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.
- YASIR ARAFAT Versus State2012 MLD 611 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for rash and negligent driving under sections 279 and 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a fatal road accident. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish rashness or negligence. Upon review, the Peshawar High Court observed that while the accident resulted in a fatality, the prosecution failed to provide evidence of rash or negligent conduct. The Court held that high speed alone does not constitute rashness or negligence, as the prosecution must demonstrate that the speed was excessive relative to the specific traffic conditions or that traffic rules were violated. Furthermore, the absence of eye-witnesses and the failure to fix the vehicle's speed rendered the prosecution's case insufficient. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the burden of proof regarding negligent driving rests squarely on the prosecution, which was not discharged in this instance.
Questions settled- Does the mere occurrence of a fatal road accident establish the offence of rash and negligent driving?
- Is high speed alone sufficient to constitute rash and negligent driving under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What must the prosecution prove to establish a charge of rash and negligent driving in the absence of eye-witnesses?
- Syed MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH Versus Syeda KALSOOM HASSAN2012 MLD 23 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-07-04Read full judgment →
- MIRAJ-UD-DIN Versus MUHAMMAD SHOAIB2012 MLD 1371 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-03-13Read full judgment →
- SALIH MUHAMMAD Versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD2012 MLD 1043 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, challenging an order by the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, which confiscated a truck used in the commission of a narcotics offense to the State. The core legal question was whether the appellant, claiming to be the bona fide owner of the vehicle, was entitled to its release despite failing to appear before the trial court or provide authentic ownership documentation. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to establish a legitimate claim of ownership. The judgment emphasized that the appellant was not a party before the trial court and failed to apply for the vehicle's release during the initial proceedings. Furthermore, the Court ruled that it could not adjudicate the authenticity of ownership documents, such as a photocopy of an affidavit on a stamp paper, for the first time in appellate proceedings. The key principle laid down is that a claimant seeking the release of a confiscated vehicle must demonstrate genuine ownership through solid, convincing material before the trial court, rather than raising such claims for the first time on appeal.
Questions settled- Can a claimant for a confiscated vehicle raise ownership claims for the first time in an appeal if they failed to appear before the trial court?
- Is a photocopy of an affidavit on stamp paper sufficient evidence to establish ownership of a vehicle confiscated under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Does the failure to issue notice to an alleged owner invalidate a confiscation order if the trial court followed procedure regarding the registered owner?
- Mst. BANORI Versus JAILANI2011 MLD 974 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-22Read full judgment →
- JAN MUHAMMAD Versus Mst. HUSSAN ZEILAT2011 MLD 762 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-03Read full judgment →
- AMEER ZAMAN Versus HABIBULLAH KHAN2011 MLD 582 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-11-05Read full judgment →
- ASFANDYAR KHAN Versus GHAZANFAR ALI2011 MLD 466 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-20Read full judgment →
- SALIM KHAN Versus UMARA KHAN2011 MLD 216 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-16Read full judgment →
- Haji INAYAT KHAN Versus BAKHT MUNIR JAN2011 MLD 169 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-09-29Read full judgment →
- AZAD KHAN Versus Haji MUHAMMAD USMAN2011 MLD 1570 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-06-08Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE ISLAMABAD Versus Qari FALAKSHER2011 MLD 1489 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-05-17Read full judgment →
- RAB NAWAZ KHAN Versus KHAN BAHADAR2011 MLD 1112 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-03-21Read full judgment →
- SAMIULLAH Versus State2011 MLD 1029 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns post-arrest bail petitions filed by two bank employees, a Manager (Operations) and a Cashier, accused of fraud, forgery, and misappropriation of funds from a customer's account. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in light of the evidence, including handwriting expert reports, passport records confirming the complainant was abroad during the unauthorized withdrawal, and the petitioners' failure to follow banking protocols regarding cheque book issuance and payment verification. The court held that the petitioners were reasonably connected to the commission of the offence, which involved moral turpitude and a breach of trust. The court rejected the argument that handwriting expert opinion is insufficient evidence in this context, distinguishing it from the cited case law where such evidence was considered weak due to procedural deficiencies. The court affirmed that bail is not a matter of course when the accused is charged with serious offences involving moral turpitude and clear violations of professional duty, leading to the dismissal of the bail petitions.
Questions settled- Is the opinion of a handwriting expert sufficient evidence to connect an accused to a charge of forgery in a bail application?
- Does the rule that bail is the norm for offences carrying less than ten years' imprisonment apply to offences involving moral turpitude?
- Can bail be granted to bank employees accused of facilitating unauthorized withdrawals through forged signatures?
- Mst. SHAHEEN BIBI Versus Mst. KHAISTA JANA2010 MLD 393 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-10-05Read full judgment →
- HAROON RASHID Versus EHSAN-UL-HAQ alias IHSANULLAH2010 MLD 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-09-14Read full judgment →
- KHADIM Versus SHERAN2010 MLD 1764 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-14Read full judgment →
- KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus Mst. BAKHSHI BIBI2010 MLD 1351 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. FATIMA Versus ABDUL QADIR alias SUHBAT2010 MLD 1029 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BILAL Versus State2009 MLD 335 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arises out of a bail application filed by the accused-petitioner Muhammad Bilal, who was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 260 dated 11-5-2008 registered under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after four kilograms of Charas was allegedly recovered from his possession. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail considering his status as a student, lack of previous criminal record, and the non-association of public witnesses at a crowded public venue of recovery. The Peshawar High Court accepted the petition and held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that he was a student with no prior criminal involvement, that no public witnesses were associated despite the occurrence taking place at an over-crowded public place, and that the investigation was complete with the petitioner no longer required for further investigation. The key principle laid down is that while non-association of public witnesses may not strictly vitiate recovery proceedings, public witnesses ought to be associated when a recovery is conducted at a public and over-crowded venue.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when four kilograms of Charas is recovered from his possession?
- Does the failure to associate public witnesses in a recovery from an over-crowded public place affect the case for bail?
- Can the status of an accused as a student with no previous criminal record be considered a ground for granting bail in narcotics cases?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State2008 MLD 1704 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two accused individuals charged under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Gul Rehman and attempted murder of the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, specifically regarding the medical evidence, the delayed recording of witness statements, and the lack of recovery of incriminating items. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's case suffered from significant infirmities, including discrepancies between the medical report and the prosecution's narrative of the victim's injuries, and the absence of independent witnesses despite the occurrence taking place in daylight. The Court reaffirmed the principle that if there are reasonable grounds to doubt the prosecution's version or the accused's participation, the benefit of such doubt should be extended to the accused at the bail stage, and that the accused should not be kept in jail if their guilt warrants further inquiry.
Questions settled- Does the benefit of reasonable doubt apply to an accused at the bail stage?
- Should an accused be granted bail when the prosecution's case warrants further inquiry?
- Does a discrepancy between medical evidence and the prosecution's narrative of the occurrence constitute grounds for bail?
- INAM ULLAH KHAN Versus State2008 MLD 1565 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu, which convicted the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 500 grams of Charas recovered from a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's conscious possession of the contraband beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the search procedure and the recovery process. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, specifically regarding whether passengers were deboarded during the search and who drafted the initial report (Murasila). The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and inconsistencies, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, necessitating an acquittal.
Questions settled- Does a material contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery procedure entitle an accused to an acquittal?
- Is the prosecution required to prove conscious possession of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt in cases of recovery from a public transport vehicle?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses provide conflicting accounts of the search and seizure process?
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus State2006 MLD 1023 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for the murder of a woman through firearm injuries. The core legal questions revolved around whether the appellant successfully established a plea of self-defence and whether the sentence warranted mitigation. The Peshawar High Court held that an accused raising a plea of self-defence bears the burden under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to prove and substantiate the existence of general or special exceptions, and that retreating into a house and repeatedly firing upon unarmed individuals precludes a valid claim of private defence. The court laid down the principle that mere bald statements under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and minor injuries are insufficient to discharge the evidentiary onus of self-defence without supporting evidence, affirming the conviction and dismissing both the appeal and the revision petition.
Questions settled- Does an accused raising a plea of self-defence bear the legal and evidential burden to substantiate the plea under Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Can a bald statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 alone discharge the onus of proving a right of private defence?
- Whether firing repeatedly with a shotgun from a closed room after retreating from an initial altercation constitutes a valid exercise of the right of self-defence?
- Can a site-plan be used as substantive evidence to contradict or outweigh direct ocular testimony?
- MUHAMMAD QAYUM Versus ABDUL BASEER2005 MLD 690 · Peshawar High Court · 2005-02-16Read full judgment →
- State Versus UBAIDULLAH2005 MLD 1883 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- SALAT KHAN Versus ZIBAN SHAH2005 MLD 1242 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition filed by the complainant for the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the accused-respondent No. 1 by the lower court in a case registered under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail and whether sufficient grounds existed for the cancellation of bail already granted. The Peshawar High Court held that the bail-granting order was neither perverse, arbitrary, nor fanciful, noting that the injury was not on a vital part, the accused did not repeat fire indicating lack of intent to kill under section 324, and the explanation regarding absconsion was plausible. The court laid down the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with a bail-granting order of a lower court unless it is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, and that mere absconsion is not sole ground for cancellation when reasonably explained.
Questions settled- Whether bail once granted can be cancelled when the lower court's order is neither perverse nor arbitrary?
- Does the failure to repeat fire negate the intention to commit murder under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the purpose of bail?
- Can the absconsion of an accused be satisfactorily explained by producing a passport showing foreign travel for livelihood?
- GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. Versus ZIAULLAH2005 MLD 1228 · Peshawar High Court · 2005-05-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD TARIQ Versus THE STATE2004 MLD 608 · Peshawar High Court · 2004-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption convicting the appellant, a reader to the Special Traffic Magistrate, under sections 419 and 204 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for alleged embezzlement of public money collected as traffic fines. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved that the appellant had received the fine amounts and misappropriated them, and whether the charge of concealing the fine register was established. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish any nexus between the appellant and the alleged receipt of funds, as no documents, signatures, or handwriting belonging to the appellant regarding the collection of fines were brought on record, and evidence showed the fine register was indeed available to the audit party. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appeal was allowed, laying down the principle that an audit report alone, without foundational proof of receipt of money by the accused, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for embezzlement.
Questions settled- Can an accused be convicted of embezzlement of fine amounts solely on the basis of an audit report without proof that he personally received the money?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to link the accused through any handwriting or signature to the documents reflecting the receipt of funds?
- Whether the absence of an official from duty during audit proceedings, by itself, constitutes sufficient proof of misappropriation of public money?
- TAJ MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE2004 MLD 357 · Peshawar High Court · 2003-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court by the petitioner, an Afghan refugee, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with several other armed accomplices, entered the complainant's house at night, confined the residents, and looted cash, gold, and other valuables. The petitioner argued that no recovery was made from him and challenged the evidentiary value of the identification parade. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was correctly identified during a jail identification parade by multiple witnesses who fully implicated him. The Court ruled that under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail in non-bailable offences falling within the prohibitory clause is not granted as a matter of course, and the prima facie connection of the petitioner to a serious gang-related dacoity precluded the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted as a matter of course in cases falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a petitioner be denied bail solely on the basis of a successful identification parade despite the absence of physical recovery from his possession?
- What is the standard of judicial assessment required under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before releasing an accused on bail in a non-bailable offence?
- BAKHT BAIDAR Versus NAIK MUHAMMAD2004 MLD 341 · Peshawar High Court · 2003-09-29Read full judgment →
- TARIQ Versus State2004 MLD 1967 · Peshawar High Court · 2004-07-21Read full judgment →
- NADIR KHAN Versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD2003 MLD 870 · Peshawar High Court · 2003-02-28Read full judgment →
- SABIR KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD ALI2003 MLD 1454 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- AJMAL KHAN Versus THE STATE2003 MLD 1419 · Peshawar High Court · 2003-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner seeking post-arrest bail after his bail applications were dismissed by the two lower courts in F.I.R. No. 427 dated 13-12-2001 registered under section 20 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Lakki. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on grounds of delayed F.I.R., lack of nomination in the F.I.R., absence of an identification parade, and reliance on a co-accused's confessional statement. The Peshawar High Court held that since the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., no identification parade was held, no recovery was made from him, and the co-accused's confession was weak evidence requiring further inquiry, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The petition was consequently accepted and bail was granted to the petitioner upon furnishing appropriate surety bonds.
Questions settled- Whether an accused not named in the FIR is entitled to bail when no identification parade has been conducted?
- Does a confessional statement of a co-accused against the petitioner constitute sufficient ground to deny bail?
- Whether abnormal delay in lodging the FIR makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail?
- SHER ZAMAN Versus THE STATE2003 MLD 1398 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, Sher Zaman, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the refusal of bail by two lower courts. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail based on contentions regarding the timing of the occurrence, discrepancies in the weapon used (Kalashnikov versus shotgun), and the alleged over-implication of accused persons. The Court rejected the bail application, holding that the arguments raised by the petitioner required a deep appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. The Court emphasized that the accused was directly charged in the First Information Report, and the prosecution's case was corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of blood-stained earth from the crime scene, and the accused's absconsion for over four months. The key principle laid down is that at the bail stage, the court should not engage in a deep appreciation of evidence, and direct implication in the First Information Report supported by corroborative evidence is sufficient to deny bail.
Questions settled- Can a court undertake a deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
- Is the direct charging of an accused in the First Information Report, supported by medical evidence and absconsion, sufficient grounds to refuse bail?
- BAHADUR SAID Versus DISTRICT JUDGE/ZILA QAZI TAIMERGARA2003 MLD 1388 · Peshawar High Court · 2003-05-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHUAIB Versus SHARIF KHAN2003 MLD 1300 · Peshawar High Court · 2003-02-21Read full judgment →
- AKRAM KHAN Versus THE STATE2002 MLD 997 · Peshawar High Court · 2001-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court under the Arms Ordinance for the alleged possession of unlicensed weapons. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's conscious possession and ownership of the recovered arms and ammunition, given the contradictions in police testimony and the absence of the appellant at the scene. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted significant discrepancies in the testimonies of the material witnesses regarding the presence of inmates and the ownership of the premises. Furthermore, the court highlighted the prosecution's failure to establish the appellant's ownership of the house or to have the recovered weapons examined by an arms expert to confirm their functionality. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to prove the nexus between the accused and the recovered contraband, or fails to establish ownership of the premises, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.
Questions settled- Does the failure to send recovered weapons to an arms expert for examination undermine the prosecution's case?
- Is the prosecution required to prove ownership or possession of the premises where illicit items are recovered?
- Should the benefit of the doubt be given to the accused when material prosecution witnesses provide contradictory statements?
- NAJEEBULLAH KHAN Versus THE STATE2002 MLD 872 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for causing firearm injuries to the complainant. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Sections 324, 337-D, and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the material improvements and contradictions in the complainant's testimony compared to the First Information Report (F.I.R.), and the failure to produce the cited eye-witness. The High Court held that the complainant's testimony was unreliable due to significant improvements regarding the motive and circumstances of the occurrence, and the unexplained failure to produce the eye-witness mentioned in the F.I.R. Furthermore, the court noted that the trial court convicted the appellant under sections for which no specific charge was framed. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that when the veracity of a solitary injured witness is doubtful, and the prosecution fails to produce cited witnesses or explain material departures from the F.I.R., the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction can be sustained when the sole injured witness makes material improvements to their version of events compared to the F.I.R.?
- Is the prosecution required to produce an eye-witness mentioned in the F.I.R. if they intend to depart from the initial version of the incident?
- Can an accused be convicted under specific sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if no formal charge was framed for those specific offenses?
- MST. SHAHI LAL Versus MALIK SAAD, S.S.P., PESHAWAR2002 MLD 280 · Peshawar High Court · 2001-11-01Read full judgment →
- MEHAR JAN Versus GUL AZAM2001 MLD 412 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
- ZAKIRULLAH Versus SULEMAN SHAH2001 MLD 316 · Peshawar High Court · 2000-09-20Read full judgment →
- AMIR KHAN Versus STATE2000 MLD 766 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Amir Khan, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for committing the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased Shabana by throwing acid on her, resulting in her death, and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involved the assessment of conflicting versions of the occurrence—specifically whether the death was caused by an acid attack by the accused due to a refused marriage proposal, or by suicide through burning with kerosene oil as advanced by the defence—and the evidentiary value of eye-witness testimony, medical evidence, retracted judicial confession, and recovery of the acid bottle. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eye-witness accounts, corroborative circumstantial evidence, recovery of the acid bottle at the appellant's pointation, and a voluntary retracted confessional statement corroborated in material particulars, while rejecting the defence's inconsistent suicide theory and disputed parentage plea. The court upheld the conviction and death sentence, dismissing the appeal and confirming the murder reference.
Questions settled- Whether medical evidence can override direct ocular testimony and other circumstantial evidence when minor discrepancies exist regarding the substance used in causing fatal burns?
- Does a delay of five to six days in police custody prior to recording a judicial confession automatically render the confession involuntary or the result of duress?
- Can a retracted judicial confession be acted upon when it is sufficiently corroborated in material particulars by oral and circumstantial evidence?
- Is a defence plea of suicide sustainable when contradicted by physical inspection of the body, chemical examiner reports, and inconsistent testimony of defence witnesses?
- MUHAMMAD NAEEM Versus STATE1999 MLD 130 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-23Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ALI KHAN Versus MUKAMIL SHAH1999 MLD 1137 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-09-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus STATE1998 MLD 94 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-16Read full judgment →
- KOTKAI Versus STATE1998 MLD 890 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-01-19Read full judgment →
- ZAINUL HASSAN MIAN Versus KHUWAND NAKA1998 MLD 1857 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-12Read full judgment →
- BAHADUR HILAL Versus MUKAMAL KHAN1998 MLD 1209 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →
- SADDIQA SHAHEEN Versus STATE1997 MLD 993 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIR Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1997 MLD 978 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-04Read full judgment →
- BAKHTIAR KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1997 MLD 3211 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-11Read full judgment →
- AKBAR ZAMAN Versus STATE1997 MLD 2280 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD PARWAIZ Versus STATE1997 MLD 2276 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-08-30Read full judgment →
- FIDA MUHAMMAD Versus STATE1997 MLD 2275 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
- ADIL POLYPROPYLENE PRODUCTS LIMITED Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1997 MLD 2189 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus HAYAT KHAN1997 MLD 2182 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-12-17Read full judgment →
- FARID GUL Versus GUL MAST1997 MLD 2180 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-10Read full judgment →
- NASEER-UD-DIN QURESHI Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1997 MLD 2171 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
- AKMAL Versus THE STATE1997 MLD 1152 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus STATE1995 MLD 1532 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-09Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ BIBI Versus GHULAM AKBAR1995 MLD 1175 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
- ASLAM Versus STATE1994 MLD 590 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
- BISMILLAH JAN Versus NAQEEB KHAN1994 MLD 2492 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-26Read full judgment →
- SALAHUDDIN Versus BIBI ZUBAIDA1994 MLD 2464 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-20Read full judgment →
- SHER ALI KHAN Versus ZARNAUSH1994 MLD 2458 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-18Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS Versus ABID HUSSAIN SHAH1994 MLD 2345 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-13Read full judgment →
- KHALIDA BIBI Versus DARYAI KHUNAM1994 MLD 2339 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
- KAMAL SHAH Versus SHER BAZ KHAN1994 MLD 2334 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
- NIAMATULLAH KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BANNU1994 MLD 2332 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
- AMAN ULLAH KHAN Versus PROVINCE OF N.-W.F.P.1994 MLD 2329 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
- AKBAR NAWAZ KHAN Versus SHER DIL KHAN1994 MLD 2325 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-24Read full judgment →
- AMEERAN BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAFF1994 MLD 2319 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR Versus THE STATE1992 MLD 991 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-27Read full judgment →
- GHULAM KHAN Versus MST. NAZAR JANA1992 MLD 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
- MIR BAZ KHAN Versus THE STATE1992 MLD 543 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH KHAN ALIAS ABDUR REHMAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS Versus SHER GHULAM1992 MLD 278 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-09Read full judgment →
- SAHIB NOOR Versus FEROZ KHAN1992 MLD 2563 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL GRAFFAR Versus NOOR RERMAN1992 MLD 2557 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BILAL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1992 MLD 2548 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-21Read full judgment →
- KALA KHAN Versus AYUB KHAN1992 MLD 2536 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- AMIR JAN Versus GUL NAWAZ1992 MLD 2531 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
- WISAL KHAN Versus THE. STATE1992 MLD 2368 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
- MAROOF KHAN Versus DAMSAZ KHAN1992 MLD 21 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-18Read full judgment →
- QAZI BASEER-UD-DIN Versus MIR ZAMAN ALIAS MIRZA1992 MLD 2050 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
- SAID JAMAL Versus ASSISTANT POLITICAL AGENT (F.R.), KOHAT1992 MLD 2043 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
- AWAL BADSHAH Versus SATTAR GUL1992 MLD 2039 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-12-11Read full judgment →
- HAJI FAZLE REHMAN Versus HAJI GUL NABI1992 MLD 2036 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-17Read full judgment →
- FARMAN SHAH Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR, GOMAL UNIVERSITY, D. I. KHAN1992 MLD 2029 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-24Read full judgment →
- PROJECT DIRECTOR, GADOON AMAZAI AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SWABI, MARDAN Versus LITAF GUL1992 MLD 2026 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DAUD Versus MST. CHAMAN ARA1992 MLD 2023 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus NASRULLAH1992 MLD 2018 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-20Read full judgment →
- CHAMNAI Versus THE STATE1992 MLD 2016 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-06Read full judgment →
- MST. ILAMAND Versus DAWOOD KHAN1992 MLD 1935 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- SYED SAJJAD ALI SHAH Versus WASIM GUL1992 MLD 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
- FAZAL MAHMOOD Versus TAJAR KHAN1992 MLD 1439 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-26Read full judgment →
- SYED QARNAIN HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD HALEEM1992 MLD 14 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAUF KHAN Versus MIR SAHIB KHAN1992 MLD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
- ZAR WALI Versus HAQ NAWAZ1988 MLD 814 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAMID Versus SHARIF HUSSAIN1988 MLD 1787 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →