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.

• AHSAN ELLAHI Versus SETLEMMENT COMMISSIONER1975 PLD 153 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
• THE STATE Versus SHARBAT1975 PLD 151 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-08Read full judgment →
• ABDUL STTAR Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER (LAND)1975 PLD 144 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHABBIR KHAN Versus ABU DHABI PETROLEUM CO LTD.1975 PLD 138 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-30Read full judgment →
• SIND INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATE LTD. Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE1975 PLD 128 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-20Read full judgment →
• NINDO MACHI Versus THE STATE1975 PLD 120 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-26Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus FAKIR MUHAMMAD1975 PLD 118 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-16Read full judgment →
• HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION Versus SHAHENSHA JEHANGIR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY1975 PLD 113 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-04Read full judgment →
• SAHIB Versus THE STATE1975 PLD 107 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-04Read full judgment →
• FAHIM & CO Versus N. B. P.1975 PLD 1032 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-19Read full judgment →
• HAMIDULLAH Versus THE STATE1975 PLD 103 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-27Read full judgment →
• TAJAMUL HASSAN Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS1975 PLD 1029 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• CHIRAGH DIN Versus MUSHTAQ MOHAMMAD1975 PLD 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-12Read full judgment →
• INDUS DYEING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY WORKERS UNION Versus GOVT. OF THE PROVINCE OF SIND1975 PLD 1017 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-01Read full judgment →
• ZAKARIA A. BAWAN Versus CITY DPUTY COLLECTOR1975 PLD 1008 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-12Read full judgment →
• WASIMUL HAQUE Versus GOVT. OF SIND1975 PLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
• SONY KABUSHIKI KAISHA, JAPAN Versus ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, KARACHI1974 PLD 136 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-09Read full judgment →
• SHAH NAWAZ Versus SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,NAUSHERO FEROZE1974 PLD 124 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• AYOOB Versus THE STATE1974 PLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1973-07-21Read full judgment →
• ZAFAR IQBAL Versus THE PROVINCE OF SIND1973 PLD 316 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-14Read full judgment →
• BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN) LTD Versus SECOND SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI1973 PLD 189 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-10Read full judgment →
• AZIZ SALIMUDDIN HYDER Versus FAROOQ AHMAD1972 PLD 68 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE OF SHAHDADPUR Versus JUMO KHAN AND ANOTHER1972 PLD 507 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MST. ZAIBUN NISA Versus MUHAMMAD MOZAMMIL1972 PLD 410 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• JALIL AHMED AND 3 OTHERS Versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND 2 OTHERS1972 PLD 341 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-31Read full judgment →
• NOOR NABI AGHA Versus THE STATE1972 PLD 292 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-17Read full judgment →
• MUSTAFA HYDER JATOI Versus THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (POLICY), LAHORE1972 PLD 192 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-30Read full judgment →
• 1971 PLD 681971 PLD 68 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-16Read full judgment →
• 1971 PLD 6661971 PLD 666 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• 1971 PLD 1971971 PLD 197 · Sindh High Court · 1970-06-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YUSUF Versus ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI1970 PLD 97 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-25Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN BATTERY MANUFACTURING CO., KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1970 PLD 92 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-26Read full judgment →
• ALI SHER AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE1970 PLD 790 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-23Read full judgment →
• MESSRS BATA SHOE CO. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1970 PLD 784 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• S. ZAHOOR AHMED Versus THE CHARTERED BANK LTD., KARACHI1970 PLD 779 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-16Read full judgment →
• MESSRS NIGAR PICTURES, KARACHI Versus MESSRS UNITED BROTHERS, LAHORE1970 PLD 770 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-23Read full judgment →
• SHAHENSHAH AURENGZEB CO OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION1970 PLD 76 · Sindh High Court · 1969-06-10Read full judgment →
• ABDUL WAHAB KHAN Versus MESSRS PAKISTAN AVIATION LTD., KARACHI1970 PLD 757 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-20Read full judgment →
• SIRAJUL ARFEEN Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE1970 PLD 725 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• ABBAS HUSAIN FAROOQUI Versus MESSRS ROYAL PRINTING PRESS AND ALI PRINTING SERVICE, KARACHI1970 PLD 554 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• HAJI ABDUL RAHIM Versus ABDUL WAHID1970 PLD 537 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-11Read full judgment →
• HABIB Versus HAJI MUHAMMAD1970 PLD 495 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-04Read full judgment →
• STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI0 Versus MESSRS NAQSON1970 PLD 490 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-24Read full judgment →
• STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI Versus MESSRS NAQSON1970 PLD 481 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Secretary, Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Versus Malik QASIM KHAN2025 PLD 227 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-10Read full judgment →
• FAQIR HUSSAIN Versus KHAN SHER2025 PLD 221 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-24Read full judgment →
• GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Interior2025 PLD 212 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• ABDUL WAQEEL Versus State2025 PLD 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-13Read full judgment →
• MADAD KHAN Versus Mst. SAMIYA NISAR2025 PLD 201 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-11Read full judgment →
• Syed MASOOD HUSSAIN SHAH Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB), through Chairman2025 PLD 177 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-03Read full judgment →
• SHANDANA GULZAR KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Interior, Islamabad2025 PLD 163 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →
• SULTAN-UL-ARIFEEN Versus Mst. MUSARRAT SHAHEEN2025 PLD 155 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mian FAZL-E-KAREEM Versus KHAN MUHAMMAD2025 PLD 145 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
• HAFEEZ UR REHMAN Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER through Secretary, Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad2024 PLD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• CHERAT CEMENT CO. LTD., NOWSHERA Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Power Division), Islamabad2023 PLD 46 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• RABNAWAZ Versus Mst. SABU BIBI2023 PLD 19 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• ZIA-UR-REHMAN Versus State2023 PLD 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-04-17
  narcotics possessionbail refusalprohibitory clausesearch and seizuredirectory provisionsarrest without warrantmethamphetamineKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act 2019
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused charged with the possession of 3000 grams of ICE (methamphetamine) recovered from a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the arrest and seizure of narcotics by a police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector, contrary to the requirements of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, vitiates the prosecution case or entitles the accused to bail. The court held that the provisions governing search, seizure, and arrest without warrant under the Act are directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, procedural non-compliance by an officer of a lower rank does not automatically invalidate the trial or the prosecution's case. The court affirmed that the guilt or innocence of an accused is determined by the evidence produced at trial, not the rank of the arresting officer. Given the recovery of a significant quantity of narcotics and the absence of demonstrated mala fides, the court found the accused prima facie connected to the offence, which fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and dismissed the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 regarding search, seizure, and arrest without warrant mandatory or directory?
  • Does the arrest of an accused by a police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector vitiate the prosecution case in narcotics offences?
  • Can an accused be granted bail solely on the ground that the arresting officer was below the rank of Sub-Inspector?
  • Does the non-compliance with procedural requirements for search and seizure under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 render a trial invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• ALI AZIM AFRIDI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2023 PLD 145 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
• ISMAIL Versus Syed ZULFIQAR HUSSAIN SHAH2021 PLD 98 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-11-24Read full judgment →
• RASOOL KHAN Versus FAZAL WADOOD2021 PLD 8 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• SAID ALAM Versus State2021 PLD 198 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-06-29
  post-arrest baildying declarationmurdercriminal liabilitycommensurate injuriesprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Syed Alam, who was charged under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The petitioner sought bail primarily on the grounds that the number of injuries sustained by the deceased did not correspond with the number of accused persons charged, and that no bullet marks were found at the crime scene. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being directly charged in the First Information Report, which was based on the dying declaration of the victim. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage. It reasoned that the victim had attributed specific roles and weapons to the accused, and that the case rested on a dying declaration, which required further evidence to establish the victim's state of consciousness. The Court established that the lack of correspondence between the number of injuries and the number of accused does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in a mechanical manner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the lack of correspondence between the number of injuries and the number of accused persons automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can a court grant bail in a murder case where the accused is directly charged in a dying declaration?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to dissect the merits of a dying declaration during the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• SWAT TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, HARIPUR Versus Mst. NABEELA2021 PLD 146 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-04Read full judgment →
• ISLAM UD DIN Versus Mst. HAJJ BEGUM2020 PLD 79 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• ASLAM KHAN Versus FAWAD AKHTAR2019 PLD 227 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• AJMAL KHAN Versus Mst. FALEK NEGAR BIBI2019 PLD 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• FARID KHAN Versus FAZLA QADIR2019 PLD 171 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD ARIF KHATTAK Versus CHAIRMAN/DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU2018 PLD 207 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-08Read full judgment →
• SULEMAN Versus State2018 PLD 186 · Peshawar High Court · 1917-10-10Read full judgment →
• KHAN ASGHAR Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Defence, Islamabad2017 PLD 31 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. ULFAT BIBI Versus THE STATE2017 PLD 173 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-07
  abductionunlawful marriageretracted confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants, Mst. Ulfat Bibi and Farhad Khan, under sections 365-B, 494, and 496-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged abduction, unlawful marriage, and illicit cohabitation. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of prosecution evidence regarding abduction, proof of a second marriage during a subsisting wedlock, the medical evidence concerning pregnancy, and the voluntariness and corroboration of a retracted judicial confession. The Peshawar High Court held that the essential ingredients of abduction and forced illicit intercourse were missing, the prosecution failed to prove an unlawful marriage or valid Nikah-Nama during the relevant period, and the retracted confession was neither voluntary nor corroborated by independent evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principles laid down include that a retracted confession requires clear, cogent, and independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, and that findings of guilt must rest on firm evidence rather than mere conjectures or probabilities.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on a retracted confession without clear, cogent, and independent corroboration?
  • Whether a finding of guilt against an accused person can be based merely on high probabilities and conjectures rather than firm evidence?
  • What are the essential prerequisites to establish an offence under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding abduction for forced marriage?
  • Does medical evidence of pregnancy alone suffice to prove a charge of unlawful marriage or illicit cohabitation without proof of a marriage contract?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYAZ Versus Malik ZAREEF KHAN2016 PLD 8 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-27Read full judgment →
• Haji AMEERZADA Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT2016 PLD 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. BILQEES BEGUM Versus ARBAB HIDAYAT ULLAH KHAN2016 PLD 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-01Read full judgment →
• STATE FORCE COMMANDER ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE, N.-W.F.P, through DAG Versus Haji IQBAL SHAH2015 PLD 80 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-03-10
  forfeiture of propertymaintainability of appealaggrieved personbinding precedentleave granting orderAnti-Narcotics ForcePrevention of Smuggling Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four criminal appeals filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) challenging the dismissal of information petitions regarding the forfeiture of property under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977. The core legal questions addressed were whether the ANF is a competent 'aggrieved person' to file such appeals under the Act, whether a leave-granting order by the Supreme Court constitutes binding law under Article 189 of the Constitution, and the extent to which the Special Appellate Court is bound by its own precedents. The Court held that the appeals filed by the ANF were not maintainable because the Act requires proceedings to be conducted by Law Officers appointed under the Central Law Officers Ordinance, 1970, and the ANF failed to meet the criteria of an 'aggrieved person'. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a leave-granting order by the Supreme Court does not establish binding law. In a related miscellaneous application, the Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to rectify a wrongful property forfeiture, ordering the release of property belonging to a third party that had been erroneously seized.

  Questions settled

  • Is a leave-granting order passed by the Supreme Court a decision that constitutes binding law under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are appeals filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force under the Prevention of Smuggling Act 1977 maintainable if not conducted by Law Officers appointed under the Central Law Officers Ordinance 1970?
  • Is a Special Appellate Court bound to follow its own earlier decisions and those of a coordinate Bench?
  • Can a Special Appellate Court treat a miscellaneous application as an appeal under section 43 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act 1977 to rectify a wrongful forfeiture?
  Read full judgment →
• IJAZ Versus Mst. MANADIA2015 PLD 223 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-12
  criminal revisioncompromisenon-compoundable offenseblood feudbeneficial interpretationacquittalpeace and tranquility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional District Judge, which refused to acquit the petitioners following a compromise between the parties, despite their conviction under Section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a conviction for a non-compoundable offense could be set aside on the basis of a compromise when the parties had resolved a larger, underlying blood feud. The Peshawar High Court held that while Section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is not strictly compoundable, such provisions should not be interpreted in isolation. The Court emphasized that the law must be applied in the context of the specific circumstances, particularly where a compromise is essential to prevent the resurgence of historical retaliatory violence. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and acquitted the petitioners, establishing the principle that a beneficial interpretation of non-compoundable offenses is permissible when a compromise is necessary to ensure long-term peace and tranquility between warring families.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a non-compoundable offense be set aside based on a compromise between the parties?
  • Should the non-compoundability of an offense be interpreted in isolation or in the context of the specific circumstances of the case?
  • Does the court have the authority to grant acquittal based on a compromise to prevent the resurgence of a blood feud?
  Read full judgment →
• WAQAR AHMAD Versus State2015 PLD 218 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL2014 PLD 35 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-09-19Read full judgment →
• RIAZ MUHAMMAD Versus KHADIM MUHAMMAD2014 PLD 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-08-20Read full judgment →
• ABDUL BARI Versus DIRECTOR, LIVESTOCK, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, FATA2014 PLD 132 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-04-07
  FATA jurisdictionArticle 247(7)constitutional petitioncivil servantFrontier Crimes Regulationfundamental rightswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition and connected matters addressed the extent of the Peshawar High Court's jurisdiction over the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in view of the ouster clause in Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court could entertain petitions regarding service matters of FATA employees, illegal detentions, and contractual disputes arising in FATA. The Court held that the constitutional bar under Article 247(7) is not absolute. It does not apply where the cause of action arises outside the Tribal Area, where the arrest occurs in the settled area without compliance with Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or where the dispute involves civil servants whose terms are governed by the Civil Servants Act 1973. The Court affirmed that while it cannot strike down constitutional provisions, it has the authority to advise the legislature to amend Article 247(7) to ensure fundamental rights are enforceable for FATA residents. The judgment established that FATA employees are civil servants entitled to seek redress through appropriate legal forums.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 exclude the High Court's jurisdiction over service matters of employees working in FATA?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction in cases of illegal detention where a person is removed from a settled area to a tribal area without complying with Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court ousted under Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when the cause of action arises outside the Tribal Area?
  Read full judgment →
• HAZRAT ALI SHAH Versus State2014 PLD 122 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-07
  blasphemycognizance of offencesanction for prosecutionunsound mindcoram non judicecapital punishmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for using blasphemous remarks. A murder reference was also sent by the trial court for confirmation of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the mandatory requirement of sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for taking cognizance of certain offences, and the trial court's failure to follow procedures regarding an accused of unsound mind under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that taking cognizance without the mandatory authorization under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the entire trial coram non judice and a nullity, an illegality not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge through credible and consistent evidence, and the trial court erred in ignoring the appellant's plea of unsound mind without adopting the procedure prescribed under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to obtain sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render a trial null and void?
  • Is the omission to observe Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the procedure required to be followed by a Sessions Court when an accused appears to be of unsound mind during trial?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained on contradictory and incredible prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus MUMTAZ2013 PLD 5 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-08-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. SONIYA SHARIF Versus BASHIR KUNDI2013 PLD 139 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-16Read full judgment →
• Khalifa ABDUL QAYUM Versus State2013 PLD 129 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-10
  corrupt practicenomination paperseducational qualificationDeeni SanadHigher Education Commissionelection eligibilityfalse declarationcriminal conviction
  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 his submission of invalid religious educational certificates (Deeni Sanads) with his nomination papers for a Provincial Assembly seat. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s submission of degrees from institutions not recognized by the Higher Education Commission constituted a false declaration and corrupt practice. The Court held that the appellant knowingly submitted certificates from unauthorized institutions, failing to meet the statutory requirement of possessing a recognized Bachelor’s degree or equivalent. Consequently, the conviction was upheld as the appellant made a false declaration regarding his qualifications. However, the Court reduced the sentence from three years to one year, noting that the Returning Officer failed to exercise due diligence during the scrutiny of nomination papers. The judgment reaffirms the principle that educational qualifications for electoral eligibility must be formally recognized by the Higher Education Commission, and ignorance of the law provides no defense against charges of corrupt practice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of educational certificates from institutions not recognized by the Higher Education Commission constitute a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act 1976?
  • Can a candidate claim ignorance of the law as a defense for submitting invalid educational credentials in nomination papers?
  • Is a Returning Officer's failure to properly scrutinize nomination papers a valid ground for reducing a sentence in a conviction for corrupt practices?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAIRI GUL Versus UMAR ZAD KHAN2013 PLD 127 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-02-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. HUSSAN JAMALA Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PUKHTUNKHWA through Secretary, Home and Tribal Affairs2013 PLD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-09-12Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KHALIQ Versus Mst. FOZIA BIBI2012 PLD 97 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-01-18Read full judgment →
• ABDULLAH JAN Versus ZABARDAST KHAN2012 PLD 63 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-10-07Read full judgment →
• Syed MUSARRAT SHAH Versus Syed AHMED SHAH alias LAL BACHA2012 PLD 151 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-02-28Read full judgment →
• Sh. ABDUL JABBAR Versus GHIASUDDIN2012 PLD 147 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-01-30Read full judgment →
• Maj. (Retd,) ABDUL AKBAR Versus Mst. MARYAM KHUSHBOO2011 PLD 78 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-10-07Read full judgment →
• FAZLUR RAHMAN Versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ2011 PLD 7 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. NISHAT alias SHATO Versus MUSLIM KHAN alias MUSALI2011 PLD 23 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-06-28Read full judgment →
• Haji AURANGZEB KHAN Versus HABIB KHAN2010 PLD 80 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-05-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KARIM Versus ZULJALAL2010 PLD 73 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-04-23Read full judgment →
• AKHTAR ALI Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR2010 PLD 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-03-15Read full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus MUKAMEEN SHAH2010 PLD 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2010-02-10Read full judgment →
• GUL AMIR KHAN Versus ZAHID ULLAH KHAN2009 PLD 88 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-13Read full judgment →
• GHAZI MARJAN Versus ALAM GUL2009 PLD 83 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mir DARAZ KHAN Versus DARYA KHAN2009 PLD 81 · Peshawar High Court · 2009-03-02
  Illegal Dispossession Actunlawful occupieracquittalcriminal revisionpossession of propertytenancy dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed an application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case initiated under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The respondent had filed a complaint alleging that the petitioners, who were initially permitted to reside in his house in exchange for domestic services, became unlawful occupiers upon refusing to perform those services. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' refusal to perform agreed services rendered them liable for prosecution under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The Court held that the petitioners were lawfully inducted into the property, and their subsequent refusal to perform services did not constitute illegal dispossession or grabbing of property under Section 3 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 applies to cases of unlawful entry and dispossession, not to disputes arising from contractual or permissive occupation. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal to perform agreed services by a permissive occupant constitute illegal dispossession under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
  • Can a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be maintained against a person who was initially inducted into the property lawfully?
  • Is an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 appropriate when the facts alleged in a complaint do not constitute an offense under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian BAHADUR JAN Versus State2009 PLD 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-11-14
  Illegal Dispossession Actright of appealrevisional jurisdictionstatutory interpretationSessions CourtCode of Criminal Procedureremedial rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of criminal appeals and revisions arising from proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether Section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, accommodates the right of appeal and revision for aggrieved parties, given the Act's silence on the matter. The Court held that such rights are indeed maintainable. The ratio is that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, does not create a new 'Special Court' but instead vests powers in existing Sessions Courts established under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the general procedural rules of the Code apply to these proceedings. The Court established the principle that the term 'proceedings' is comprehensive and includes the right of appeal and revision. Furthermore, because the Act does not expressly bar these remedies, and because the legislature intended to provide a remedial framework, a narrow interpretation excluding appellate rights would be unreasonable. Thus, aggrieved parties may exercise their rights of appeal and revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, against orders passed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, grant a right of appeal and revision to an aggrieved party?
  • Are the proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the term 'proceedings' in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, encompass the right of appeal and revision?
  • Can a court exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by a Sessions Court under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →