007 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Lal Ghee Oil Mills (Pvt) Ltd. through its Chief Executive vs Pakistan2010 PLJ Peshawar 77 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs The Semester Coordinator, Bba Section, Institute of Management Sciences, Phase-VII, Hayatabad, Peshawar and 2 others2010 PLJ Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-04-09Read full judgment →
• Munawar Khan vs Mewa Khan and another2010 P Cr. L J 1075 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-02
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed statementidentification teststatutory right to bailmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of a bail application filed by the petitioner Munawar Khan, who was charged for murder in a belated statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following an initially un-attributed FIR. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of further inquiry, notwithstanding delayed statements and allegations of abscondence. The Peshawar High Court held that where there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty and the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, release on bail under Section 497(2) is a matter of right and obligatory upon the court. The court laid down the principle that statutory provisions regarding bail as of right override contrary case-law, and a lack of incriminating material or identification tests at the pre-trial stage justifies granting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail as of right when a case falls under further inquiry pursuant to Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground of delayed identification tests when the accused has already been in custody?
  • Do statutory provisions regarding bail override contrary judicial precedents?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali vs The State and another2010 MLD 237 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-11-02
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryidentification at nightsite plan discrepancyphysical disabilitySection 497(2) CrPCmurder case
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner accused of murder and attempted murder under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the occurrence took place at midnight, and the site plan contradicted the complainant's version regarding the petitioner's position and ability to fire. Furthermore, the petitioner's documented physical disability—a compound fracture of the femur—made it physically improbable for him to scale the wall as alleged. These factors, combined with the lack of forensic evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, created reasonable grounds for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the site plan and the FIR regarding the position of the accused constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the physical disability of an accused, rendering the alleged act impossible, be considered a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Is identification of an accused at night during a chaotic firing incident sufficient to deny bail when the site plan suggests visibility issues?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Khan and 2 others vs Gul Sherabat Khan and 3 others2010 PLD Peshawar 38 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-01-13
  ejectment petitionlandlord and tenant relationshipco-ownershipjurisdictionRent Controllerpersonal needdefault of rentremand
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and District Judge, which had dismissed an ejectment petition on the grounds that no landlord-tenant relationship existed. The petitioners sought ejectment of respondent No. 1 based on personal need and default. During proceedings, respondent No. 2 was impleaded as a co-owner after purchasing a share in the property. The lower courts held that since respondent No. 2 was a co-owner, the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist. The High Court observed that respondent No. 1 had explicitly admitted his status as a tenant in his written reply and evidence. The Court held that a Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction to decide complex questions of title under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. By confusing the title of respondent No. 2 with the tenancy of respondent No. 1, the lower courts committed a jurisdictional error. The High Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the case for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to decide questions of title under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can an ejectment petition against an admitted tenant be dismissed solely because a third party has been impleaded as a co-owner of the property?
  • Whether the admission of tenancy by a respondent in a written statement is sufficient to establish a landlord-tenant relationship despite claims of co-ownership by another party?
  Read full judgment →
• Multan Khan vs Riaz Din, Inspector/SHO Duaaba Police Station, Hangu2010 MLD 1706 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-09-18
  post-arrest bailineffective firingfurther inquiryfirearm injuryweapon recoverycriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a post-arrest bail petition in connection with F.I.R. No. 178 dated 18-5-2009, registered under Sections 324, 353, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance at Police Station Doaba, District Hangu. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where the police officials sustained no injuries from the alleged firing and the petitioner himself received a firearm injury from police action. The Peshawar High Court held that the case against the petitioner called for further inquiry since no police official was injured and the petitioner was assigned the role of ineffective firing, while the recovery of a weapon fell under a bailable section of the Arms Ordinance. The court laid down the principle that ineffective firing coupled with the absence of injuries to the complainant party, alongside a corresponding injury sustained by the accused and bailable nature of weapon recovery, constitutes sufficient grounds for granting post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ineffective firing at a police party without causing any injuries warrants further inquiry for the purpose of post-arrest bail?
  • Is an offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance bailable?
  • Does the receipt of a firearm injury by the accused during the same incident affect the entitlement to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Khan vs Dr. Syed Sohail Iltaf, Secretary, Health2010 YLR 955 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mukarram vs State and anotherPLJ 2010 Cr.0 (Pehsawar) 199 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-06-11
  qatl-e-amdocular testimonybenefit of doubtcriminal appealsolitary witnesscorroborative evidencemurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant, Mukaram Khan, for the murder of Ghulam Qasim, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the ocular testimony of two witnesses and corroborative evidence, including recovery and abscondence. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction was unsafe. The court found the testimony of one eye-witness unreliable due to his omission from the FIR and site plan, and a significant delay in recording his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding the solitary remaining eye-witness, the court found his account contradicted by medical evidence and the site plan, rendering his testimony untrustworthy. Furthermore, the forensic report negated the evidentiary value of the recovered weapon. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that where ocular testimony is infirm and uncorroborated, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of a solitary eye-witness whose testimony is contradicted by medical evidence and the site plan?
  • Does a significant delay in recording the statement of an eye-witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon sufficient to sustain a conviction when the forensic report indicates the weapon does not match the crime scene evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of abscondence when the primary ocular testimony is found to be unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mujahid and another vs Apa/Adm Bara Khabar Agency and 7 others2010 PLJ Peshawar 54 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State and another2010 YLR 688 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-12-21
  post-arrest bailcross-caseocular evidencemurderattempt to commit qatl-e-amdabscondenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Muhammad Yaqoob, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 209 registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Domail, having been denied the same by the courts below. The core legal question revolved around whether the existence of a cross-case and discrepancies between the FIR and the site plan entitled the accused to post-arrest bail, and whether abscondence could be ignored. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that a cross-case alone is not sufficient to grant bail when there is direct ocular evidence prima facie connecting the accused to the crime, and that deep appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that the mere existence of a cross-case does not automatically warrant the grant of bail in the presence of strong incriminating material and ocular testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the existence of a cross-case alone is sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can the court enter into deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage while comparing the FIR and the site plan?
  • Does direct ocular evidence implicating the accused disentitle them to bail notwithstanding a cross-case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqob vs State and anotherPLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 824 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-12-21
  post-arrest bailcross-caseocular evidenceabscondencedeep appreciation of evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court through a bail application filed by the accused petitioner Muhammad Yaqoob, who sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 209 registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Domail, after bail was refused by the lower courts. The core legal question revolves around whether the existence of a cross-case and discrepancies between the FIR and site-plan warrant the grant of post-arrest bail, and whether abscondence can be ignored in such circumstances. The court held that a cross-case alone is insufficient for granting bail when direct ocular evidence prima facie connects the accused to the crime, and that a deep appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, laying down the principle that the presence of direct ocular testimony linking the accused to the offence overrides the plea of a cross-case at the pre-trial bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the existence of a cross-case alone is sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can a deep appreciation of evidence regarding the contents of an FIR and site-plan be undertaken at the bail stage?
  • Does the presence of direct ocular evidence connecting the accused to the crime disentitle them to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wazir vs Ehsan Ullah2010 PLJ Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wali vs The State2010 YLR 2130 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-21
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsheroin recoveryprohibitory clausefurther inquiryControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Wali, seeking release in case F.I.R. No. 705 dated 23-10-2009 registered under section 9 (c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 at Police Station Gul Bahar, Peshawar, involving the alleged recovery of charas and heroin. The core legal questions involve whether the delayed dispatch of samples, non-association of private witnesses, and alleged procedural defects entitle the accused to further inquiry and bail, and whether the recovery of narcotics places the case within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the recovery of 80 grams of heroin in sachets along with small denomination currency notes prima facie establishes the petitioner's involvement in the drug trade, disentitling him to bail despite arguments regarding quantum of punishment for other recovered substances. The petition was dismissed with directions to the prosecution and trial court to expedite the submission of the final report and conclusion of the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of heroin in small sachets along with currency notes constitute prima facie evidence of involvement in the sale of narcotics disentitling an accused to bail?
  • Whether delayed submission of samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory and absence of private witnesses make a narcotics case one of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the quantum of recovery under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 affect the applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Rahman vs Muhammad Azeem Bacha2010 YLR 2469 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-31
  rejection of plaintexecutable decreeCode of Civil Procedurelimitation periodrevision petitionsuo motu powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from an order passed by the Additional District Judge converting a revision into an appeal and setting aside an executing court's order which had refused to execute a decree resulting from the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.). The core legal question addressed is whether a decree passed pursuant to the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., is merely a decree in fiction for the purpose of an appeal or if it is also executable. The Peshawar High Court held that following the later in time of conflicting Supreme Court precedents, a decree passed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., is not only appealable but also fully executable and possesses finality and enforceability when it determines the rights of the parties. The petition was consequently dismissed as devoid of merit, and the court also affirmed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 does not apply to revision petitions under Section 115 of the C.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decree passed pursuant to the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. is executable?
  • Do the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to revision petitions filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C.?
  • Which judgment of the Supreme Court prevails when there are two divergent views from Division Benches on the same matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Khan vs S. Amjad Ali Qadri and 5 others2010 YLR 2173 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Ajmal and others2010 YLR 1517 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-01-25
  bail cancellationmurderpost-arrest bailabsconsionplea of alibicriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge, Mansehra, in a case registered under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the petitioner's brother. The core legal question was whether the respondents were rightly granted bail and whether exceptional circumstances warranted the cancellation of such bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondents had misused the concession of bail, absconded, failed to join the investigation, and obtained bail through irregular procedural steps by the trial court without notice to the legal heirs. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, recalled the bail granted to the respondents, and directed them to be taken into custody. The key principle laid down is that bail granted without observing legal formalities, or where an accused remains a fugitive and fails to join investigation, is liable to be cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted without issuing notice to the legal heirs of the deceased is sustainable?
  • Can bail be cancelled if the accused remains a fugitive from law and fails to join the investigation?
  • Does failure of the investigating officer to verify a plea of alibi affect the merits of a bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib vs The State and another2010 YLR 899 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-12-14
  post-arrest bailsupplementary statementevidentiary valueunexplained delaycriminal liabilitylack of ocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail petition arises from a criminal matter where the accused-petitioner, Muhammad Shoaib, sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 172 of 2008, registered at Police Station Yarik, District D.I. Khan, for offences under sections 302, 201, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and the nature of the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court observed that the initial report did not nominate any accused, and the subsequent supplementary statement, recorded after a significant delay, lacked credibility and failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of ocular evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime and the failure of the prosecution to recover any incriminating material from the petitioner during police custody. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that the prosecution's case, as presented in the supplementary statement, appeared prima facie unbelievable and insufficient to justify continued incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in recording a supplementary statement that nominates an accused undermine the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  • Is the absence of ocular evidence connecting an accused to the offence a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to recover incriminating evidence from the accused during police custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher vs Nawar Khan and others2010 YLR 1865 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakil vs The State2010 MLD 1073 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-16
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsprohibitory clauseconcealment of drugshabitual offenderreformative justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused, Muhammad Shakil, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 400 grams of heroin. The petitioner argued that the recovery quantity fell under Section 9(b) of the Act, which carries a maximum sentence of seven years, thereby taking the case outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the sophisticated manner in which the narcotics were concealed, suggesting the petitioner was a habitual offender. The Court held that while the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the unique and trained method of concealment indicated a high risk of the accused repeating the offence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that bail is not a rule in every non-prohibitory case. The Court further observed that the legislature should consider incorporating reformative measures alongside punitive ones for narcotic offenders, noting the alarming rise of drug abuse in society.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
  • Can the manner of concealment of narcotics be a valid ground for refusing bail even if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  • Is the quantum of recovery a relevant factor in determining whether an accused is entitled to bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State2010 P Cr. L J 458 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-12-22
  narcoticsrecoverybenefit of doubtcriminal appealchemical analysis delaycontradictory evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant by the Special Court, Mansehra, for the possession of 8 kilograms of opium. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, given the conflicting testimonies of police witnesses and the unexplained delay in sending samples for chemical analysis. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The Court identified material contradictions between the primary prosecution witnesses regarding the timing of their arrival, the arrival of the vehicle, and the search procedure. Furthermore, the Court noted an unexplained 41-day delay in transmitting contraband samples to the laboratory. Emphasizing that the safe administration of criminal justice requires prioritizing the quality of evidence over the quantity of contraband recovered, the Court ruled that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted, with the Court affirming the principle that where prosecution evidence is contradictory and fails to inspire confidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in sending contraband samples for chemical analysis undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Should the quantity of recovered narcotics influence the court's assessment of the quality of evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when key prosecution witnesses provide contradictory testimony regarding the material aspects of the search and recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Gohar Shah2010 YLR 2608 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rehman vs Mst. Fatima Bibi and another2010 MLD 746 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-01-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rauf Khan alias Abdur Rauf Khan vs Muhammad Ashraf2010 YLR 2178 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rauf Khan alias Abdur Rauf Khan vs Muhammad Ashraf2010 PLJ Peshawar 146 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasool Khan and 3 others vs Mst. Masroon Bibi and 13 others2010 CLC 1078 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raheem and 2 others vs The State and another2010 YLR 2400 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-20
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRinjured witnesschild witnessmedical evidence contradictionmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition challenge the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 302(b), 324, 337-E(iv), 337-F(iv), 148, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1960, along with a prayer for enhancement of sentences. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of delayed FIR lodging, the reliability of injured and child witness testimonies, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the failure of the prosecution to produce key witnesses and forensic reports. The Peshawar High Court held that unexplained delays in reporting, coupled with material contradictions, dubious police conduct, and lack of corroboration, created grave and reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony is uncorroborated, inconsistent, and marred by unexplained procedural delays, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report create serious doubt regarding the presence of eyewitnesses?
  • Can the testimony of an injured child witness be accepted without consistent corroboration when it contradicts other evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to produce forensic science laboratory reports concerning recovered weapon empties?
  • Whether the unproven motive alleged by the prosecution adversely impacts a case resting on weak and inconsistent ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Fazal Mahmood and another2010 YLR 766 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-12-16
  post-arrest bailabductionfurther inquiryNikahnamaaffidavit of abducteedelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  The accused-petitioner Muhammad Rafique sought post-arrest bail after being charged in an FIR under sections 365-B, 376, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the alleged abduction and rape of a minor girl. The core legal question was whether the accused made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in light of subsequent developments including a Nikahnama, an affidavit and a criminal complaint filed by the abductee, and an arbitration decision. The Peshawar High Court held that the existence of the Nikahnama, the abductee's affidavit and criminal complaint against her father stating she married of her own free will, the arbitration decision patching up the matter, and the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR collectively created sufficient doubt regarding the accused's involvement to warrant further inquiry. The petition was consequently accepted, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the existence of a Nikahnama and an affidavit by the abductee stating she married the accused of her own free will constitutes a ground for further inquiry under bail jurisprudence?
  • Does a subsequent criminal complaint filed by the abductee against her father create sufficient doubt to entitle the accused to post-arrest bail in an abduction case?
  • Whether an arbitration decision patching up the matter between the parties can be considered while deciding a bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Parwar Khan vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Sherwan and 7 others2010 MLD 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Tahir vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary2010 CLC 1362 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs Muhammad Ishaq and another2010 YLR 1597 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Miskeen, Etc. vs Muhammad Zareen, Etc.2010 NLR Revenue 3 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Mir Abbas and 4 others2010 MLD 817 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-03-17
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencedelayed FIRFIR at spotmotiveinterested witnessesocular testimony contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court under sections 302, 452, 429, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and allied offences. The core legal questions involve the credibility of ocular testimony, the effect of unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report at the spot rather than the police station, the significance of an unproved or settled motive, and the strict parameters for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to doubtful timing of the First Information Report, contradictory physical evidence regarding empty cartridge shells, absence of motive, and the interested nature of the eyewitnesses. The court reiterated that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, and appellate interference is unwarranted unless the trial court's conclusions are perverse, arbitrary, or unreasonable.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of lodging an FIR at the spot rather than at the police station on the prosecution case?
  • How does the failure of the prosecution to establish an alleged motive impact the credibility of ocular evidence?
  • What are the established parameters and principles for an appellate court to set aside an order of acquittal?
  • Does a contradiction between the number of firearm injuries, shots fired, and empty cartridge shells recovered from the scene render eyewitness testimony unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamshaid vs Gomal University, D.I. Khan through Vice-2010 PLC (C.S.) 524 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-01-19
  constitutional petitionservice matterscreening testselection boardappointment of lecturersemergency powerswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Muhammad Jamshaid challenging the decision of the Gomal University Syndicate and the subsequent appointment of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 as Lecturers (BPS-18). The core legal questions involved the legality of conducting and counting marks for a screening test not explicitly mentioned in the initial job advertisement, the proper composition of the Selection Board under emergency powers, and whether academic brilliance alone guarantees public employment. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the non-mention of a screening test in an advertisement is not fatal as long as it is duly approved by the competent authority for shortlisting, and that the Vice-Chancellor validly exercised emergency powers under the governing statute to substitute subject experts. The court laid down the principles that screening tests are a valid administrative tool for shortlisting candidates even if omitted from newspaper advertisements, that academic distinctions like gold medals do not dispense with prescribed selection formalities, and that writ jurisdiction requires proof of actual illegality or jurisdictional defect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-mention of a screening test in a job advertisement renders the test illegal?
  • Can a candidate claim public employment solely on the basis of being a gold medallist and securing a first division?
  • Whether the Vice-Chancellor is empowered to substitute subject experts in the Selection Board under emergency powers?
  • What must a petitioner prove to succeed in a constitutional petition challenging a selection process?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State and others2010 YLR 1913 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-03-15
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceappreciation of evidencesite plansource of identificationcriminal trialmisappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 417(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving charges under Sections 324, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was based on a misappreciation of evidence or if the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court upheld the acquittal, finding significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. Specifically, the court noted the implausibility of the complainant being the sole victim despite close proximity to witnesses during the alleged firing, the absence of bullet marks on surrounding structures, and the suspicious, likely fabricated, addition of a light source (tube-rod) to the site plan to facilitate identification at night. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the police investigation had exonerated the respondents. The court affirmed the principle that an acquittal judgment carries a double presumption of innocence, which cannot be lightly interfered with by an appellate court unless the judgment is perverse or based on a gross misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the addition of a light source to a site plan after the registration of an FIR create doubt regarding the identification of the accused?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment that is based on a proper appreciation of evidence?
  • Is the double presumption of innocence applicable to an accused after an order of acquittal?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to explain the lack of injuries to other witnesses present at the scene undermine the credibility of the complainant's version?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Shafqat Ullah Jan and 2 others2010 YLR 2055 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-01
  vicarious liabilityunlawful assemblycommon objectabscondenceocular evidencecriminal appealmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder and attempted murder under sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the appellant could be held liable for the murder of the deceased when the specific fatal shot was attributed to a co-accused, and whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through ocular evidence and circumstantial factors. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was vicariously liable as part of an unlawful assembly that shared a common object in the attack. The court affirmed that when multiple armed individuals act in concert to commit an offense, the specific act of each individual is secondary to the collective liability of the group. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the appellant's long, unexplained abscondence of fifteen years, combined with consistent ocular testimony and medical evidence, provided sufficient corroboration to sustain the conviction. The judgment reinforces the application of vicarious liability in criminal cases involving armed groups.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted for murder under the principle of vicarious liability if the fatal shot was fired by a co-accused?
  • Does long and unexplained abscondence of an accused serve as a corroborative piece of evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Is the presence of an accused at the crime scene established by the lodging of a cross-report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Muhammad Gul2010 CLC 1035 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-03-19
  pre-emptionTalb-i-Muwathibatsuperior right of pre-emptionco-sharercontiguitycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises out of a pre-emption matter where the petitioner challenged the concurrent dismissal of his pre-emption suit by the lower courts. The core legal questions involved whether the pre-emptor had a superior right of pre-emption based on contiguity compared to the vendee's status as a co-sharer, and whether a minor discrepancy of fifteen minutes in the witnesses' testimony regarding the time of performing Talb-i-Muwathibat vitiated the demand. The Peshawar High Court held that while the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat was validly established in the same sitting despite minor human errors in stated times, the vendee successfully defeated the pre-emption claim by being a co-sharer in the disputed property, which held a preferential right over the petitioner's mere contiguity to only a portion of the property. The court laid down the principle that minor temporal discrepancies in oral evidence regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat do not extinguish the right of pre-emption if the demand was made immediately without dispersal of the meeting, but a co-sharer's preferential right prevails over a contiguous owner.

  Questions settled

  • Does a fifteen-minute discrepancy in oral testimony regarding the exact time of Talb-i-Muwathibat extinguish the right of pre-emption?
  • Does a co-sharer have a preferential right of pre-emption as compared to a contiguous owner?
  • Is a vendee entitled to recover the expenses incurred on government taxes upon the attestation of a mutation in a pre-emption matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran vs Hon'ble Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through2010 C.L.R. 1445 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim Qasmi vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Etc.2010 NLR Civil 469 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and others vs Muhammad Younas and another2010 PLJ Peshawar 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghaffar vs Mst. Irum and others2010 CLC 106 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayyaz vs The State and another2010 YLR 1520 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-11-06
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecivil disputecriminal liabilitySection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Fayyaz, who was charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly issuing a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the existing civil and criminal disputes between the parties. The Court observed that the parties had a history of business dealings, evidenced by a pending civil recovery suit and another registered FIR, suggesting the matter was essentially civil in nature. The Court held that since the punishment for the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the accused was entitled to the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the bail statute, the grant of bail is a rule, and the court should not pre-judge the factual genuineness of the transaction, which remains a matter for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of issuing a dishonoured cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the existence of a parallel civil suit between the parties a relevant factor in determining bail for an offence involving a dishonoured cheque?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Khan vs Govt. of N.W.F.P. through Chairman Board2010 PLJ Peshawar 159 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bannu and another2010 PLC (C.S.) 1115 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-04-27
  writ jurisdictioncontingent paid employeeservice tribunaldiscriminatory terminationconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitycivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a contingent-paid Junior Clerk employed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bannu, challenged his termination from service, which was effected through verbal orders. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the petition given the nature of the employment, and whether the pendency of a civil suit barred the constitutional petition. The Court held that the petitioner, as a contingent-paid employee, did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, thereby preserving the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 199. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the pendency of a civil suit does not preclude the filing of a constitutional petition, particularly where the suit was subsequently withdrawn. On merits, the Court found the petitioner’s termination illegal and discriminatory, as the respondent had appointed other individuals to similar posts while ignoring the petitioner's requests for extension. The Court established that contingent-paid employees are not civil servants subject to Service Tribunal jurisdiction and that discriminatory removal of such employees, while others are hired for identical roles, is void ab initio.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction over a contingent-paid employee of an educational board?
  • Can a constitutional petition be entertained while a civil suit regarding the same subject matter is pending?
  • Is the termination of a contingent-paid employee illegal if the employer subsequently appoints others to the same position without considering the existing employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ehsan vs Tayyaba Yunus and 2 others2010 YLR 631 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ehsan vs Tayyaba Younus and 2 others2010 PLJ Peshawar 97 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal and 14 others vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary and others2010 PLC (C.S.) 1200 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub etc vs Muhammad Younas etc2010 PLJ Peshawar 108 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan vs The State and others2010 YLR 2984 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam & another vs Election Commission of Pakistan2010 PLJ Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Shah vs Abdullah2010 YLR 3340 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs Muhammad Ehsanullah and others2010 MLD 1648 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aamir Rauf vs Ahmad Nawaz2010 YLR 1422 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ziffat Bibi vs The State2010 YLR 1332 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-03-03
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtretracted confessionfornicationmedical evidenceexpert evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 328 and 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the trial court regarding the alleged abandonment of a newborn baby and commission of fornication. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of retracted confessional statements, medical evidence regarding postnatal status, and the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence linking the appellants to the crime. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the retracted confessions were contradictory and did not make out the ingredients of fornication, and isolated medical evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court laid down the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to connect them with the crime through solid direct or circumstantial evidence, and that medical testimony alone, such as the presence of breast milk, is unsafe to base a conviction upon without corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the retracted confessional statements of co-accused alone are sufficient to sustain a conviction under section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without corroborative direct or circumstantial evidence?
  • Is the mere presence of milk in the breasts of an accused woman conclusive proof of the commission of an offense under section 328 or 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a criminal conviction be safely based solely on medical or expert evidence without further independent corroboration?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to establish a direct link between the accused and the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Naheed vs The State2010 PLC (C.S.) 364 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-12-10
  age relaxationdivorced womenconstitutional petitionright to equalitypublic employmentdiscriminatory treatmentfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was initiated by a divorced woman challenging the absence of age relaxation rules for divorced, educated women seeking employment in government, semi-government, and autonomous bodies. The petitioner argued that divorced women, often crossing the upper age limit by the time their marriages end, face systemic exclusion from public service. The Peshawar High Court examined existing age relaxation rules and found no provision for this specific class of women. The Court held that the omission to provide age relaxation for such professionals constitutes discriminatory treatment, violating the principle of equality before the law. Invoking Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the Court directed the Federal and Provincial Governments, along with all autonomous and statutory bodies, to frame rules granting age relaxation to divorced women seeking to join or rejoin public service. The Court suggested re-fixing the upper age limit for these individuals, emphasizing their right to participate in nation-building and earn a livelihood for themselves and their children.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of age relaxation rules for divorced women in public employment violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the High Court direct the government and statutory bodies to frame rules for age relaxation for specific classes of citizens?
  • Is the exclusion of divorced women from age relaxation concessions in government service considered discriminatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Naheed vs Govt. of NWFP2010 PLJ Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-12-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salim-UN-Nisa, Etc. vs Aziz, Etc.2010 NLR Revenue 7 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana vs The State2010 YLR 614 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-07-25
  post-arrest bailwomen prisonersnarcoticscharasprohibitory clausestatutory amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises out of an application for post-arrest bail filed by Mst. Rukhsana, who was charged in an FIR under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act for the alleged possession of eleven kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether a female accused charged with a serious narcotics offense carrying a prohibitory clause can be granted bail under the newly added statutory proviso extending concessions to women prisoners, despite the exclusionary arguments regarding special laws like the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The Peshawar High Court held that notwithstanding the massive quantity of narcotics recovered and the societal devastation it causes, the legislature provided an unqualified concession for women prisoners under the Code of Criminal Procedure without excluding offenses under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The court laid down the principle that the statutory proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies universally to all laws for the time being in force unless specifically excepted, and therefore female accused are entitled to bail under this provision even for major narcotics offenses, resulting in the allowance of the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female accused charged under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act is entitled to bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Does the exclusion of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from special laws override the specific statutory concessions introduced for women prisoners?
  • Whether recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics disentitles a female accused from statutory bail provisions specifically enacted for women?
  Read full judgment →