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.

• MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNUS2009 PLD 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-12-15Read full judgment →
• NAWAB KHAN Versus UMAR ALI KHAN2009 PLD 61 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-09-25Read full judgment →
• DIN MUHAMMAD Versus ABDUR RASHID2009 PLD 59 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-10-24Read full judgment →
• SADEED-UR-REHMAN Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD2009 PLD 54 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-03-14Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN Versus S.D.O./A.M.O., PESCO, SUB-DIVISION TIMERGARA, DISTRICT DIR LOWER2009 PLD 50 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-02-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KARIM Versus IZZAT JAMAL2009 PLD 48 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-03-19Read full judgment →
• ABDUL GHANI alias FAZAL GHANI Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF2009 PLD 44 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-10-28
  test identification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionpre-arrest bailidentification evidencemedical evidence contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court for murder. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the identification of the appellant, who was not named in the initial First Information Report, and was only identified through a belated test identification parade. The Court observed that the appellant had remained on pre-arrest bail for a period during which he was accessible to the complainant, creating a strong possibility that he was shown to the witness prior to the parade. Furthermore, the Court noted that the delay in holding the identification parade was unexplained, and the complainant's testimony regarding the firing incident contradicted the medical evidence, which showed only a single firearm injury despite allegations of multiple shots. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the assailant beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the testimony of a disinterested witness must still ring true and align with medical evidence to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in holding a test identification parade, coupled with the accused's prior accessibility to the complainant, render the identification unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account of the number of shots fired is contradicted by medical evidence of a single injury?
  • Is the testimony of a disinterested witness sufficient for conviction if it is not intrinsically credible or supported by objective evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• YOUSAF GUL Versus State2009 PLD 39 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-10-14
  narcotics recoverysampling of narcoticsdestruction of case propertystatutory presumptionreduction of sentenceControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three criminal appeals arising from a single judgment of the trial court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, wherein the appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the recovery of 406 Kgs of charas and 1 Kg of opium from a motorcar. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and legality of the sampling process, the proof of destruction of case property under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the omission to confront the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the charas samples. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the entirety of the recovered bulk as narcotics because separate samples were not drawn from every single packet, and the Magistrate who supervised the destruction was not examined as a witness. The court partially allowed the appeals, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence to six years' rigorous imprisonment under the first part of section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act based on the proved quantity of narcotics. The key principle laid down is that where large quantities of narcotics are packed in multiple individual packets, separate samples must be drawn from each packet to prove the character of the entire bulk, and failure to properly prove the destruction certificates or examine the supervising Magistrate diminishes the evidentiary value regarding the bulk quantity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to draw samples from each individual packet of a recovered bulk narcotic affects the proof of the total quantity alleged?
  • Is the examination of the Magistrate who supervised the destruction of case property necessary to prove the validity of destruction certificates?
  • Does an omission to confront an accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding specific chemical samples prejudice the prosecution's case as to the bulk quantity?
  • Can a conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act be altered to a lesser term when the prosecution proves only a fraction of the total recovered narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• SALEH SHAH Versus SUPERINTENDENT JAIL, CENTRAL JAIL HARIPUR2009 PLD 33 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-10-27Read full judgment →
• HAYATULLAH Versus LAL BADSHAH2009 PLD 28 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-09-26
  post-arrest bailreasonable groundstentative assessmentheinous crimejudicial discretioncriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition concerns a bail application filed by an accused charged with murder under sections 302, 34, 148, 149, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail when the prosecution's case rested solely on a belated statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, lacking corroborative evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the accused was guilty. The court emphasized that the heinous nature of an offense or a direct charge in an FIR does not automatically justify the refusal of bail. It laid down the principle that trial courts must conduct a tentative assessment of all materials on record rather than adopting a mechanical approach. Furthermore, the court clarified that 'reasonable grounds for believing' constitutes a high threshold, and bail, when warranted by the statutory criteria, is a legal right of the accused rather than a discretionary favor.

  Questions settled

  • Does the heinous nature of an alleged crime justify the refusal of bail when evidence is lacking?
  • Is a direct charge in an FIR sufficient to deny bail without a tentative assessment of the investigative material?
  • Does the phrase 'reasonable grounds for believing' under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require more than mere suspicion?
  • Is the grant of bail a matter of right for an accused when statutory conditions are satisfied?
  Read full judgment →
• JEHANZEB KHAN Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD through Secretary2009 PLD 26 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-03-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZIM Versus State2009 PLD 24 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-10-13
  quashment of FIRinherent powers of High Courtfree will marriageabductionsection 561-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of First Information Report No. 50 registered under section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Havelian, District Abbottabad. The core legal question is whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR at the initial stage based on the claim of a free-will marriage between the petitioner and the alleged abductee. The court held that the inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to override express provisions of law or to defeat the ordinary course of law and stifle prosecution at the initial investigation stage, particularly when the identity of the alleged abductee is unverified. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings at the initial stage should not be prematurely quashed when an adequate remedy is available before the trial court under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon completion of investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR at the initial investigation stage based on a free-will marriage?
  • Whether ordinary criminal proceedings should be stifled at the initial stage when the identity of the alleged abductee is unverified?
  • Is a petition for quashment maintainable under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an alternative remedy is available before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• ALIF GUL Versus NOOR AFZAL2009 PLD 20 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-07-11
  murderretracted confessionjudicial confessionabscondencecriminal appealacquittalpolice custodycorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of appellants Alif Gul and Mst. Kalsoom for the murder of Muhammad Afzal, sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Charsadda. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the appellants, specifically relying on a retracted judicial confession by Mst. Kalsoom and the alleged abscondence of Alif Gul, in the absence of direct evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the confession of Mst. Kalsoom was involuntary, having been made after prolonged police custody, and that the confession of a co-accused cannot serve as the sole basis for conviction. Furthermore, the court held that mere abscondence of an accused is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted both appellants. The key principle laid down is that a retracted confession obtained after prolonged police custody is unreliable, and a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the confession of a co-accused or on the ground of abscondence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted judicial confession made by a co-accused?
  • Is the mere abscondence of an accused person sufficient to establish guilt and warrant a conviction?
  • Does a confession made after prolonged police custody satisfy the requirement of being voluntary and reliable?
  • Can the confession of a co-accused be used as the sole basis for the conviction of another accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed MEHMOOD SHAH Versus State2009 PLD 14 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-06-18
  narcotic traffickingpolice witness credibilitydeath sentence reductiondestruction of case propertyforgerySection 103 CrPCControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for trafficking 320 kilograms of charas and 20 kilograms of opium, alongside charges of forgery under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of police witnesses in the absence of private witnesses, the validity of proceedings where case property was destroyed prior to trial, and the appropriateness of the death sentence. The Court held that police officials are competent witnesses and their testimony is not inherently unreliable. Furthermore, it affirmed that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding search requirements. The Court also ruled that the destruction of case property under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, following proper legal procedure, does not prejudice the prosecution. Ultimately, while maintaining the conviction, the Court reduced the death sentence to imprisonment for life, citing the appellant's advanced age and his role as a driver.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding searches?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely because they are police employees?
  • Is the destruction of case property under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 legally permissible if done under judicial order?
  • Can a death sentence be reduced to imprisonment for life based on the convict's age and role in the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• ARSHAD Versus AKBAR ALI2009 PLD 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-05-16
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtinimical witnesscircumstantial evidencecorroborationacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under sections 324 and 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on allegations of firing at the complainant. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on the testimony of a single injured witness in the presence of admitted previous enmity. The Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from significant evidentiary gaps, including the absence of blood or spent casings at the alleged crime scene, contradictions regarding the time and venue of the occurrence, and inconsistencies in the circumstances surrounding the recording of the initial report. The Court emphasized that where the testimony of an inimical witness lacks corroboration from circumstantial or medical evidence on material points, it cannot be accepted as gospel truth. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that when the prosecution's narrative is shrouded in doubt and fails to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence, the benefit of such doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an injured witness be accepted as gospel truth in the presence of admitted previous enmity?
  • Does the absence of blood or spent casings at the alleged crime scene cast doubt on the venue of occurrence?
  • Is the benefit of doubt available to an accused when the prosecution fails to provide circumstantial corroboration of the complainant's version?
  • Does a material contradiction between the complainant's statement and the scribe of the FIR regarding the place of recording the report affect the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• SIDDIQULLAH Versus State2009 PLD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-07-02
  retracted confessionpolice custody confessionexculpatory statementcorroborative evidenceanti-terrorism trialmurder referencecapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing the appellants to death and various terms of imprisonment under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act for the murder of two persons and setting fire to vehicles at the Aga Khan Health Centre in Chitral. The core legal question was whether a conviction for murder and terrorism offences could be sustained solely on the basis of retracted, exculpatory, and uncorroborated confessional statements recorded during police custody. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as there was no direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the appellants to the crime, and the retracted confessions were recorded after unexplained delays in police custody without corroborative evidence. The court laid down the principle that a retracted and exculpatory confessional statement recorded in police custody cannot form the basis of a conviction against its maker or co-accused unless it is voluntary, inspires full confidence, and is corroborated by independent, reliable, and cogent evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted confessional statement without independent corroborative evidence?
  • Whether an exculpatory confessional statement lacking attribution of any role to the maker can be used to convict the accused or co-accused?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording a confession during police custody render the confessional statement doubtful and involuntary?
  Read full judgment →
• KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus S.H.O. POLICE STATION WEST CANTT., PESHAWAR2008 PLD 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2008-08-04
  quashment of FIRinherent powerscriminal procedureabuse of processconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court through an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of an First Information Report registered under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question for determination is whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is competent to quash an F.I.R. Relying on the precedent of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Sarfaraz Khan v. The State (1996 SCMR 186), the Court held that the High Court is not competent to quash an F.I.R. under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because no order has been made or process issued by any Court to attract the provisions regarding the prevention of abuse of process or securing the ends of justice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine as incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether High Court in exercise of its powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is competent to quash the F.I.R.?
  • Does Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when no order or process has been issued by any Court?
  Read full judgment →
• FARIDA ZAFAR ZEHRI Versus FEROZA KHANUM2007 PLD 66 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-10-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAWABZADI Versus Mst. TANVEER KAUSAR alias TANVEER BEGUM2007 PLD 63 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-05-18Read full judgment →
• IBRAHIM Versus State2007 PLD 31 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-07-27
  murder convictionindirect cause of deathfirearm injuryocular evidencesite plan contradictioncriminal appealdying declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one victim and the attempted murder of another. The core legal questions addressed were whether an accused is liable for murder when the victim’s death occurs months after the initial injury due to complications indirectly resulting therefrom, and whether the conviction remains sustainable despite alleged contradictions between the site plan and medical evidence. The Court held that the conviction was sound, affirming that an assailant is criminally liable for murder if the victim’s death is the indirect result of the injuries inflicted, as the injury remains the proximate cause of the subsequent fatal complications. Furthermore, the Court established that minor discrepancies between the site plan and ocular evidence do not warrant acquittal when the eyewitness testimony is consistent and inspires confidence. The judgment reinforces that under Islamic law principles, as incorporated into the Pakistan Penal Code, the assailant bears responsibility for the ultimate fatal consequences of their violent act.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted for murder if the victim dies months later due to complications indirectly resulting from the initial injury?
  • Does a minor contradiction between the site plan and medical evidence invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged by a victim who later dies from their injuries admissible as a dying declaration?
  • Does the absence of a specific motive for the murder of a particular victim preclude a conviction under Section 301 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State2007 PLD 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2007-06-15
  narcotics smugglingprocedural irregularityspecial courtsentence reductioncriminal appealrecovery of contrabandControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and sentence under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics from a truck. The core legal questions concern whether the conviction is sustainable despite the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, alleged non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the issuance of sample and destruction certificates by a Judicial Magistrate rather than the Special Court. The Court upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It determined that the issuance of certificates by a Magistrate, authorized by the Special Court, constituted a mere procedural irregularity that did not vitiate the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that minor procedural lapses do not invalidate a conviction when the evidence is otherwise cogent. Recognizing the socio-economic reality where primary offenders often evade detection while drivers bear the brunt of the law, the Court exercised discretion to reduce the appellant's sentence from life imprisonment to ten years.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of sample and destruction certificates by a Judicial Magistrate, instead of the Special Court, vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a conviction be sustained if the Investigating Officer is not examined due to unavailability, provided other evidence is sufficient?
  • Does the exclusion of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 apply to narcotics recovery cases?
  • Is a procedural irregularity that does not prejudice the accused sufficient grounds to set aside a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAHIR SHAH Versus AGENCY EDUCATION OFFICER, MOHMAND AGENCY GHALLANAI2007 PLD 147 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-10-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TARIQ Versus Mst. SHAHEEN2006 PLD 189 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-05-16Read full judgment →
• ABDUL WAHEED KHAN and another Versus Mst. RUQIA BIBI2006 PLD 156 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-04-06Read full judgment →
• SAID NAWAZ KHAN Versus MUNAWAR KHAN2006 PLD 151 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-03-30Read full judgment →
• MAQBOOL SHAH Versus State2006 PLD 144 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-03-28
  murderappellate jurisdictioninterested witnessesmedical evidencecontradictionsbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected appeal against the acquittal of other co-accused and a revision for enhancement of sentence, arising from a common judgment of the trial court. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the ocular account, the presence of material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a shadow of doubt, noting that the eye-witnesses were highly interested, an independent witness did not support the prosecution, the site-plan contradicted the F.I.R. regarding the manner of the incident, and the medical evidence (showing blackening and burning on the deceased from close range) irreconcilably conflicted with the alleged firing distance of fifty feet. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal against conviction, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the appeal against acquittal and the revision petition. The key legal principles laid down emphasize that interested witnesses require reliable corroboration, fatal contradictions between ocular and medical evidence vitiate the prosecution case, and the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interested witness's testimony is sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a material contradiction between the ocular account regarding firing distance and the medical evidence of blackening/burning vitiate the prosecution case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a murasila drafted on the spot after preliminary investigation?
  • When should the benefit of reasonable doubt be extended to criminal appellants?
  Read full judgment →
• SAIFULLAH KHAN alias TURAB Versus State2006 PLD 140 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-04-26
  bailmental disorderunfit to pleadblasphemyjudicial independencepublic orderbipolar disorder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged with offences under sections 295-B and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of severe mental illness, specifically bipolar disorder with psychotic features, as confirmed by a Standing Medical Board which declared him unfit to plead or defend himself. The lower courts had previously denied bail, citing concerns regarding public peace and religious sentiments. The High Court held that the trial court erred by allowing emotional and religious considerations to influence the judicial process, thereby failing to uphold the principles of justice. Emphasizing that judicial decisions must remain insulated from public pressure or threats of disorder, the Court affirmed that the petitioner’s established mental incapacity necessitated relief. Consequently, the Court granted bail, subject to strict conditions ensuring the petitioner's medical management and supervision. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must remain firm in administering justice according to law, regardless of external societal pressures or potential public backlash, ensuring the protection of rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court deny bail based on the apprehension of public unrest or religious sentiment?
  • Is an accused person who is declared unfit to plead by a medical board entitled to bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the constitutional right to protection of law prohibit courts from denying justice due to fear of societal pressure?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. ZARMEENA Versus Haji PESHMEEN KHAN2006 PLD 123 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-04-10Read full judgment →
• AURANGZEB Versus PUBLIC AT LARGE2006 PLD 116 · Peshawar High Court · 2006-04-17Read full judgment →
• NAMER GUL Versus JALAMBAR2005 PLD 72 · Peshawar High Court · 2005-01-17Read full judgment →
• Haji MUHAMMAD AMEEN Versus Messrs FRONTIER CERAMICS LTD. PESHAWAR2005 PLD 66 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• GUL DIN Versus State2005 PLD 162 · Peshawar High Court · 2005-04-13
  narcotics recoveryforensic sample delaycriminal appealevidentiary inconsistenciesbenefit of doubtControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of narcotics from the appellant's possession and whether the significant, unexplained delay in dispatching the seized samples to the forensic laboratory vitiated the prosecution's case. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It found the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to be riddled with material inconsistencies regarding the circumstances of the arrest and the recovery process. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the unexplained two-week delay in sending the samples to the forensic laboratory, in violation of the mandatory timelines prescribed by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, rendered the forensic report unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that procedural non-compliance regarding sample dispatch and material contradictions in witness testimony are fatal to the prosecution's case in narcotics trials.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to a forensic laboratory violate the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory accounts of the recovery?
  • Is the failure to explain the custody of narcotic samples during a period of delay fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASIF BANGASH Versus A.S.P., KOHAT2005 PLD 107 · Peshawar High Court · 2005-02-22Read full judgment →
• BASHIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE2005 PLD 1 · Peshawar High Court
  narcotics possessionillegal search and seizurereasonable doubtcriminal appealpolice raidacquittalwitness contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of heroin. The core legal questions concerned the legality of the police raid conducted without a search warrant and the reliability of the recovery evidence given material contradictions in prosecution witness testimonies. The court held that the police entry into the appellant's house was illegal, as the prosecution failed to substantiate the claim that they were searching for a proclaimed offender. Furthermore, the court determined that even if the initial entry were lawful, the subsequent search of the premises after failing to locate the suspect was unwarranted. Significant discrepancies regarding the presence of lady constables and the involvement of specific officers further undermined the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court held that these factors created reasonable doubts, entitling the appellant to the benefit of the doubt. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing the principle that police raids must be strictly justified and evidence must be free from material contradictions to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the status of a proclaimed offender render a police raid conducted without a search warrant illegal?
  • Is a search of private premises justified after the police fail to locate the suspect for whom they entered the premises?
  • Do material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the circumstances of a recovery warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• INAYATULLAH Versus THE STATE2004 PLD 230 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• SAADIA BEGUM Versus JANGREEZ and 3 others2004 PLD 213 · Peshawar High Court · 2004-04-02Read full judgment →
• AFTAB AHMAD KHAN Versus Mst. SURAYAH BEGUM2004 PLD 168 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• AMANUL MULK Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN2004 PLD 154 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• THE STATE Versus RASHID2003 PLD 87 · Peshawar High Court · 2002-10-08
  Superdaricustody of vehiclenarcotics offencebona fide ownerconfiscation of vehicleControl of Narcotic Substances Actcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition was filed by the State challenging an order of the Special Court, Nowshera, which granted 'Superdari' (custody) of a motor vehicle to its registered owner, Rashid, after the vehicle was seized by Customs Intelligence containing 5 Kgs of heroin. The State argued that Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, prohibited the release of any conveyance used in a narcotics offence to any private individual until the conclusion of the case. The respondent contended that he was a bona fide owner who had rented the vehicle to a third party and was not involved in the crime. The Court held that Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, does not impose an absolute embargo on releasing a vehicle to a bona fide owner who is not an accused or an associate. The Court reasoned that the legislative intent, supported by the proviso in Section 32 of the same Act regarding confiscation, protects innocent owners who had no knowledge of the offence. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the order of the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, prohibit the release of a vehicle on Superdari to a bona fide owner who is not involved in the commission of the offence?
  • Can a vehicle used in a narcotics offence be released to its owner if the owner had no knowledge of the crime?
  • Does the term 'private individual' in Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, include the bona fide owner of a vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• FAZLI-E-SUBHAN Versus Mst. SABEREEN2003 PLD 169 · Peshawar High Court · 2003-03-11Read full judgment →
• KARIM ULLAH Versus SHABANA2003 PLD 146 · Peshawar High Court · 2003-01-16Read full judgment →
• ROBINA GUL Versus INAM KHAN2003 PLD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2002-08-19Read full judgment →
• GULBAR Versus THE STATE2002 PLD 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2001-06-27
  Qatl-i-AmdQisasTa'zirTazkiya-al-ShuhudCriminal appealDeath sentenceIslamic criminal jurisprudenceProtracted trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant for Qatl-i-Amd (intentional murder). The core legal question concerns the validity of a death sentence as Qisas when the trial court failed to conduct Tazkiya-al-Shuhud (purgation of witnesses). The Court held that Tazkiya-al-Shuhud is a mandatory requirement under Islamic criminal jurisprudence for awarding Qisas. Consequently, the failure to perform this purgation renders the imposition of Qisas legally unsustainable. The Court further determined that in the absence of Qisas, the court may impose punishment as Ta'zir. Considering the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive and the appellant's subjection to a protracted trial, the Court set aside the death sentence as Qisas and instead sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment as Ta'zir. The judgment establishes the principle that Tazkiya-al-Shuhud is an essential prerequisite for Qisas and that courts must ensure strict compliance with evidentiary standards in Islamic law before awarding such penalties, while also considering mitigating circumstances when determining appropriate Ta'zir punishments.

  Questions settled

  • Is the process of Tazkiya-al-Shuhud a mandatory prerequisite for awarding Qisas in cases of Qatl-i-Amd?
  • Can a court award the death penalty as Ta'zir when the requirements for Qisas are not met?
  • Does a protracted trial constitute a mitigating factor for the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS Versus Mst. MEHR AFZOON2002 PLD 109 · Peshawar High Court · 2002-01-25Read full judgment →
• GUL HUSSAIN Versus AQAL SAID AND 8 OTHERS2001 PLD 129 · Peshawar High Court · 2001-01-30Read full judgment →
• MUQEEM KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2000 PLD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-07-01Read full judgment →
• SAID AZAM KHAN Versus ADAM KHAN1999 PLD 75 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• SHAMSHAMIR KHAN Versus THE STATE1999 PLD 70 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-05-28Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HALEEM Versus THE STATE1999 PLD 66 · Peshawar High Court · 1999-06-25Read full judgment →
• SHER NAWAZ KHAN Versus THE STATE1999 PLD 24 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• ATTA-UR-REHMAN BAIG Versus BAREY KHAN1998 PLD 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-03Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUNAS Versus STATE1997 PLD 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus STATE1997 PLD 49 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
• ABDUL SAMAD Versus PAINDA MUHAMMAD1997 PLD 35 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-01-29Read full judgment →
• AZIZ KHAN Versus THE STATE1997 PLD 13 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-28Read full judgment →
• KHOBAN Versus STATE1996 PLD 47 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. Versus SURRYIA BEGUM1995 PLD 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
• GHULAM QADIR Versus SAWI1995 PLD 37 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-06Read full judgment →
• THE STATE Versus HIDAYATULLAH1995 PLD 155 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
• MANZER HUSSAIN Versus ABDUL SALAM1995 PLD 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
• MAQBOOL HUSSAIN Versus ABDUR REHMAN1995 PLD 124 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASKAR KHAN Versus EJAZ HUSSAIN1994 PLD 5 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-06-12Read full judgment →
• ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER Versus ABDUL GHAFFAR1994 PLD 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus THE STATE1993 PLD 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-03Read full judgment →
• MOHSIN ALI KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P.1993 PLD 207 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• ZAKIRULLAH KHAN Versus FAIZULLAH KHAN1993 PLD 200 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus THE STATE1993 PLD 189 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-22Read full judgment →
• SHABAZ KHAN Versus FAZAL SHAH1993 PLD 185 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE1993 PLD 175 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-05Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FIAZ Versus THE STATE1993 PLD 173 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-24Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIR Versus THE STATE1993 PLD 135 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAMAN Versus THE STATE1993 PLD 13 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• SAJJAD AHMED Versus THE STATE1992 PLD 74 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
• THE STATE Versus DANIEL BOYD (MUSLIM NAME SAIFULLAH)1992 PLD 56 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
• QABIL SHAH Versus SHADAY1992 PLD 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-12-07Read full judgment →
• GUL SHAHBAH Versus CIVIL JUDGE-III/JUDGE FAMILY COURT, HARIPUR1992 PLD 13 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
• AHMAD HASAN Versus ABDULLAH1992 PLD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
• FARIDOON Versus COLLECTOR, IST GRADE MARDAN1991 PLD 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
• CHAIRMAN, WAPDA Versus UMAR BAKHSH1991 PLD 25 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
• JAVAID HAMID Versus HASSAN JAN1991 PLD 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• SANWAR JAN Versus TEMASH KHAN1991 PLD 101 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
• LAL MUHAMMAD ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD Versus ALLIED BANKOF PAKISTAN LTD1990 PLD 71 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-18Read full judgment →
• KUNDAL KHAN Versus AGHA JAN1990 PLD 21 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-12-19Read full judgment →
• ATTAULLAH Versus THE STATE1990 PLD 10 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-30Read full judgment →
• HAJI NAWAB Versus FAZALI WAHID1989 PLD 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
• MIR DAD KHAN Versus AFSAR KHAN1989 PLD 205 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• HAJI AURANGZEB Versus HAJI ABDUR REHMAN1989 PLD 196 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• N. W.F.P. , PESHAWAR Versus YOUSAF KHAN1989 PLD 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
• ATAUR REHMAN KHAN Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD1989 PLD 141 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
• SIKANDAR SADIQ Versus UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR1988 PLD 99 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• AZIZUR REHMAN, EX-GENERAL MANAGER, BARA CIGARETTE FACTORY Versus F.A.T.A. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PESHAWAR , Raza A. Khan, D.A.-G.1988 PLD 9 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NOWSHERA1988 PLD 88 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• JEHANGIR KHAN Versus MST. MAHAL SANI1988 PLD 82 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• NAZAR MUHAMMAD Versus FIDA MUHAMMAD1988 PLD 76 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• SULTAN MUHAMMAD SALAH-UD-DIN KHAN Versus THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, INDUSTRIES OF PAKISTAN1988 PLD 71 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• NAQDULLAH Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER1988 PLD 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-07-27Read full judgment →
• KHAN SHER Versus MST. KABLA1988 PLD 65 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• MST. MALIKA WAZIR Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE1988 PLD 60 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• MST. TAJ BIBI Versus KHUDA BAKHSH1988 PLD 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-01-26Read full judgment →
• SAID HAKEEM Versus SHAHDAD1988 PLD 54 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →