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.

• Qismat Khan vs Waheed and another2009 YLR 1876 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-05-11
  juvenile justicecoram non judicetrial jurisdictionacquittalremand for trialage determinationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against an acquittal judgment delivered by a Sessions Court in a criminal case involving charges under sections 377 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to try the accused, given that they were minors at the time of the alleged offence. The Court determined that based on the ages recorded in the arrest cards, the accused were under 18 years of age and thus classified as 'children' under section 2(b) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. Consequently, the case was exclusively triable by a Juvenile Court pursuant to section 4(3) and (4) of the said Ordinance. The Court held that because the trial was conducted by a normal Sessions Court rather than the competent Juvenile Court, the resulting judgment was coram non judice, illegal, and a nullity. The appeal was accepted, the acquittal set aside, and the case remanded for trial de novo before the appropriate Juvenile Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial conducted by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction constitute a coram non judice proceeding?
  • Should the benefit of doubt regarding age be extended to an accused to determine their status as a child under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
  • Is a judgment rendered by a Sessions Court in a case exclusively triable by a Juvenile Court legally valid?
  • Must cases pending against juveniles be transferred to a Juvenile Court upon the commencement of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Qayyum Nawaz vs Mst. Zubaida Bibi and 2 others2009 MLD 819 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-05-23Read full judgment →
• Qayyum Nawaz vs Mst. Zubaida Bibi & others2009 PLJ Peshawar 9 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-05-23Read full judgment →
• Qasim vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 1356 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-05-14
  narcotics smugglingcriminal appealrecovery of heroinstatutory presumption of guiltappreciation of evidencefalse implicationControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of four kilograms of heroin at Peshawar Airport. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of narcotics from the appellant's possession beyond reasonable doubt, given the appellant's plea of false implication. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution's evidence—specifically the testimonies of the complainant and the recovery witness—was consistent, credible, and corroborated by the Chemical Examiner's report. The court rejected the appellant's defense of false implication, noting the absence of any demonstrated enmity or motive for the police to plant such a large quantity of narcotics. The judgment reinforces the principle that where prosecution witnesses provide confidence-inspiring testimony and the accused fails to rebut the statutory presumption of guilt under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the conviction must be maintained. The trial court's assessment of evidence was upheld as well-reasoned and legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics from a suitcase, where the key is provided by the accused, constitute sufficient evidence for conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can an accused successfully claim false implication in a narcotics case without demonstrating enmity or motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses?
  • Is the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, rebutted if the accused fails to produce evidence in defense or effectively cross-examine prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Zaman vs The State and another2009 P Cr. L J 978 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-05-04
  bail cancellationprohibitory limbjudicial confessionossification testjuvenile justiceheinous offencemoral turpitude
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge. The respondent was charged under Sections 377, 324, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempting unnatural carnal intercourse and firing shots at the complainant, causing injuries. The trial court had granted bail primarily on the ground of the respondent's minority under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. Upon review, the High Court observed that the respondent was directly charged, the allegations were supported by a judicial confession, and the weapon of offence was recovered at his pointation. Furthermore, an ossification test determined the respondent's age to be 20 years, negating the claim of minority. The Court held that the offence was heinous, involved moral turpitude, and fell within the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court found the trial court's discretion in granting bail to be improperly exercised, allowed the petition, and recalled the bail order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of being a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 automatically entitle an accused to bail in heinous offences?
  • Can bail be cancelled if the trial court improperly exercised its discretion in granting it?
  • Does an ossification test result indicating an age of 20 years preclude the application of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
  • Does a judicial confession and recovery of the weapon of offence constitute sufficient grounds for the cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Zaman vs State and anotherPLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1183 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-05-04
  cancellation of bailSection 497(5) Cr.P.C.attempted murderunnatural offenceJuvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000ossification testprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was brought under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the complainant, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, D.I. Khan, in a case registered under Sections 377, 324, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question was whether the lower court properly exercised its judicial discretion in admitting the accused to bail on the ground of minority under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The High Court observed that the accused was directly charged with firing effective shots at the complainant, made a confession before a Judicial Magistrate, and led to the recovery of the weapon of offence. Furthermore, an ossification test determined his age to be 20 years. The High Court held that minority does not confer a licence to attempt at the lives of others, and heinous offences involving moral turpitude fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the bail was recalled and the accused remanded to custody.

  Questions settled

  • Does minority confer an entitlement or licence to bail when an accused is charged with an attempt on the life of another person?
  • Whether bail granted to an accused can be cancelled under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. where the trial court relied on minority but an ossification test assessed the accused as an adult?
  • Can the concession of bail be sustained where the tentative assessment of evidence in a heinous offence brings the matter within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• PESCO through Chief Executive PESCO, Peshawar and 4 others vs Asmatullah Khan and 3 others2009 CLC 937 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-12-04Read full judgment →
• Nowshad Khan and another vs Irshad Khan and another2009 YLR 2123 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-06-01
  bail cancellationabscondancefugitive from lawcommon intentionmurderco-accused acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail cancellation application filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order by the Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat, which granted bail to the respondent accused of murder. The core legal question was whether an accused, who remained a fugitive from justice for fourteen years, is entitled to bail solely on the ground that a co-accused was acquitted during the accused's period of abscondance. The Court held that the impugned order was legally flawed and unjustified. The ratio decidendi established that a fugitive from law loses certain procedural rights and cannot claim the concession of bail based on the acquittal of a co-accused in a trial where the fugitive was absent. The Court emphasized that evidence recorded in the absence of an accused cannot be used to grant bail, and that the trial court must assess the prima facie case against the accused based on material available, rather than preemptively acquitting them through bail. Consequently, the bail was cancelled, and the respondent was remanded to judicial custody.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused who has absconded for a long period claim bail on the ground that a co-accused has been acquitted in their absence?
  • Is it permissible for a court to consider evidence recorded in a previous trial against a co-accused when deciding a bail application for a subsequently arrested accused?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically entitle another accused to bail on the principle of consistency?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor-Ul-Haq vs Public Service Commission NWFP, Peshawar through its Chairman and 4 others2009 PLJ Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan, Islamabad2009 MLD 455 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-02-14Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad vs Umar Ali and another2009 P Cr. L J 91 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-08-26
  juvenile offenderdying declarationpost-mortemocular evidencecriminal appealenhancement of sentencefirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction and life imprisonment sentence for murder, alongside a revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions were whether the trial court’s proceedings were void due to the appellant's alleged status as a juvenile, and whether the prosecution successfully established guilt despite the absence of a post-mortem examination and an unproven motive. The Court dismissed both the appeal and the revision, upholding the conviction. It held that the plea of juvenility, raised for the first time during final arguments without credible supporting documentation, was unsubstantiated and rejected. The Court affirmed that the absence of a post-mortem is not fatal to the prosecution’s case when the death is directly attributable to the firearm injuries sustained. Furthermore, it established that while motive is relevant, its absence does not invalidate a conviction when supported by consistent eyewitness testimony, a dying declaration, and corroborating forensic evidence. The conviction and sentence were maintained as the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of juvenility be raised for the first time during final arguments without credible evidence?
  • Is the absence of a post-mortem examination fatal to a prosecution case in a murder trial?
  • Does the failure to prove a motive for the crime automatically invalidate a conviction based on other evidence?
  • Is a trial court required to explicitly record the age of an accused in the charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz and another vs The State2009 MLD 141 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-09-15
  post-arrest bailtentative assessmentinjuries on non-vital partsattempt to commit murderfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 888 registered under sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Havelian. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the debatable nature of the prosecution case, the placement of injuries on non-vital parts, the distance from which the shots were fired, and the intention to kill. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition and granted bail, holding that where injuries are sustained on non-vital parts, are not grievous, and the weapon's use or distance raises doubt regarding the intention to cause death, further inquiry into the petitioners' guilt exists. The court laid down the principle that in bail matters, courts must tentatively assess the entire material on record, including the nature of the weapon, distance, and medical reports, rather than relying solely on the F.I.R., and ordinarily grant bail when injuries are simple or non-dangerous.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when injuries sustained by the victims are on non-vital parts and their nature is debatable?
  • Can the court tentatively assess the material on record beyond the contents of the F.I.R. while deciding a bail application?
  • Does a long distance between the accused and the victim at the time of firing raise a doubt regarding the intention to kill for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad vs Umer Ali and anotherPLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 192 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-08-26
  juvenile offenderdying declarationocular evidencemurder convictionpost-mortem examinationmotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to the appellant's alleged juvenility, and whether the conviction was sustainable based on a dying declaration and ocular evidence despite the absence of a post-mortem examination and an unproven motive. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plea of juvenility was raised belatedly and lacked credible evidentiary support, as the documents produced were unreliable and contained alterations. The Court affirmed that a dying declaration, when corroborated by consistent ocular testimony and forensic evidence, is sufficient for conviction. The principle laid down is that the absence of a post-mortem examination is not fatal to a prosecution case where death is the direct, proximate result of firearm injuries, and the failure to establish a motive does not negate overwhelming evidence of guilt. Furthermore, a plea of juvenility must be raised timeously and supported by reliable evidence to challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a post-mortem examination render a murder conviction unsustainable when death is the direct result of firearm injuries?
  • Is a plea of juvenility valid if raised for the first time during final arguments without reliable supporting documentation?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on a dying declaration and ocular evidence in the absence of a proven motive?
  • Does the failure to record the age of an accused in the charge constitute a material illegality under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Tahir Binyamin Khan and others vs Water and Power2009 CLC 1066 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-04-27Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 1062 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-04-09
  criminal appealjudicial confessioninsanity pleastrangulationretracted confessioncircumstantial evidencemurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his infant niece. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the appellant's conviction despite the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence and the viability of the defense plea of insanity. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the appellant’s judicial confession to be voluntary, true, and strongly corroborated by medical evidence of strangulation and the testimony of a witness who handed the victim to the appellant. The court rejected the insanity plea, noting it was raised as an afterthought, and distinguished between insanity during the trial and insanity at the time of the commission of the offense. The judgment affirms the principle that a retracted judicial confession, when supported by independent circumstantial and medical evidence, remains a potent basis for conviction, and that the burden of proving insanity at the time of the crime rests upon the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession serve as the basis for a conviction if corroborated by independent evidence?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence automatically entitle an appellant to acquittal?
  • Is a plea of insanity raised after the occurrence sufficient to invalidate a confession if the accused was found fit to plead during trial?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a judicial confession recorded without police remand?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 1278 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-05-12
  narcotics smugglingcharas recoveryControl of Narcotic Substances Actcredibility of official witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court C.N.S. convicting the appellants for narcotics smuggling under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of contraband Charas from the appellants beyond reasonable doubt based on police and official witness testimonies. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the testimonies of the police officials remained unshattered during cross-examination and the defence failed to prove any animosity for false implication. The court affirmed that direct evidence of recovery coupled with a positive forensic report is sufficient for conviction under the statute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unblemished testimony of official witnesses can form the basis of a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the absence of proven animosity or rancor render the testimony of police officials reliable for establishing contraband recovery?
  • Whether recovery of narcotics from secret cavities of a vehicle establishes conscious possession sufficient for upholding a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ali Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 579 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-05-20
  post-arrest baileffective firingtentative assessmentprohibitory clausecriminal procedureattempt to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by Nawab Ali Khan seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Pezu. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was directly charged with effectively firing at and injuring the complainant in daylight, supported by medical evidence, a site plan, and the recovery of crime empties, distinguishing his case from co-accused who were only charged with aerial firing. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the application, holding that the tentative assessment of the record reasonably linked the petitioner to the offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby denying him the discretionary relief of bail. The court laid down the principle that an accused directly charged with effective firing supported by corroborative circumstantial and medical evidence is not entitled to bail on the ground of statutory consistency with co-accused whose roles are distinguishable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused directly charged with effective firing in a daylight occurrence is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when the role of the bail-seeking accused is distinguishable from co-accused admitted to bail?
  • Does the recovery of crime empties and supporting medical evidence constitute reasonable grounds to link an accused to an offense within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadia Shabnum and 3 others vs Land Acquisiton Collector (N-55)2009 CLC 1055 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-04-15Read full judgment →
• Nadia Shabnum and 3 others vs Land Acquisition Collector (N-55)2009 PLJ Peshawar 219 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-04-15Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Akhtar vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 501 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-03-07
  forged currencycounterfeit notescriminal possessionsentencing reductionfirst offenderrailways policecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under sections 489-B and 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for possessing forged currency notes recovered from his footwear during a search at a railway station. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's conscious possession and knowledge of the forged currency notes, and whether the trial court properly appreciated the evidence and administered the sentences. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent and the recovery proved the appellant's knowledge of the forged nature of the currency, thereby upholding the conviction. However, considering that the appellant was a first offender and the trial court omitted the mandatory fine under section 489-B, the court partially allowed the appeal by reducing the substantive term of imprisonment under section 489-B while adjusting the fine, and maintaining the sentence under section 489-C with the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applied concurrently. The key principle laid down is that recovery of forged currency from hidden personal effects like shoes sufficiently establishes guilty knowledge when corroborated by consistent prosecution testimony, and appellate courts may modify sentences of first offenders to align with statutory requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of forged currency notes from the personal concealment of an accused sufficiently establishes his knowledge under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court reduce the sentence of imprisonment for a first offender convicted of possessing counterfeit currency?
  • Whether the omission of a mandatory fine under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court can be rectified on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Akhtar vs StatePLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 524 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-03-07
  forged currency notesconscious possessionrecovery from shoesreduction of sentencefirst offendercriminal appealrailways police
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 489-B and 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the recovery of forged currency notes concealed in his shoes during a search at a railway station. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's conscious possession and knowledge of the forged currency notes, and whether the trial court properly appreciated the evidence and awarded lawful sentences. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent and the recovery was duly proved, establishing the appellant's guilt. However, noting that the appellant was a first offender and that the trial court omitted the mandatory fine under Section 489-B, the High Court partially allowed the appeal by reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment under Section 489-B while imposing the statutory fine, and maintaining the conviction and sentence under Section 489-C with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that while concurrent findings regarding recovery and conscious possession of forged currency warrant conviction, appellate courts may adjust sentences for first offenders while ensuring compliance with mandatory statutory penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of forged currency notes from the physical possession of an accused establishes his knowledge and conscious possession under Section 489-B and 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court reduce the sentence of imprisonment for a first offender convicted of possessing forged currency while correcting the omission of a mandatory fine?
  • Whether minor inconsistencies in the statements of police witnesses are sufficient to discard a recovery made during a public transport search?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pak China Fertilizers (Pvt) Ltd. through its Directors vs District Co-2009 PLJ Peshawar 134 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muteeullah vs Chairman, Evacuee Trust Properties and 4 others2009 CLC 659 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muteen Khan vs The State2009 YLR 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-07-01
  narcotics recoveryopium and charasreduction of sentenceofficial witnessescriminal appealsecret cavitiesControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (C.N.S.) whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to eight years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine for the recovery of opium and charas from a vehicle driven by him. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of official witnesses without independent corroboration regarding the recovery, and whether the quantum of sentence warranted reduction. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction was based on a correct appreciation of evidence, as official witnesses are competent unless animosity is established, and the recovery from a vehicle driven by the appellant was duly proven. However, considering that the appellant was not a previous convict or hardened drug trafficker, the court reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment and fine. The key principle laid down is that official witnesses are as credible as private ones in narcotics cases absent proven animosity, and mitigating circumstances such as the absence of prior criminal record justify the reduction of a harsh sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Are official witnesses competent to prove a recovery in a narcotics case without the association of private independent witnesses?
  • Whether the recovery of contraband from secret cavities of a vehicle driven by the accused is sufficient to establish physical possession and knowledge?
  • Can the quantum of sentence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be reduced where the accused is not a previous convict or hardened drug trafficker?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Khan and another vs Mst. Farzana and others2009 YLR 2329 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-09-09Read full judgment →
• Murad Khan etc. vs State etc.PLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 733 · Peshawar High Court
  criminal appealappeal against acquittalenhancement of sentencebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceocular accountmedical evidenceattempt to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment addresses an appeal against conviction, a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence, and an appeal against acquittal, all arising from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-III Bannu in a case registered under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the sustainability of convictions where co-accused were acquitted, and the grounds for interfering with an acquittal or modifying a sentence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the two convict-appellants through consistent testimony of injured witnesses, medical evidence, and corroborative material, while the co-accused were rightly given the benefit of the doubt based on discrepancies in the eye-witness accounts. The court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of a trial court based on a proper appreciation of evidence will not be disturbed unless exceptional grounds are shown, and that an acquittal order warrants strong and compelling reasons before appellate interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of injured witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order in the absence of strong and exceptional grounds?
  • Whether the principle of parity applies to co-accused when specific roles and distinct testimonies differentiate their attribution from those convicted?
  Read full judgment →
• Murad Khan and others vs The State and others2009 YLR 653 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-06-19
  criminal appealappeal against acquittalsentence enhancementocular evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three connected criminal proceedings: an appeal against conviction, an appeal against acquittal, and a revision petition for sentence enhancement, all arising from a trial court judgment regarding an incident involving firearm injuries. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, the validity of the trial court's acquittal of co-accused, and whether the sentences imposed were commensurate with the offense. The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment in its entirety. It held that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the two appellants through consistent ocular testimony and corroborating medical evidence. Regarding the acquittal of the other co-accused, the Court affirmed that once an acquittal is granted, interference requires strong and exceptional grounds, which were absent here, as the prosecution witnesses failed to consistently implicate the acquitted parties. The Court further ruled that the sentences imposed were appropriate and commensurate with the gravity of the offense. The principle laid down is that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal unless exceptional grounds exist, and conviction remains valid when ocular testimony is consistent and supported by medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused based on inconsistent ocular testimony warrant interference by an appellate court?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when ocular testimony is consistent and supported by medical evidence?
  • What standard of proof is required to interfere with an order of acquittal in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Murad Ali vs Assistant Political Agent, Landi Kotal and 2 others2009 YLR 2497 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-09-15Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussain, Assistant Controller (Secrecy) Board of Intermediate2009 PLJ Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Munir Hussain vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Elementary2009 PLC (C.S.) 733 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-26
  deputationrepatriationcivil servantconstitutional jurisdictiontenure of serviceservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant from the Education Department of the Government of N.-W.F.P., challenged his premature repatriation from his deputation post as Assistant Controller Examination at the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE), Abbottabad. He argued that his repatriation, occurring before the completion of his three-year deputation tenure, was unilateral, violated service norms, and denied him the right to be heard. The Court examined the nature of deputation, holding that it constitutes a contract between borrowing and lending authorities, which can be terminated at any stage. The Court clarified that a specified deputation tenure represents a maximum permissible period rather than a guaranteed right of service for the deputationist. Consequently, the Court held that the competent authority retains the discretion to repatriate a deputationist when services are no longer required or needed by the parent department. Finding no violation of the terms and conditions of service, the Court dismissed the constitutional petition in limine, ruling that premature repatriation does not constitute an actionable grievance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to complete the full tenure of their deputation?
  • Can a borrowing authority repatriate a deputationist before the expiry of the prescribed deputation period?
  • Is premature repatriation of a deputationist a justiciable matter under constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Semester Coordinator, Bba, Section Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar and 2 others2009 CLC 1180 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-04-09Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Ihsan Ullah and another2009 P Cr. L J 915 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-27
  post-arrest bailabduction for ransomjuvenile offenderstatement under section 164 Cr.P.C.heinous crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, Munir Ahmad, who sought pre-trial release after lower forums refused bail in a case registered under sections 365-A, 379, 511, and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the accused, allegedly a juvenile, is entitled to post-arrest bail when caught at the scene of an alleged abduction for ransom supported by the victim's statement and circumstantial evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner is well-connected to the heinous crime of abduction for ransom based on the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, coupled with circumstantial evidence and recoveries made on the spot. The court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that despite claims of the accused being a juvenile and arguments questioning the prosecution's narrative, involvement in an abduction for ransom scheme under such incriminating circumstances disentitles the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused caught on the spot during an alleged abduction for ransom entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the mere claim of being a juvenile outweigh direct and circumstantial evidence connecting an accused to an offense under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the evidentiary significance of a victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in bail matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain vs The State2009 P Cr. L J 1381 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-06-02
  narcotics controlrecovery from secret cavitiespossession of charas and opiumcriminal appealcredibility of police witnessesforensic science laboratory reportlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Court (CNS) Peshawar Camp at Kohat, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with a fine. The appellants challenged their conviction on the grounds of alleged false implication, lack of personal recovery, and material contradictions in the prosecution evidence. The Peshawar High Court examined the record, including the testimonies of the complainant, the investigating officer, and recovery witnesses, which established the recovery of a huge quantity of charas and opium from secret cavities of the truck in the possession and control of the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution witnesses gave straightforward and confidence-inspiring evidence, which remained unshattered during cross-examination, and that the positive report of the Forensic Science Laboratory corroborated the charges. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of a huge quantity of contraband from secret cavities of a vehicle is sufficient to establish the possession and control of the accused?
  • Can a conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of official witnesses when their credibility remains unshattered during cross-examination?
  • Does the failure of the accused to examine themselves on oath under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. or produce defence evidence weaken their plea of false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Khan and 7 others vs Amir Jan2009 CLC 1388 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others2009 CLC 457 · Peshawar High Court · 2007-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mukaram vs The State and another2009 YLR 1962 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-06-11
  Qatl-e-Amdsolitary witnesseyewitness reliabilitybenefit of the doubtbelated statementcriminal appealmurder convictioncorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment recorded by the trial court under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected criminal revision for enhancement of sentence. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a belatedly examined eyewitness whose name was omitted from the first information report and the site plan, the safety of relying on the solitary and infirm testimony of an interested eyewitness without independent corroboration, and the evidentiary value of recoveries and abscondance when ocular testimony fails. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses was doubtful and unsafe for reliance, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and the weapon recovery did not match the crime empties. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant on the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the revision petition for enhancement. The key principle laid down is that it is unsafe to convict an accused on the infirm testimony of a solitary or doubtful eyewitness in a capital case without reliable independent corroborative evidence, and weak corroborative pieces like abscondance cannot sustain a conviction when primary ocular accounts are disbelieved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained safely on the solitary and infirm testimony of an interested eyewitness without independent corroborative evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a belatedly recorded statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no plausible explanation is provided for the delay?
  • Can the recovery of a weapon and the abscondance of an accused form the sole basis for conviction when the primary ocular testimony has been disbelieved?
  • Does a contradiction between medical evidence and the ocular account render the testimony of an eyewitness unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mujahid and another vs Apa/Adm Bara Khyber Agency and 7 others2009 YLR 2303 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zakriya and anothers vs The State and another2009 P Cr. L J 389 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-05-02
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausekidnappingcompromisenon-compoundable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed before the Peshawar High Court in connection with an F.I.R. registered under sections 347, 506, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to an alleged kidnapping and monetary dispute. The core legal question involves whether the petitioners are entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail when the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where the complainant has expressed no objection due to a compromise. The court held that since the offences are not within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, the grant of bail is the general rule and refusal is the exception, further noting that although the offences are non-compoundable, the complainant's statement has a mitigating effect. Consequently, the bail applications were accepted, and the petitioners were granted bail subject to furnishing appropriate sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a compromise in a non-compoundable offence automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the grant of bail a rule and refusal an exception in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the maximum sentence provided for offences under Sections 347 and 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bring the case within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zakariya and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 585 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-05-02
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausenon-compoundable offencescompromisekidnappingcriminal intimidation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from consolidated bail applications filed by the petitioners seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 89 registered under Sections 347, 506, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station East Cantt, Peshawar. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to bail where the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and a compromise has been reached with the complainant. The Peshawar High Court held that although the offences under Sections 347 and 365 are not compoundable and a mere compromise does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, the petitioners are nevertheless entitled to bail as the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the grant of bail the general rule and its refusal the exception. The court accordingly accepted the bail applications subject to the furnishing of appropriate sureties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a compromise between the complainant and the accused in a non-compoundable offence automatically entitle the accused to bail?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Do offences under Sections 347 and 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wazir vs Ehsanullah2009 C.L.R. 1259 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wazir vs Ehsan Ullah2009 CLC 1165 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wali vs The State2009 MLD 90 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-07-01
  heroin recoverysecret cavitiesnarcotics possessionreduction of sentenceappreciation of evidenceAnti-Narcotics Force
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Special Court (CNS), whereby the appellants were convicted for narcotics offences relating to the recovery of heroin from a bus. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence regarding the recovery of contraband from secret cavities of a vehicle, the absence of public witnesses despite prior information, and the quantum of sentence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the appellants and maintained their convictions based on a correct appreciation of evidence. However, considering that the appellants were not previous convicts or hardened drug traffickers, the court found the sentences to be harsh and accordingly reduced the terms of imprisonment and fines imposed upon them. The key principle laid down is that while convictions based on reliable recovery from secret cavities of a vehicle are sustainable, appellate courts may reduce sentences where the accused have no prior criminal record of drug trafficking.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of contraband from secret cavities of a vehicle is sufficient to establish conscious possession and knowledge of the occupants?
  • Can the absence of public witnesses vitiate a narcotics recovery case where police officials have testified consistently?
  • Whether the appellate court can reduce the quantum of sentence awarded under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 in the absence of previous convictions?
  • Does the contradiction among prosecution witnesses on minor points warrant the outright acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail Khan vs Fazal Muhammad and 2 othersPLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 365 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-03-10
  illegal dispossessionagreement to sellcivil disputecriminal revisionforcible possessionsale consideration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 for the restoration of possession of a residential house, alleging that the respondents had taken forcible possession after failing to pay the remaining sale consideration. The core legal question was whether a civil dispute arising from an agreement to sell, where a major portion of the consideration had been paid and possession handed over, falls within the ambit of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature concerning an outstanding balance under a lawful agreement of sale, and the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act are inapplicable. The court noted that an FIR under Section 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 had already been lodged and was pending. The key principle laid down is that ordinary civil disputes and contractual disagreements over property transactions, particularly where possession was initially transferred under an agreement to sell, do not attract the penal provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute arising from an agreement to sell fall within the ambit of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be invoked for the recovery of an outstanding balance of sale consideration?
  • Are ordinary civil disputes regarding property transactions remediable through the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Ullah Khan vs StatePLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 25 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-01-29
  narcoticspost-arrest baildelay in trialprofessional misconductadjournmentsspeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Shafiullah Khan, who was charged under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 3 kilograms of charas. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial, citing a previous High Court order that had directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within one month, failing which bail would be considered. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail due to the delay in trial proceedings. The Court held that the delay was not attributable to the prosecution but was caused by the petitioner's own counsel, who repeatedly sought adjournments. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing that an accused cannot benefit from delays they or their counsel have orchestrated. The key principle laid down is that where trial delays are caused by the defense rather than the prosecution, such delays cannot serve as valid grounds for the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be granted bail on the ground of trial delay if the delay was caused by their own counsel?
  • Is an advocate duty-bound to assist the court in ensuring speedy justice for their client?
  • Does the repeated seeking of adjournments by defense counsel constitute professional misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raziq Khan and another vs The State and another2009 MLD 1113 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-05-08
  criminal appealcross-versionJaifahmedical evidenceclerical errorabdominal injuryocular testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Sections 324/34 and 337-D/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for firing at and injuring the complainant. The core legal questions involved whether a cross-version of the incident could be considered without documentary proof, whether an abdominal injury qualifies as "Jaifah" under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether clerical errors in medical reports regarding the time of arrival invalidate the prosecution's case. The Court held that the conviction was sound, dismissing the appeal. It ruled that a cross-version remains unsubstantiated if not proven through admissible documentary evidence. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the abdomen constitutes part of the human trunk, thereby satisfying the definition of "Jaifah." Finally, it established that clerical errors in medical records, such as mislabeling AM as PM, do not discredit the prosecution when corroborated by other evidence like the promptly lodged FIR and murasila. The principle laid down is that unchallenged statements in examination-in-chief are deemed admitted, and clerical errors in medical documentation do not automatically create reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an abdominal injury constitute 'Jaifah' under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a cross-version of a criminal incident be considered by the court if not proven by documentary evidence?
  • Does a clerical error in a medical report regarding the time of arrival necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal effect of the defense failing to cross-examine a witness on specific portions of their examination-in-chief?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others vs Saifur Rehman through LRs, and 42009 YLR 1538 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 3 others vs Saifur Rehman and 4 others2009 PLJ Peshawar 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State2009 MLD 1490 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-09-24
  bailnarcoticsconscious possessionprohibitory clausetrial delayControl of Narcotic Substances ActProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail petition concerned an accused charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, read with Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, after narcotics were recovered from a vehicle he was driving. The petitioner sought bail arguing lack of direct evidence and that co-accused were granted bail. The State contended the driver was in conscious possession and the crime attracted a prohibitory clause. The court held that whether the petitioner could be saddled with conscious possession of the recovered substance, given he did not attempt to flee while a co-accused did, was a matter requiring further inquiry. The significant delay in the commencement of the trial, coupled with the doubtful attraction of the prohibitory clause where the maximum sentence for the recovered quantity of charas (5 kg) might not be awarded, also favored granting bail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and bail was granted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a driver be automatically presumed to be in conscious possession of narcotics recovered from a vehicle if they do not attempt to flee?
  • Does a significant delay in the commencement of a trial favor the grant of bail?
  • Is the attraction of a prohibitory clause doubtful in a narcotics case if the quantum of recovered substance suggests the maximum sentence might not be awarded?
  • What factors are considered when assessing conscious possession of contraband recovered from a vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Miskeen and 3 others vs Muhammad Zareen and others2009 YLR 1402 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Miskeen & 3 others vs Muhammad Zareen & others2009 PLJ Peshawar 175 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State and another2009 YLR 195 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-08-22
  post-arrest bailforged currency notesfurther inquirycounterfeit currencystatutory embargo
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition filed by Muhammad Khan seeking post-arrest bail after being charged in a case registered under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly possessing forged currency notes. The core legal question revolved around whether the recovery of counterfeit currency notes that had not yet been passed or used attracts section 489-B or 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the case warrants further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the applicability of the correct penal section constitutes a matter of further inquiry to be determined during trial, and considering that the petitioner is a government employee with no apprehension of absconsion, he is entitled to bail. The court laid down the principle that mere possession of counterfeit currency without proof of passing or using makes the exact penal provision a question of further inquiry, favoring the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of forged currency notes without proof of passing or using them attract Section 489-B or Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the applicability of the correct penal section regarding counterfeit currency constitutes a case of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when there is no apprehension of absconsion and the exact legal categorization of the offense requires further inquiry during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 503 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-08-22
  post-arrest bailforged currencyfurther inquirycounterfeit notescriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Khan, who was charged under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged possession of forged currency notes. The petitioner, a police department employee, sought bail after lower courts rejected his applications, arguing false implication due to internal rivalry and that the mere possession of unused counterfeit notes did not satisfy the requirements of Section 489-B. The core legal question was whether the recovery of unused forged currency notes constitutes an offense under Section 489-B or Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby affecting the petitioner's entitlement to bail. The Court held that because the forged notes were not used or passed on, the applicability of the specific penal provision remained a matter of further inquiry to be determined at trial. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's status as a government servant mitigated any risk of abscondence. The judgment affirms that where the specific application of a penal statute is debatable, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, favoring the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of unused forged currency notes attract the provisions of Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When does a case regarding the possession of counterfeit currency qualify as a matter of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is the status of an accused as a government servant a relevant factor in determining the risk of abscondence during bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Karim and 6 others vs Izzat Jamal and 9 others2009 PLJ Peshawar 54 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jehangir and another vs Govt. of NWFP through Collector2009 PLJ Peshawar 139 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jehangir and another vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Collector District Dera Ismail Khan and 4 others2009 CLC 642 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jan vs Sanobar and 2 othersPLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 363 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jabbar vs Shah Daraz Khan and another2009 P Cr. L J 370 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-12-03
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryplea of alibimurderbenefit of doubtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from a murder case where the petitioner, Muhammad Jabbar, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, citing a verified plea of alibi and the existence of a conflicting version of the incident provided by an independent witness, which had been recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner was directly charged in the FIR, the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case, and the plea of alibi was fabricated. Upon review, the Court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's plea of alibi, having been investigated by the police, and the presence of a conflicting witness statement created sufficient doubt to warrant the concession of bail. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, affirming the principle that any doubt in the prosecution's story must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a conflicting version of an incident by an independent witness entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Can a plea of alibi, previously investigated by the police, be considered by the court when deciding a bail application?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the prosecution's case against them is subject to further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and another vs StatePLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 351 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-06-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtmedical evidencecriminal proceduremurderreasonable grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by two petitioners seeking release in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving charges of murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given significant discrepancies between the prosecution's ocular account and the medical evidence, alongside delays in recording witness statements. The Peshawar High Court accepted the bail application, holding that the petitioners had established a case for further inquiry. The court reasoned that the prosecution's version—specifically the entry wound location and the lack of recovery of incriminating articles—cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of reasonable doubt, concerning the occurrence, the identity of the accused, or their participation, must be extended to the accused at the bail stage. The court reaffirmed that mere suspicion is insufficient to deny bail, and where reasonable grounds for guilt are absent, the accused should not be kept in custody pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the medical report and the prosecution's ocular account constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding an accused's participation be extended at the bail stage?
  • Is the mere suspicion of an accused's involvement sufficient to deny bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faisal Khan vs Mst. Yusra Abid and others2009 YLR 1139 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub and others vs Muhammad Younas and others2009 CLC 487 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and another vs Election Commission of Pakistan2009 CLC 1171 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and another vs The State and another2009 MLD 546 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-09-22
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirycircumstantial evidencemurderbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by two petitioners, Muhammad Arif and Mst. Tehmina Bibi, who are accused in a criminal case involving murder and other offenses. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the absence of direct ocular evidence and the reliance of the prosecution on statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that since there was no direct evidence connecting the petitioners to the crime and a co-accused had already been released on bail, the rule of consistency required that the petitioners be treated equally. Furthermore, the Court determined that the evidentiary value of the statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. remained to be determined at trial, rendering the case one of 'further inquiry'. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioners, establishing the principle that where a case rests on circumstantial evidence and statements of co-accused, and a co-accused has already been granted bail, the principle of consistency supports the grant of bail to remaining accused persons.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused has already been released on bail in a case based on circumstantial evidence?
  • Can a case be considered one of 'further inquiry' when the prosecution relies on statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of direct ocular evidence?
  • Is the statement of a co-accused recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 518 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-09-22
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquirycircumstantial evidencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court upon a bail application filed by the accused/petitioners, Muhammad Arif and another, after the rejection of their bail applications by the lower courts in case FIR No. 124 dated 10/4/2008 under Sections 302, 201, 404, 427, 376, 496-A, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail in the absence of direct ocular evidence, considering the rule of consistency and the evidentiary value of statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at the bail stage. The court held that since there is no direct ocular evidence and a co-accused has already been released on bail, the rule of consistency applies, and a tentative assessment brings the case within the ambit of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that where the connection of an accused to a crime relies on statements requiring further determination at trial and a co-accused has been granted bail, the petitioners are entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused has been released on bail?
  • Does a case fall within the ambit of further inquiry when there is no direct ocular evidence connecting the accused to the offense?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State and another2009 P Cr. L J 1265 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-06-02
  criminal appealqatl-e-amdinterested witnessindependent corroborationbenefit of the doubtabscondenceocular testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a connected criminal revision seeking sentence enhancement. The core legal question centered on the reliability and sufficiency of ocular testimony provided by related and interested eye-witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration. The Peshawar High Court held that where interested witnesses exhibit a tendency to enlarge the number of accused and harbor previous animosity, their testimony requires independent corroboration before forming the basis of a conviction, and alleged abscondence cannot be used as corroboration unless proved strictly in accordance with the law. The court laid down the principle that uncorroborated evidence of interested witnesses, where exaggeration is suspected, warrants the extension of the benefit of the doubt, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of interested eye-witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when exaggeration of the accused is suspected?
  • Does the alleged abscondence of an accused serve as independent corroboration of ocular testimony if it is not formally proved during the trial?
  • When is independent corroboration mandatory for the testimony of partisan or interested eye-witnesses in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Allah Bakhsh etc.2009 C.L.R. 1243 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Allah Bakhsh and 2 others2009 CLC 880 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Hilal vs Noor Sakht Shah and others2009 MLD 258 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-10-22
  habeas corpusminor custodymatrimonial disputeparental jurisdictionsummary proceedingsbest interest of the minor
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the rejection of an earlier habeas corpus application filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the custody of a minor daughter. The core legal question was whether a habeas corpus petition is the appropriate remedy for a mother seeking custody of a minor child from the father amidst a matrimonial dispute. The Court held that proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are summary in nature and intended to address illegal or improper detention, not to resolve complex custody disputes between parents. The Court established the principle that where a custody dispute arises from matrimonial litigation, the appropriate forum is the Guardian Judge or Family Court, which exercises parental jurisdiction to determine the best interest and welfare of the minor based on evidence, rather than the summary jurisdiction of a habeas corpus petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 the appropriate remedy for resolving custody disputes between parents?
  • Does the jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to determining the best interest of a minor in a matrimonial custody dispute?
  • Which courts possess the appropriate jurisdiction to resolve custody disputes between parents regarding minor children?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Umme Kulsoom and 3 others vs State and anotherPLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 361 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salimunnisa and 5 other vs Aziz and another2009 CLC 860 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-02-03
  writ jurisdictionrevisional powersremand ordertenancy disputefinal adjudicationBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a remand order dated 5-9-2006 issued by the Member Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P., in a tenancy dispute between landlords and tenants. The petitioners, who were landlords, sought to set aside the remand order, arguing that the Board of Revenue lacked revisional jurisdiction under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950. The core legal questions were whether the Board of Revenue possesses revisional powers in tenancy matters and whether a writ petition is maintainable against a remand order. The Peshawar High Court held that the Board of Revenue holds clear powers of superintendence, control, and revision over revenue officials and courts under the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, and the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a remand order does not constitute a final adjudication of the dispute, as the matter remains pending for re-decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing the principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked against an interlocutory remand order as it lacks the character of a final order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Board of Revenue possess revisional powers under the N.-W.F.P. Tenancy Act, 1950?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of remand passed by a revisional authority?
  • Does a remand order constitute a final adjudication of a dispute for the purposes of writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salim-UN-Nisa Widow and 5 others vs Aziz and another2009 PLJ Peshawar 132 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rozina Rehman and another vs Babar Khan, Sub-Inspector, Investigation, Haripur and 5 otherss2009 YLR 1362 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rozina Rehman and another vs Babar Khan S.1., Investigation, Staff2009 PLJ Peshawar 137 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Bibi through L.Rs, and others vs Haji Allah Dewaya and 22009 CLC 390 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-12-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nagina Bibi vs Mukhtar Hussain and 2 others2009 MLD 419 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gul Pari vs Haji Maqsood Elahi and 3 others2009 CLC 837 · Peshawar High Court · 2007-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gohar Begum vs Altaf Ahmad and 2 others2009 CLC 369 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gohar Begum (Widow) vs Altaf Ahmad and 2 others2009 PLJ Peshawar 81 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Aisha vs Abdul Latif and 2 others2009 MLD 558 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Aisha (Widow) vs Abdul Latif and 2 others2009 PLJ Peshawar 67 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-10-27Read full judgment →
• Motabar Khan vs Mubarak Jan2009 YLR 1234 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-11-21Read full judgment →
• Momin Khan vs The State---Responde2009 MLD 122 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-08-21
  narcotics controlcharas-garda recoverymaterial contradictionsnon-production of case propertycriminal appealacquittalappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, convicting the appellants under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence regarding the recovery of narcotics (charas-garda), material contradictions in police testimonies, the non-production of the case property (vehicle) before the trial court, and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction under sections 9(c) and 15 of the Act. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies regarding the nature of the recovered substance, material contradictions in witness statements, the failure to produce the vehicle allegedly used in smuggling, and a lack of evidence linking the second appellant to the crime. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting both appellants of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to produce the vehicle used in the alleged transportation of narcotics constitutes a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
  • Does a confession or statement made by a co-accused remain inadmissible against another accused in the absence of direct corroborative evidence?
  • Can a conviction under section 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained without proof of facilitation, inducement, or direct involvement?
  • Whether material contradictions between prosecution witnesses regarding the physical state of the recovered contraband create a reasonable doubt warranting acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Momin Khan and another vs StatePLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 411 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-08-21Read full judgment →
• Miss Maheen Begum vs Senior Member Boarl of Revenue N.W.F.P.2009 PLJ Peshawar 216 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Miss Maheen Begum through her father vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar and 8 others2009 CLC 672 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mir Wal vs The State and another2009 MLD 1180 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-04-28
  dying declarationmurderconvictionmitigating circumstanceeyewitness testimonycriminal appealsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I Bannu convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, while a connected criminal revision petition seeks enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal questions involve the reliability and admissibility of a dying declaration, the corroborative value of a solitary eyewitness, and the impact of unproved motive on sentencing. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through a trustworthy, prompt dying declaration corroborated by an eyewitness and medical evidence, and that unproved motive serves as a mitigating circumstance justifying the retention of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence. The court laid down the principle that a prompt, well-oriented dying declaration free from tutoring, when supported by an eyewitness whose presence is established and by the conduct of the accused as a fugitive, forms a sufficient basis for a murder conviction, and that the unproved motive acts as a mitigating circumstance against the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dying declaration admissible and reliable when the injured person is well-oriented in time and space at the time of making the statement?
  • Whether unproved motive can be treated as a mitigating circumstance to decline the enhancement of a life imprisonment sentence to death?
  • Does the absconsion and flight from judicial custody by an accused constitute strong corroborative evidence of guilt?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of a solitary eyewitness whose presence is established by medical records and a dying declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Sahib Khan vs Zareen Khan and 3 others2009 YLR 1849 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-26
  qatl-e-amddelayed FIRinterested witnesschance witnessmedical evidencetracer ammunitiondeath sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the impact of a delayed FIR, the credibility of related eye-witnesses, and whether medical evidence regarding wound characteristics contradicted the prosecution's version of events. The Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the priority given to transporting the injured victim for medical treatment, a conduct consistent with the Injured Persons (Medical Aid) Act, 2004. The Court affirmed that mere relationship to the deceased does not render a witness "interested" absent proof of personal enmity. Furthermore, the Court ruled that modern sophisticated weaponry, such as Kalashnikovs, can produce blackening and scarring effects even at distances previously considered inconsistent with such wounds, thereby reconciling the medical evidence with the ocular testimony. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the death sentence, and modified the conviction from Section 302(a) to Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, finding the evidence sufficient to establish guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can the presence of blackening and scarring on a wound be reconciled with ocular testimony claiming a longer firing distance when modern weapons are involved?
  • Does the mere relationship between a witness and the deceased render the witness "interested" for the purpose of evidence evaluation?
  • Is the priority of seeking medical treatment for an injured person a valid explanation for a delay in reporting a crime to the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Daraz Khan & others vs Darya KhanPLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 1017 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mian Awdal vs Muhammd Jan Khan and 4 others2009 CLC 40 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-08-12Read full judgment →
• Mian Awdal vs Muhammad Jan Khan and 4 others2009 PLJ Peshawar 4 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-08-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zardad & Co., Government Contractors, Abbottabad through Zardad Khan vs Managing Director, Frontier Highway Authority, Peshawar through Secretary C & W and 2 others2009 YLR 1305 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pak China Fertilizers (Pvt.) Ltd. through General Attorney vs District Coordination Officer, Haripur2009 MLD 807 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim vs StatePLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 431 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-10-13
  quashment of FIRinherent powersabductionfree-consent marriagestifling prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the ground that the parties had contracted a free-consent marriage. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR at the initial stage based on a disputed marriage, bypassing the ordinary course of law. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the inherent powers under Section 561-A should not be used to override express legal provisions or to stifle the prosecution at the initial stage, especially where the identity of the alleged abductee could not be reliably established in court. The court laid down the principle that ordinary criminal proceedings should not be prematurely truncated, and the accused may instead seek remedy before the trial court under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the completion of investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR at the initial stage based on a claim of free-consent marriage?
  • Can criminal proceedings be stifled under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the identity of the alleged abductee is not reliably established before the court?
  • Is it open for an accused to apply for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the completion of investigation if the charge is found groundless?
  Read full judgment →
• Maulana Muhammad Idrees vs Fazal Said Khattak and others2009 CLC 241 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-08-21Read full judgment →
• Matiullah vs Chairman Evacuee Trust Properties, Lahore & 4 others2009 PLJ Peshawar 113 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-01-15Read full judgment →
• Mateen Khan vs StatePLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 356 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-07-01
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealquantum of sentenceofficial witnessesrecovery from vehiclesentencing mitigationControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Mateen Khan, who was found guilty by the Special Court (CNS) for possessing narcotics. The appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of four kilograms of opium and 500 grams of Charas from secret cavities of a vehicle he was driving. The core legal questions involved whether the conviction was sustainable despite the lack of independent witnesses and whether the quantum of sentence was excessive. The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction, affirming that official witnesses are credible absent proof of animosity and that the recovery from the vehicle established the appellant's possession and knowledge. However, the Court exercised judicial discretion to reduce the sentence, noting the absence of evidence indicating the appellant was a habitual offender or drug trafficker. The Court established the principle that while conviction for narcotics possession is sound based on official testimony, the quantum of sentence may be mitigated where the accused has no prior criminal record.

  Questions settled

  • Are official witnesses considered credible in narcotics recovery cases in the absence of independent witnesses?
  • Can the appellate court reduce a sentence for narcotics possession if the accused has no prior criminal record?
  • Does the recovery of narcotics from secret cavities of a vehicle driven by the accused establish possession and knowledge?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor vs The State and another2009 MLD 309 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-11-24
  post-arrest bailhouse trespasscriminal intimidationprohibitory clausesanctity of homehigh-handednessnon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 452, 506, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging house trespass and criminal intimidation. The petitioner contended that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, citing delays in the FIR and lack of recovery. Conversely, the complainant argued that the petitioner was directly charged and that the incident involved serious criminal conduct, potentially falling under Section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court observed that the sanctity of the home was violated and the inmates were assaulted. It held that the concession of bail is not automatic even for offenses outside the prohibitory clause. Where an accused demonstrates high-handedness and violates the decency of a private residence, bail may be refused despite the statutory classification of the offense. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, directing the prosecution to submit the challan within one month and the trial court to conclude proceedings within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail mandatory for offenses that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be denied bail based on the nature and manner of the commission of the offense, even if the offense is not punishable by death or life imprisonment?
  • Does the violation of the sanctity of a private residence constitute a valid ground for refusing bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor vs State and anotherPLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 306 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-11-24
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausehouse trespasscriminal intimidationbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail petition filed by Manzoor seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 461 dated 30.9.2008 registered under Sections 452, 506, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadda D.I. Khan. The core legal question revolves around whether an accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right merely because the charged offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that despite the offence falling outside the prohibitory clause, the gravity of the high-handedness, violation of the sacredness of a house at gunpoint, and corroborating statements of eyewitnesses disentitle the accused to the concession of bail at this stage. The court laid down the principle that bail is not to be granted automatically in every non-bailable case not falling within the prohibitory clause if the accused has shown extreme high-handedness and crossed limits of decency and morality.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right merely because the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does violation of the sanctity of a house at gunpoint constitute sufficient ground to refuse post-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be denied in non-bailable offences where the accused has shown high-handedness despite the punishment not falling under the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Saeed Ahmed vs Mrs. Asama Bibi2009 PLJ Peshawar 169 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-02-23Read full judgment →
• Malik Saeed Ahmad vs Mrs. Asama Bibi2009 YLR 1606 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-02-23Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Afzal Khan vs Mir Hawas Khan and 8 others2009 MLD 535 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-09-15Read full judgment →