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. 232594 judgments in total.
- SALEEM KHATOON Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/AUTHORISED OFFICER1984 MLD 1000 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
- IBRAR MUZAFFAR Versus State2019 MLD 184 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision petition arises from an order of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Jhelum Valley, which granted bail to petitioner No.2 subject to the condition that her surety must be a real maternal or paternal uncle, while dismissing the bail application of petitioner No.1. The core legal questions involve the validity of imposing restrictive conditions regarding the choice of surety for female accused persons and the entitlement of petitioner No.1 to post-arrest bail in a case falling within the prohibitory clause. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir partly accepted the revision petition, holding that an accused person has a legal and constitutional right to furnish a surety of their own choice, and courts cannot compel a sui-juris female accused to produce a specific individual or relative (Mehram) as surety. However, the petition regarding petitioner No.1 was dismissed as prima facie reasonable grounds connected him to the alleged heinous offence, and his case fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that the liberty of an accused cannot be curtailed by imposing subjective moral conditions or restricting sureties to particular relatives, and an accused is entitled to furnish solvent sureties of their own choice.
Questions settled- Does a court have the authority to compel an accused person to furnish a surety from a particular person or relative?
- Whether a female accused released on bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be subjected to restrictive conditions regarding her surety?
- Does an accused person have a right to furnish surety of their own choice?
- Whether bail can be refused to an accused whose case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when prima facie connection to the offence exists?
- SHAZIA NOREEN Versus SAJID MEHMOOD2017 MLD 1914 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-03-25Read full judgment →
- Syed SHOUKAT GILLANI Versus Mst. ANSAR GILLANI2017 MLD 1677 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2016-02-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ KHAN Versus SHAKEELA ZAFEER2016 MLD 618 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2015-09-10Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALTAF Versus Mst. RASHADA BIBI2012 MLD 1034 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2012-03-14Read full judgment →
- NAZAKAT PARVEEN Versus IKHLAQ AHMAD2001 MLD 1169 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2001-04-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL Versus STATE1998 MLD 1344 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
- JAMIL SADIQ Versus STATE1998 MLD 1332 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-12-03Read full judgment →
- GUT NAZ ALAM Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ JOO1997 MLD 2173 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAJEEB Versus STATE1994 MLD 1804 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-05-12Read full judgment →
- NASEER AHMAD Versus THE STATE1988 MLD 950 · Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore · 1988-05-01Read full judgment →
- THE STATE Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI1988 MLD 1792 · Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
- THE STATE Versus SIKANDAR HAYAT1988 MLD 1699 · Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
- State Versus Wali Ullah alias Qismat Ullah2025 MLD 438 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondent-accused of charges under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a double murder case. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, flawed police investigation, and the strict parameters governing appeals against acquittal. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in witness statements, unexplained and inordinate delay in reporting the crime, lack of corroborative physical evidence such as bullet marks or recovered empties, and poor investigation. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, which an appellate court will not disturb unless the trial court's findings are perverse, arbitrary, or the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence.
Questions settled- What are the limitations and principles governing the appellate court's power to interfere with an order of acquittal?
- Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the first information report undermine the credibility of the prosecution case?
- Can an appellate court overturn an acquittal based merely on a different possible view of the evidence upon reappraisal?
- What is the effect of material contradictions between the testimony of the complainant and other eyewitnesses in a murder trial?
- Sher Muhammad Versus State2025 MLD 227 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the appellant for the murder of his wife and two daughters under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with convictions for attempt to murder and causing hurt. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the injured eye-witness testimony and the presence of mitigating circumstances warranting a reduction of sentence from death to life imprisonment. The Peshawar High Court held that the solitary testimony of the injured daughter was natural, trustworthy, and firmly established the guilt of the appellant. However, finding that the murders occurred suddenly at the spur of the moment during a domestic altercation without pre-meditation, the Court held that mitigating circumstances existed. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction but modified the sentence, commuting the death sentence on three counts to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the remaining sentences and answering the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether the solitary testimony of an injured eye-witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder without corroboration?
- Does the absence of pre-meditation and the occurrence of a crime at the spur of the moment constitute a mitigating circumstance for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- What is the evidentiary effect of the prosecution withholding a material witness under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Does a delay in sending crime empties and the alleged weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory diminish the evidentiary value of the recovery?
- Mukhtiar Ahmad Versus State2025 MLD 1922 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant, a police officer, under Section 32 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, for vexatious entry and search. The trial court had convicted the appellant summarily following a show-cause notice issued during the acquittal of another accused, without conducting a formal trial. The core legal question was whether a trial court can convict an authorized officer under Section 32 of the Act without following the standard procedure of registration of an FIR, investigation, and trial. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable as it bypassed due process. The Court ruled that offenses under Section 32 are cognizable and non-bailable, necessitating the registration of an FIR and a full trial in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The principle laid down is that while Section 55 of the Act provides indemnity for actions taken in good faith, it does not grant absolute immunity; thus, any prosecution for vexatious acts must proceed through the established legal framework of investigation and trial, rather than summary proceedings.
Questions settled- Is an offense under Section 32 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, cognizable and non-bailable?
- Can a trial court convict an officer for vexatious entry under Section 32 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, without conducting a formal trial?
- Does the indemnity clause under Section 55 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, provide absolute immunity to police officers from prosecution?
- What is the correct procedure for prosecuting an authorized officer for vexatious entry, search, or seizure under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019?
- Inayat-Ur-Rahman Versus District Collector/Land Acquisition Collector NoWshera, Government of KPK2025 MLD 1848 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-14Read full judgment →
- Obaid Ullah Versus Mst. Gul Meena2025 MLD 1773 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-II/Model Criminal Trial Court, Charsadda, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his minor daughter and sentenced to death, along with convictions under section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 15-AA of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions involved the appraisal of circumstantial evidence, the voluntariness and truthfulness of a judicial confessional statement, and the corroborative value of weapon recoveries under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 in an unwitnessed crime. The Peshawar High Court held that the unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, coupled with a voluntary confessional statement and matching medical evidence, conclusively established the guilt of the appellant. The court laid down that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable where the chain of events is complete without any missing links pointing irresistibly toward the accused, and upheld the death sentence given the brutality of the premeditated crime.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of custody and events is complete and unbroken?
- Whether a judicial confessional statement made by an accused can form the basis of a capital conviction when corroborated by recoveries and medical evidence?
- Does the recovery of a weapon of offence on the pointation of an accused corroborate the prosecution case under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
- Is a father convicted of the premeditated murder of his minor child entitled to leniency in sentencing?
- Jehan Sher Versus State2025 MLD 1744 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-24Read full judgment →
- Hussain Zada Versus Fazal Maula2025 MLD 1694 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-01Read full judgment →
- Saddam Versus State2025 MLD 1644 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a sole related eye-witness, the proof of the appellant's spot arrest, the evidentiary value of a disputed weapon recovery and delayed forensic transmission, and the establishment of motive. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the complainant at the scene, that the arrest and recovery of the crime pistol were shrouded in material contradictions and delays, and that the prosecution case collapsed due to lack of trustworthy evidence and an unproven motive. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of a related sole eye-witness can be relied upon without corroboration when their presence at the crime scene is doubtful?
- Does a contradiction between the eye-witness and the investigating officer regarding the spot arrest of an accused render the arrest and subsequent weapon recovery doubtful?
- What is the evidentiary effect of a delay in transmitting a crime weapon and empties to the forensic science laboratory without a plausible explanation for safe custody?
- Can an unproven motive lead to the acquittal of an accused when the ocular account itself is found untrustworthy?
- Hayat Khan Versus Kifayat2025 MLD 1394 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
- Rafi ullah Versus Liaqat2025 MLD 1368 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-01-24Read full judgment →
- Pakhtunkhwa Highway Authority through Managing Director Peshawar Versus Arshad Sher Ali2025 MLD 1357 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-01-27Read full judgment →
- Asar Khan Versus Nazeer through PW/Nephew2025 MLD 1254 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected revision challenge the conviction of the appellants for murder and attempted murder, arising from a dispute over fallen trees. The core legal questions concerned whether the incident occurred as alleged, the reliability of the deceased’s dying declaration, and the credibility of the eye-witnesses. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal and revision, upholding the trial court’s conviction. The court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt through a consistent ocular account, which was corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of spent cartridges, and the dying declaration. The court affirmed that a dying declaration, while requiring careful scrutiny, is reliable when corroborated by other evidence. Furthermore, the court established that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not undermine the prosecution's case, as such variations are natural. It was also held that in cases involving close relatives, the substitution of innocent persons is a rare phenomenon. Consequently, the court found the impugned judgment well-reasoned, noting that the prosecution's evidence formed an organic whole, justifying the conviction and sentencing.
Questions settled- Does the non-mentioning of FIR details in an inquest report necessarily imply that a preliminary investigation was conducted?
- Can a dying declaration be considered reliable if it is consistent with ocular and medical evidence?
- Does the failure to produce an available eye-witness automatically trigger an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Is the substitution of innocent persons a common occurrence in cases involving close relatives?
- Mst. Shahira Bibi Versus State2025 MLD 1052 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- ZESHAN AZIZ Versus HIZBULLAH2024 MLD 153 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from a shooting incident resulting in a homicide. The core legal questions involve the assessment of ocular and medical evidence, the credibility of injured and related witnesses, the implications of withholding material witnesses, and the standards for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, improvements in witness statements, unproven motive, and the absence of corroborative evidence. The court reaffirmed that the golden rule of criminal jurisprudence is that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused as a matter of right, and an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the impugned judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or unreasonable.
Questions settled- Whether an acquittal judgment can be interfered with in the absence of compelling and substantial reasons?
- Does the presence of injuries on the person of an eyewitness automatically guarantee the truthfulness of their testimony?
- What is the legal effect of withholding a material witness under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Can medical evidence alone establish the identity of the accused in a criminal trial?
- HARIS Versus State2023 MLD 924 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, for the possession of Charas and 'Ice.' The core legal question was whether the substance identified as 'Amphetamine' in the forensic report falls under the punitive regime of Section 9 or Section 11 of the Act. The Court held that the Act distinguishes between 'Amphetamine' and 'Methamphetamine' (Ice). While Section 11 specifically governs Methamphetamine, other psychotropic substances, including Amphetamine, fall under the ambit of Section 9. Consequently, the Court found the trial court erred in applying Section 11 to the appellant’s possession of Amphetamine. The conviction was converted to Section 9(b), and the sentence was modified accordingly. The principle laid down is that the specific legislative distinction between Amphetamine and Methamphetamine in the 2019 Act, as clarified by the 2020 Amendment, necessitates distinct sentencing regimes, with Amphetamine falling under the general psychotropic substance provisions of Section 9 rather than the specialized Methamphetamine provisions of Section 11.
Questions settled- Does 'Amphetamine' fall under the ambit of Section 9 or Section 11 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019?
- Is 'Methamphetamine' legally distinct from 'Amphetamine' for the purposes of sentencing under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019?
- Can a conviction under Section 11 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 be converted to Section 9 if the substance recovered is Amphetamine rather than Methamphetamine?
- ROZI KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA2023 MLD 891 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
- BILAL AHMAD Versus State2023 MLD 855 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge Malakand at Batkhela, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the essential ingredients of cheating, forgery, and possession of counterfeit seals or plates were established against the appellant, who was an admitted employee of the Police Department carrying genuine service cards and a police number plate. The Peshawar High Court held that since the appellant was a bona fide police employee, his service cards were verified as genuine, and a police number plate on his motorcar did not constitute a counterfeit plate or forgery under the penal provisions, the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court laid down the principle that the essential ingredients of cheating and forgery must be strictly proven, and that even a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether affixing a police number plate on a motorcar by a police employee constitutes an offence under section 473 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the possession of genuine service cards by a police employee attract penal liability for forgery under section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to extend the benefit of the doubt to an accused in a criminal trial?
- LAL ZAMAN Versus FARHAD ALI2023 MLD 1920 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-14Read full judgment →
- NOOR DIN Versus KANAY2023 MLD 1825 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus HASANULLAH2023 MLD 1541 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN2023 MLD 1502 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-17Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RAHIM Versus State2023 MLD 1384 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. JAMEELA KHURSHEED Versus MUHAMMAD SADDIQ2023 MLD 1317 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-09Read full judgment →
- FEROZ KHAN SHUJA Versus PAKISTAN MEDICAL COMMISSION through President, Islamabad2023 MLD 1285 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-13Read full judgment →
- RIFFAT ULLAH Versus Mst. HADIA MUSTAFA2023 MLD 1237 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
- CHIEF OFFICER MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE KHALABAT TOWNSHIP, HARIPUR Versus Malik ABDUL RAHEEM2023 MLD 1145 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment by the Consumer Court, Haripur, which directed the Municipal Committee to relocate a waste dumping site, citing potential environmental hazards and nuisance. The core legal question was whether the Consumer Court possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate a complaint regarding environmental pollution and public nuisance caused by a municipal body, or if such matters fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Tribunal. The Peshawar High Court held that the Consumer Court lacked jurisdiction because the complainants had not purchased goods or hired services from the appellants, which are prerequisites under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997. The Court determined that the grievance regarding environmental hazards and dumping sites falls squarely within the purview of the tribunal established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act, 2014. Consequently, the impugned order was declared coram non judice and set aside. The principle laid down is that consumer courts cannot entertain complaints involving environmental nuisance where no consumer-service provider relationship exists, as such matters are exclusively triable by the specialized environmental tribunal.
Questions settled- Does a Consumer Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints regarding environmental nuisance caused by a municipal dumping site?
- Is a complaint regarding environmental hazards maintainable under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997, in the absence of a consumer-service provider relationship?
- Does the Environmental Protection Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving environmental contraventions under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act, 2014?
- SHER BAHADAR Versus State2023 MLD 1128 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus FAZAL KHALIQ2023 MLD 1108 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
- ZAHID KHAN Versus State2023 MLD 1079 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Peshawar, convicting the appellant under sections 387, 419, 506 Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 25-D Telegraph Act 1885, and section 7(h) Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence regarding alleged extortion (Bhatta) threat calls, ownership of the SIM card, and unexplained delay in reporting the matter. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a direct nexus between the appellant and the alleged offense, noting material contradictions, a lack of voice or call data corroboration, and an unexplained eight-day delay in lodging the FIR. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the established principle that even a slight doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether uncorroborated single-call data records are sufficient to prove charges of extortion and threat calls?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR for threat calls create doubt in the prosecution case?
- Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies?
- Mst. HALEEMA Versus State2023 MLD 1009 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and connected revision arise from the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants, Mst. Haleema and Mst. Ayesha, under sections 336-B, 336, and 337-L read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an acid attack on the complainant. The core legal questions involved whether a conviction can be sustained on the solitary testimony of an injured eye-witness, and whether the procedural mechanism outlined in section 174-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for reporting burn injuries is mandatory or directory, the non-compliance of which vitiates the first information report under section 154. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal and the revision, holding that a single, consistent, and credible testimony of an injured eye-witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroboration, and that the provisions of section 174-A CrPC are directory rather than mandatory, serving as a concurrent and supplemental mechanism to section 154 CrPC. The court laid down that procedural directions not carrying explicit nullification consequences for non-compliance are directory and do not invalidate proceedings conducted under alternative statutory mechanisms.
Questions settled- Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single injured eye-witness if found credible?
- Whether the procedural requirements stipulated under section 174-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding burn injury reports are mandatory or directory in nature?
- Does the failure to follow the reporting mechanism in section 174-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate an FIR lodged under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- NISAR AHMAD Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR2022 MLD 85 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-11Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SHAFIQ Versus State2022 MLD 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sister-in-law. The prosecution relied primarily on a confessional statement recorded before a Naib Tehsildar on August 29, 2018, and circumstantial evidence of the appellant being apprehended by locals. The core legal question was whether a confession recorded before a Naib Tehsildar after the repeal of the FATA Interim Governance Regulation 2018 and the Frontier Crimes Regulation by the 25th Constitutional Amendment was admissible. The Peshawar High Court held that upon the promulgation of the 25th Constitutional Amendment on May 31, 2018, all laws of the land, including the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, became applicable to the erstwhile FATA. Consequently, a Naib Tehsildar lacked the legal capacity of a Magistrate to record confessions. Excluding the inadmissible confession, the Court found no direct ocular evidence of the occurrence. Applying the principle that any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether a confessional statement recorded before a Naib Tehsildar after the repeal of the FATA Interim Governance Regulation 2018 is admissible in evidence?
- Does Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 protect proceedings conducted by political authorities under the FCR or FIGR after their repeal?
- Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on subsequent circumstantial evidence of arrest in the absence of reliable ocular evidence?
- ZIA ULLAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA2022 MLD 1705 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZARIN Versus AMIR DIL KHAN2022 MLD 1439 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KARIM Versus State2022 MLD 1097 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and under section 15 of the Arms Act. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the sole eye-witness (complainant), the reliability of the recovery of the weapon, and the consistency between ocular and medical evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the complainant at the crime scene, the arrest and weapon recovery were highly doubtful due to contradictions and lack of safe custody, and material witnesses were withheld. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant on the benefit of the doubt. The key legal principles established are that tainted evidence cannot corroborate another piece of tainted evidence, and the withholding of best available evidence warrants an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984.
Questions settled- Whether the uncorroborated testimony of a complainant whose presence at the crime scene is doubtful can form the basis of a murder conviction?
- Does the delayed dispatch of a recovered weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory without proof of safe custody render the recovery inconsequential?
- What is the legal effect of withholding the best available evidence, such as an injured or direct witness, during a criminal trial?
- Can one tainted piece of evidence legally corroborate another tainted piece of evidence under criminal jurisprudence?
- NIZAM UD DIN Versus State2021 MLD 691 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under sections 324 and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the trial court following a firearm assault that caused grievous injuries to the victim. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the eyewitnesses and whether a gunshot wound passing through the chest cavity constitutes 'Jaifah' under section 337-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 even if no major vital organ is permanently damaged. The Peshawar High Court held that the direct ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of crime weapons, firmly established the guilt of the appellant. Furthermore, the court held that under section 337-C, an injury extending into the body cavity of the trunk qualifies as Jaifah regardless of whether a vital internal organ suffered structural damage. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the conviction and the arsh awarded under section 337-D.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an injured witness can be discarded solely on the basis of minor contradictions?
- Does an injury extending to the body cavity of the trunk constitute Jaifah under section 337-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 even if no vital organ is damaged?
- Can the statement of an interested witness be relied upon without corroboration when satisfied that no innocent person has been implicated?
- Are police officials competent witnesses for establishing recoveries in a criminal trial?
- ATLAS KHAN Versus State2021 MLD 1857 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the accused Atlas Khan seeking release in case FIR No. 249 dated 08.03.2021 registered under Section 11(B) of the KP Control of Narcotic Substances Act at Police Station Urmar, District Peshawar, following the recovery of 520 grams of Amphetamine (Ice). The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail for the recovery of 520 grams of Ice, given its nature and the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that Amphetamine is a highly lethal and expensive contraband causing devastating effects on the younger generation, and the recovered quantity of 520 grams, supported by an affirmative FSL report, is huge and connects the accused prima facie to the offence. The court laid down the principle that the small bulk of Amphetamine compared to traditional narcotics does not dilute the gravity of the offence, and recovery of a substantial quantity of Ice falls within the prohibitory clause, disentitling the accused to bail.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when charged with the possession of 520 grams of Amphetamine (Ice)?
- Does the recovery of Amphetamine fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- How does the quantity of Amphetamine impact the consideration for grant of bail compared to traditional narcotics?
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD Versus FAYAZ2021 MLD 1410 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-22Read full judgment →
- SAID ALI Versus NOOR ALI2021 MLD 1023 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASOOL KHAN Versus JAFAR KHAN2020 MLD 727 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
- ISLAM GUL Versus Mst. NALEEM2020 MLD 554 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. ANWARI BIBI Versus HIDAYAT ULLAH KHAN2020 MLD 302 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →
- ZAMIN Versus State2020 MLD 1215 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition filed by the petitioner Zamin seeking post-arrest bail after being implicated in case FIR No. 347 dated 28.9.2019 registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, at Police Station Mandani, Charsadda, following the alleged recovery of 4000 grams of chars and 50 grams of ice. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the joint habitation of the house, lack of public witnesses, and the registration of multiple similar FIRs on the same day wherein co-accused had already been granted bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the case called for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner, noting that the house was combined, public complaints were absent, and co-accused in parallel FIRs were granted bail. The court laid down the principle that benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused at the bail stage, and completed investigations coupled with unrequired further incarceration favor the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when narcotics are recovered from a house alleged to be jointly occupied?
- Can the registration of multiple similar FIRs on the same day against an accused affect the case to warrant further inquiry for bail?
- Is benefit of doubt extended to an accused at the bail stage when investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for interrogation?
- KARIM UL HASAN Versus State2020 MLD 1159 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging an order passed by a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which directed the Investigating Officer to substitute the name of an accused in an FIR. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should interfere with police investigation processes or resolve disputed factual controversies regarding the identity of an accused. The Court held that it could not resolve such factual controversies, as these are matters for the trial court to determine after recording evidence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it lacks the authority to interfere in ongoing police investigations unless there is clear evidence of mala fide, lack of jurisdiction, or abuse of process, none of which were established in this case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, leaving the determination of the accused's identity to the trial court during the trial process. The principle laid down is that the High Court will not exercise writ jurisdiction to resolve disputed facts or intrude into the sphere of police investigation.
Questions settled- Can the High Court resolve disputed factual controversies regarding the identity of an accused in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with an ongoing police investigation in the absence of proven mala fide or lack of jurisdiction?
- Is a Justice of Peace's order directing the substitution of an accused's name in an FIR subject to interference by the High Court during the pendency of the investigation?
- MUHABAT KHAN Versus State2019 MLD 996 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had upheld the forfeiture of surety bonds and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 60,000 each upon the petitioners. The petitioners had stood surety for an accused who subsequently failed to appear in court and became a fugitive in a separate murder case. The core legal question was whether the penalty imposed for the forfeiture of the surety bonds was excessive given the circumstances. The Court held that while the petitioners were liable for the forfeiture, the imposition of the full penalty was harsh, noting that the petitioners acted out of benevolence rather than for monetary gain and that the accused's status as a fugitive made his production by the sureties practically impossible. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the penalty to Rs. 40,000 each. The key principle established is that when determining the quantum of penalty for bond forfeiture, courts must consider the sureties' lack of ulterior motive, their financial position, and the practical impossibility of producing an accused who is a fugitive from justice.
Questions settled- Is an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 appealable?
- Should a court consider the financial position and lack of ulterior motive of a surety when determining the penalty for bond forfeiture?
- Can a court reduce the penalty amount imposed upon a surety for the failure of an accused to appear in court?
- BAKHTIAR Versus State2019 MLD 477 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 496-A and 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of illicit relations and elopement. The core legal questions concerned the procedural requirements for taking cognizance of the offence of fornication under Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the sufficiency of evidence for the offence of enticing a woman under Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were not met, rendering the proceedings regarding Section 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 invalid. Furthermore, the Court found the ingredients for Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were not established and that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, bail was granted. The Court also censured the Investigating Officer for unprofessional conduct in stigmatizing minor children.
Questions settled- Does the failure to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 203-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate proceedings for the offence of fornication?
- Does the offence of enticing a woman under Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an Investigating Officer include unverified findings regarding the legitimacy of children in the police file?
- What are the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of enticing or taking away a woman under Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- SHER ZADA Versus SHAUKAT ALI2019 MLD 2029 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
- MIRA JAN Versus Mir ABBAS2019 MLD 1526 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two connected criminal appeals filed against the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a murder and mischief case arising out of FIR No.582 registered under Sections 302/427/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony, the corroborative value of motive and abscondence, and the strict standard of review applicable in appeals against acquittal. The Peshawar High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, holding that the testimony of the alleged eyewitness suffered from glaring infirmities, material contradictions, and physical impossibilities regarding the trajectory of the fatal shot, thereby rendering his presence at the scene doubtful. The court reaffirmed that a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused, that abscondence and motive cannot cure inherent defects in weak prosecution evidence, and that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal unless there is gross misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal in the absence of gross misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice?
- Can the abscondence of an accused person serve as a substitute for substantive evidence to prove guilt?
- Does the presence of a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- How does the physical improbability of an eyewitness account affect the reliability of ocular testimony in a capital charge?
- MIR WAIZ Versus State2018 MLD 954 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine for the recovery of 20,700 grams of opium. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotic substance beyond reasonable doubt, given arguments concerning the absence of a site plan, reliance on police witnesses, and delayed chemical analysis. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution established its case through consistent ocular testimony, a positive FSL report, and the recovery of a massive quantity of narcotics from the appellant's personal possession, which could not reasonably be deemed planted. The court affirmed that the site plan is merely corroborative, police witnesses are competent witnesses in the absence of proven animosity, and section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is excluded by virtue of section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Consequently, the conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the non-preparation of a site plan dilutes the evidentiary value of the prosecution case in narcotics recovery matters?
- Does the exclusion under section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 dispense with the requirement of associating private witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely on the ground that no independent private witnesses were joined during the recovery?
- What is the legal effect of a delay in sending samples for chemical analysis when there is no evidence of tampering?
- SHER REHMAN Versus State2018 MLD 221 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
- Syed SAADAT HUSSAIN SHAH Versus MADIHA BATOOL2018 MLD 2075 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-03Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABBASS Versus Mst. SAWAIRA2018 MLD 1811 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-08Read full judgment →
- MASOOD KHAN Versus State2018 MLD 1672 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-19Read full judgment →
- FAIZULLAH Versus BAKHTULLAH JAN2018 MLD 1365 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-18Read full judgment →
- SHAMROZ KHAN Versus State2018 MLD 12 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-11Read full judgment →
- SHOAIB Versus State2018 MLD 1088 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-28Read full judgment →
- SHALIAR Versus SAID RAZIQ2017 MLD 490 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-19Read full judgment →
- Malik BILAL AHMAD KHAN Versus CHAIRMAN, GANDHARA UNIVERSITY, PESHAWAR2017 MLD 435 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-04Read full judgment →
- RAIS KHAN Versus State2017 MLD 414 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-01-29Read full judgment →
- Haji KHIZAN KHAN Versus ABDUL QAYUM2017 MLD 333 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-25Read full judgment →
- AZHAR SULTAN alias TIPU KHAN Versus YOUSAF KHAN2017 MLD 1922 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-21Read full judgment →
- MATIULLAH Versus Mst. SADDIQA2017 MLD 1871 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-16Read full judgment →
- TARIQ MEHMOOD Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD2017 MLD 1488 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-14Read full judgment →
- SIFAT ULLAH Versus State2017 MLD 1376 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. SOOCHA Versus Mst. KHAZUNA BIBI2017 MLD 1180 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-13Read full judgment →
- IJAZ KHAN Versus State2016 MLD 702 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-08-08Read full judgment →
- WADOOD SHAH Versus WAPDA2016 MLD 270 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-24Read full judgment →
- SOHRAB KHAN Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD2016 MLD 2023 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASHAD Versus BAKHTIAR2016 MLD 1719 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-04Read full judgment →
- AURANGZEB Versus State2016 MLD 1700 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-23Read full judgment →
- SHAH ALAM KHAN Versus MALIK ZAMAN2016 MLD 1633 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-03Read full judgment →
- FEROZ KHAN Versus Mst. MALIK ZARO2016 MLD 1546 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-08-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN Versus State2015 MLD 690 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, convicted of Qatl-i-Amd under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the trial court, challenged his conviction through a jail criminal appeal before the Peshawar High Court. The prosecution case relied on a dying declaration, ocular testimony, medical evidence, a retracted judicial confession, and abscondence. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability of the dying declaration and eyewitness testimony, and whether the appellant's retracted confessional statement, when accepted as a whole along with surrounding circumstances, established a case of self-defence. The Peshawar High Court held that the dying declaration and eyewitness testimony were unreliable due to material contradictions, lack of a medical fitness certificate, and unexplained delay in recording statements. Evaluating the retracted confession as a whole alongside the evidence of a property dispute and an aggressive opposing party, the court held that the appellant acted under a reasonable apprehension of danger, bringing his case under the right of self-defence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration be relied upon without a medical certificate establishing the fitness of the deceased at the time of making the statement?
- Whether a retracted judicial confession can be made the sole basis for conviction if accepted as a whole?
- Does a delay in recording the statement of an eyewitness by the police without plausible explanation prove fatal to the prosecution case?
- Can abscondence alone form the basis for a conviction when the ocular and circumstantial evidence is not confidence-inspiring?
- Mst. NASEEM SAJJAD Versus Mst. ANWAR SULTAN2015 MLD 681 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-07-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. AQSA SABIR Versus Dr. SAJJAD HUSSAIN2015 MLD 652 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-07-22Read full judgment →
- HAMAYUN KHAN Versus Haji MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN2015 MLD 1508 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-07-24Read full judgment →
- RAZA KHAN Versus Mst. BAKHT MEENA2015 MLD 1481 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-15Read full judgment →
- SAADULLAH KHAN Versus SABIR KHAN2015 MLD 1228 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-03-21Read full judgment →
- FAZAL FAQIR Versus SAID HAROON KHAN2015 MLD 1122 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-04-01Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM alias MUHAMMAD IKRAM Versus State2014 MLD 127 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This post-arrest bail application was filed by two co-accused charged under Sections 302, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an unseen night-time murder. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was killed in the house of a lady co-accused who remained at large. The petitioners argued that they were nominated without specific roles, no motive was stated, and incriminating recoveries were delayed by sixteen days, making the case one of further inquiry. The complainant opposed bail, emphasizing prompt FIR registration, recovery of a weapon, and the commencement of trial. The Peshawar High Court held that direct evidence was lacking, delayed recovery created doubt, and tentative assessment pointed toward further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Clarifying that commencement of trial is a matter of propriety that cannot override a statutory right to bail when further inquiry is made out, the High Court granted post-arrest bail subject to heavy surety bonds.
Questions settled- Does the commencement of a criminal trial bar the court from granting bail when a case for further inquiry is made out under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
- Whether delayed recovery of crime empties sixteen days after the occurrence warrants the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted in a capital offence where the occurrence is unseen, no specific role is assigned to the accused, and no motive is disclosed in the FIR?
- Haji ABDUL HAMID KHAN Versus AMANULLAH JAN KHATTAK2014 MLD 113 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-08-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FARHAN RAHIM Versus State2013 MLD 1879 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed upon the appellant for murder. The core legal question concerns whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on an uncorroborated dying declaration, particularly when the declaration contains significant inconsistencies and the prosecution failed to have it recorded by a Magistrate despite the victim surviving for two days. The Court held that while a dying declaration is admissible, it is inherently dangerous to rely upon without strong, independent corroboration, especially since the accused is deprived of the right to cross-examine the declarant. The Court found the prosecution's case riddled with infirmities, including unexplained circumstances surrounding the attack, contradictions regarding the location of the incident, and the implausibility of the victim failing to resist. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of independent corroborative evidence, a dying declaration suffering from material infirmities cannot form the sole basis for a capital conviction, as the safe administration of justice demands evidence free from reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be based solely on a dying declaration without independent corroboration?
- Does the failure to have a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate affect its evidentiary value?
- Is a conviction sustainable when there are material contradictions between the dying declaration and other prosecution evidence?
- BATAKIM KALASH Versus ZUHRA BIBI2013 MLD 1842 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-25Read full judgment →
- Khalifa ABDUL QAYUM Versus State2013 MLD 1750 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction for corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1976, and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, arising from the submission of invalid educational certificates (Deeni Sanads) with his nomination papers for a Provincial Assembly seat. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s submission of non-recognized religious degrees, which lacked equivalence to a bachelor’s degree as mandated by law, constituted a false declaration and corrupt practice. The High Court held that the appellant knowingly submitted certificates from institutions not recognized by the Higher Education Commission, thereby failing to meet the statutory educational qualifications. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction, affirming that ignorance of the law is no excuse and that degrees must be recognized to hold validity. However, observing that the Returning Officer failed to adequately scrutinize the nomination papers, which could have prevented the offense, the court exercised leniency in sentencing, reducing the term of imprisonment while maintaining the fines. The judgment reinforces the principle that candidates must strictly adhere to statutory educational requirements and that non-recognized degrees are legally worthless for election eligibility.
Questions settled- Does the submission of educational certificates from non-recognized religious institutions with nomination papers constitute a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Can a candidate rely on the defense of ignorance of law regarding the recognition status of their educational degrees?
- Does the failure of a Returning Officer to properly scrutinize nomination papers provide grounds for reducing a sentence in a criminal conviction for corrupt practices?
- Are religious degrees (Deeni Sanads) valid for election eligibility purposes if they are not recognized by the Higher Education Commission?
- Mst. SAKINA BIBI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2013 MLD 1724 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-18Read full judgment →
- MEHMOOD KHAN Versus GULZAD KHAN2013 MLD 1666 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-03-25Read full judgment →