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. 4,353 judgments in total from the Balochistan High Court.

• Momin Khan and another vs Abdul Sattar and others2023 MLD 618 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mira Bukhsh vs The State2023 PCRLJ 233 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-12
  criminal appealmurderinjured witnesschild witnesscommon intentionvicarious liabilityweapon recoveryfsl reportbail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder, attempt to commit murder, and causing hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involve the credibility of an injured and child witness, the application of vicarious liability through common intention, and the admissibility of a disclosure and subsequent weapon recovery. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the testimony of the injured witness was reliable and corroborated by medical evidence, and that vicarious liability attaches when co-accused share a common intention. The court dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that the solitary statement of an injured witness, if confidence-inspiring, is sufficient for conviction, and that once a common intention is established, the specific part played by each participant is immaterial.

  Questions settled

  • Is the solitary testimony of an injured witness sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can a child witness's statement be relied upon when corroborated by other direct evidence?
  • Does the principle of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code render the specific role played by each individual immaterial once common intention is proved?
  • Is a disclosure leading to the recovery of a crime weapon admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Ahmed vs The State2023 PCRLJ 558 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-29
  qatl-i-amdocular testimonyrelated witnessesabsconsioncorroborative evidencecriminal appealmedical evidencefiniteness of conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question involved the reliability of ocular testimony from close relatives of the deceased, the presence of minor discrepancies, and the evidentiary value of prolonged absconsion. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of natural eye-witnesses, though related to the deceased, remained consistent and trustworthy, and was fully corroborated by prompt FIR registration, medical evidence, and the appellant's unexplained prolonged absconsion for nearly seven years. The court established that mere relationship of witnesses to the victim does not discredit their testimony in the absence of proven enmity, and that long absconsion serves as a strong piece of corroborative evidence when paired with solid direct ocular proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their close relationship with the deceased?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of an accused person's prolonged absconsion in a criminal trial?
  • Do minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses warrant the rejection of their entire testimony?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the basis of ocular testimony when supported by prompt registration of the FIR and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Abdul Rab and others vs Ghulam Haider and others2023 MLD 462 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Welcome Prince Rice Mill through Partners vs National Bank of Pakistan through Manager and another2023 CLD 1238, 2023 MLD 1853 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Salam International and others vs Secretary Ministry of Law And Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and others2023 CLC 1965 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sabir Traders Sole Proprietorship and another vs National Bank of Pakistan through Manager2023 CLD 247 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs R.L. Paper Board Mills through Managerand others vs Messrs Sui2023 CLC 1445, 2025 PLJ Quetta 34 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mehtab alias Methoo vs The State2023 MLD 327 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-08
  unsoundness of mindmental illnessplea of guiltydefective chargefair trialcriminal remandmental health inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from a judgment of the Judicial Magistrate-I Hub convicting the petitioner under sections 380 and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a plea of guilty, which was upheld by the appellate court. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court was bound to conduct an inquiry into the mental health of the accused when there was reason to believe he was of unsound mind, and whether a conviction on a plea of guilty is sustainable when basic ingredients of the offence are missing from the charge and mandatory pre-trial procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are bypassed. The Balochistan High Court held that the provisions of section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the mental unsoundness of an accused are mandatory, that a medical board evaluation is a prerequisite when such a question arises, and that a conviction on a plea of guilty cannot stand if the charge lacks essential legal ingredients and due process is ignored. The Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts and remanded the matter for a de novo determination of the petitioner's mental capacity followed by lawful proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the inquiry into the mental unsoundness of an accused are mandatory?
  • Does a trial court commit a fatal illegality by convicting an accused on a plea of guilty when the charge omits essential ingredients of the offence?
  • Can an accused be convicted under section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof or admission of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night?
  • Whether failure to supply copies of statements and documents under section 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali Rind and others vs Secretary Education Balochistan and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1526 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-20
  right to educationappointment ordersclosed schoolsvested rightsDistrict Recruitment Committeeconstitutional petitionBalochistan education
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Balochistan High Court addresses multiple constitutional petitions concerning the non-functionalization of closed government schools and the withholding of appointment orders for recommended candidates to teaching posts in Balochistan. The core legal questions involve the state's constitutional obligation to provide education and whether authorities can withhold appointment letters after successful qualification through tests and interviews conducted by competent committees. The court held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 25-A of the Constitution, and the state cannot arbitrarily withhold appointment orders of candidates duly recommended by the District Recruitment Committees after creating posts. The court established the ratio that once candidates successfully complete the prescribed recruitment process and are recommended for appointment, vested rights are created which cannot be rescinded or delayed on flimsy pretexts or project closure grounds, and the state must fulfill its mandatory constitutional duty to functionalize schools and provide teaching staff.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the State to provide functioning schools and teachers violate the fundamental right to education under Article 25-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the government withhold appointment orders of candidates who have qualified tests and interviews and been recommended by the District Recruitment Committee?
  • Does the closure of a donor-funded project extinguish the vested rights of candidates who successfully completed a recruitment process for created posts?
  • Are similarly situated candidates who were not formal parties to a constitutional petition entitled to the same relief under the principle of equal treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• Meer Muhammad vs The State2023 PCRLJ 885 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-28
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencebenefit of doubtdelayed FIRrelated witnessesacquittalSection 161 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the provided ocular evidence. The High Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from significant flaws, including the unnatural conduct of the alleged eye-witnesses, who were relatives of the deceased, and an unexplained delay of over seven hours in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, the court noted that the statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were recorded with substantial, unexplained delays, rendering their testimony unreliable. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, and the benefit of the doubt was extended to the appellant. The court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming the principle that even a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's version entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a reasonable doubt regarding the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Can the testimony of related witnesses be discarded if it lacks corroboration and is inconsistent with the circumstances?
  • Is an unexplained delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the failure of eye-witnesses to assist victims or report an occurrence promptly render their presence at the scene doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Khaliq Dad vs Nadir Khan and others2023 PCRLJ 1276 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-21
  acquittal appealsection 249-A Cr.P.C.cross casescounter versionsaggressor and aggressedsimultaneous trialmiscarriage of justicere-appreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the order of the trial court whereby an application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was accepted and the respondents were acquitted of the charge in a criminal case arising from a tribal clash. The core legal questions involved the propriety of acquitting an accused under section 249-A before the conclusion of prosecution evidence, and the proper procedure for conducting trials in cross-cases or counter-cases arising from the same incident. The Balochistan High Court held that while there is no strict bar of limitation for filing an acquittal application, propriety demands that a fair opportunity be given to the prosecution to establish its case on merits, and that cross-cases concerning the same incident with conflicting versions must be tried side by side by the same court and disposed of simultaneously to avoid conflicting judgments and properly determine the aggressor. The appeal was partly allowed, the acquittal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a joint and simultaneous conclusion alongside the counter-case.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order of acquittal under section 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 enjoy the same sanctity and presumption of double innocence as an acquittal after a full-fledged trial?
  • Is it proper for a trial court to entertain an application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and acquit the accused before the prosecution evidence is fully recorded?
  • What is the required procedure for conducting trials in cross-cases or counter-cases arising out of the same incident with different versions?
  • Can cross-cases involving conflicting versions of the same incident be tried separately by different or identical courts without simultaneous pronouncement of judgments?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehboob vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 4 others2023 PLC (C.S) 705 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-01
  civil servantservice tribunaljurisdictionsuspensionterms and conditions of servicewrit jurisdictionmala fidemaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a BPS-19 civil servant in the Irrigation Department, challenged a notification suspending him from his position as Project Director, Awaran Dam, alleging mala fide actions and procedural irregularities, including the appointment of a junior officer to his post. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain a petition concerning the suspension and transfer of a civil servant, given the constitutional framework governing service matters. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, citing the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunals over matters relating to the terms and conditions of service. Relying on the constitutional bar established by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the Court affirmed that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 is ousted in such service-related disputes, even where allegations of mala fide are raised. The Court further noted that the petitioner, having been merely transferred to the post rather than appointed according to specific Planning Commission guidelines, lacked the tenure protection he claimed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, with the petitioner granted liberty to approach the appropriate Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to hear a petition regarding the suspension of a civil servant?
  • Can allegations of mala fide against government functionaries override the bar on High Court jurisdiction imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are disputes regarding the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant exclusively triable by Service Tribunals?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Shaheen Iqbal and others2023 PLD Balochistan 105 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-05Read full judgment →
• Janan Khan Achakzai vs The State Bank of Pakistan Banking Services2023 PLD Balochistan 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-16Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmed vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary C&W2023 PLC (C.S.) 495 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-23
  Constitutional petitiondisabled quotaestoppelmedically fitpublic service commissionrecruitmentaggrieved person
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the recommendation of the Balochistan Public Service Commission for the appointment of respondent No. 7 against a quota reserved for persons with disabilities. The petitioner, a candidate for the same post, alleged that respondent No. 7 had previously secured employment as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the police department by declaring himself "medically fit" and failing to disclose any disability. The core legal question was whether a candidate is estopped from asserting a disability for one government post after having successfully obtained another position by representing themselves as medically fit. The Court held that the doctrine of estoppel precludes a party from taking inconsistent positions to secure employment. Finding that respondent No. 7 had misrepresented his status, the Court declared the recommendation in his favor void and directed the Commission to recommend the petitioner, who was next in merit, for the position. The judgment establishes that candidates cannot "blow hot and cold" by claiming disability only when convenient, thereby upholding the integrity of the recruitment process for reserved quotas.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate who previously secured government employment by declaring themselves medically fit is estopped from claiming disability for a different post?
  • Does a candidate ranked third on a merit list have the standing of an 'aggrieved person' to challenge the selection of a candidate ranked first?
  • Can a government candidate take inconsistent positions regarding their physical disability status in different recruitment processes?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamal-Ud-Din Khilji vs The State and another2023 MLD 151 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-08-23
  post-arrest bailmurderindiscriminate firingtentative assessmentcommon intentiondiscretionary reliefcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused in a criminal case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being nominated in the FIR and alleged to have participated in indiscriminate firing, given the defense's arguments regarding witness statements and site map discrepancies. The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that there was sufficient material connecting the applicant to the alleged offense. The court emphasized that the applicant's role was similar to a co-accused whose bail had previously been rejected. The court reiterated that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the record is permissible, and deeper appreciation of evidence is prohibited. Furthermore, the court affirmed that bail is a discretionary relief rather than an absolute right, even for offenses outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, it noted that in incidents of indiscriminate firing by multiple assailants, assigning specific roles to each individual is not required at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
  • Can an accused claim bail as a matter of right if the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the difficulty in assigning specific roles to individual assailants during indiscriminate firing entitle an accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Khan vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others2023 PLD Balochistan 65 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-01-10Read full judgment →
• Ihsan Ali vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1429 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-27
  murderattempted murdercapital punishmentmitigating circumstanceocular evidencesiyahkaricriminal appealsentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of Mst. Haseena and the attempted murder of Sojhla. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular account and whether the death penalty was justified given the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive of 'siyahkari'. The Court found the prosecution's evidence, comprising consistent eyewitness testimony, medical reports, and the recovery of the bloodstained weapon, to be confidence-inspiring and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was upheld. However, regarding the sentence, the Court held that the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive serves as a significant mitigating factor. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court converted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The principle laid down is that while the absence of proof of motive does not invalidate a conviction, it is a sufficient ground to mitigate the quantum of sentence from capital punishment to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when the motive remains unproven?
  • Is the recovery of a bloodstained weapon sufficient to corroborate an ocular account in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah alias Dili Jan and another vs The State2023 MLD 271 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-07-29
  post-arrest bailexplosive substancesanti-terrorismfurther inquiryrecovery witnessescriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises out of an order passed by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism, declining post-arrest bail to the accused applicants charged under sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicants made out a case for further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considering alleged police non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and documentary evidence showing one applicant's prior abduction report. The Balochistan High Court held that the case called for further inquiry because ingredients of the offense were missing, the prosecution ignored a prior abduction record, and mandatory provisions regarding public witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were violated. The court laid down the principle that failure to associate public witnesses during recovery despite adequate time, alongside plausible records supporting wrongful implication, brings the matter within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the alleged violation of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding public witnesses entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the non-association of independent witnesses during the recovery of explosive substances makes the prosecution case doubtful for the purpose of bail?
  • Does a prior recorded abduction of an accused prior to the date of the alleged crime justify a case for further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah and 2 others vs Dr. Munir Ahmed and another2023 CLC 1510 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-25Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Ali vs Ghafoor Ahmed and 2 others2023 MLD 1518 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-10
  local government electionreserved seatsworker definitionnomination papersconstitutional petitionelection eligibilitystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Returning Officer and the Appellate Authority, which had permitted respondent No.1 to contest the local government election for a seat reserved for a "Worker" in Municipal Corporation, Turbat. The core legal question was whether a candidate possessing substantial assets, including land and commercial properties, and having a history of political office, meets the statutory definition of a "Worker" under the Balochistan Local Government Act, 2010. The High Court held that the respondent did not qualify as a "Worker" despite his claims of employment, as his affluent status contradicted the legislative intent behind reserved seats. The court emphasized that special seats for workers and peasants are designed to ensure representation for subjugated classes who might otherwise be excluded by privileged groups. Allowing wealthy individuals to occupy these seats constitutes a fraud upon the statute. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the removal of the respondent's name from the list of validly nominated candidates for the reserved seat.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate possessing significant assets and land qualify as a 'Worker' for the purpose of contesting a reserved local government seat?
  • Is the inclusion of an affluent individual in a seat reserved for workers considered a fraud upon the statute?
  • What is the underlying legislative purpose of providing special representation for peasants and workers in local government institutions?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ur-Rehman vs Ghulam Muhammad (Late) through Legal Heirs and others2023 CLC 788 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-08-20Read full judgment →
• Gul Mir Khan and 2 others vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 426 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-01-18
  disabled persons quotacivil service appointmentmerit-based selectionconstitutional petitioneducation department recruitmentsanctioned posts
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the entitlement of three disabled petitioners to employment in the Education Department under the reserved quota. The core legal question involves the correct methodology for calculating the disabled persons' quota and the subsequent appointment of eligible candidates. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Malik Obaidullah v. Government of Punjab, the Court held that the disability quota must be calculated based on the total sanctioned posts of an establishment and apportioned across different categories of posts based on distinct qualifications and merit lists. Applying this principle, the Court dismissed the claims of the first two petitioners, as they had secured lower marks than the successful candidate for the single available Junior Vernacular Teacher post. However, the Court accepted the petition of the third petitioner, finding he had qualified the recruitment test, possessed a verified degree, and held a valid disability certificate, thereby entitling him to the Junior English Teacher position. The judgment reinforces that while quotas exist, appointments remain subject to merit among eligible disabled applicants.

  Questions settled

  • How is the disability quota for employment to be calculated within a government establishment?
  • Can a disabled candidate claim appointment against a reserved quota if they have secured lower marks than another disabled candidate for the same post?
  • Is the disability quota required to be apportioned across different categories of posts within an establishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan through Secretary C&W Department and 22023 YLR 1344 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastagir and another vs Allah Baksh2023 YLR 2637 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-05Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Khan vs Muhammad Yousaf and 2 others2023 CLC 2098 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
• Fehmida Kiran vs Chairman House Allotment Committee/ Secretary2023 MLD 659, 2023 PLJ Quetta 168 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad vs Managing Director Sui Gas, Quetta2023 PLD Balochistan 36 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs Muhammad Younas and another2023 YLR 473 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-12Read full judgment →
• Dur Bibi and 2 others vs Syed Shah Muhammad and 7 others2023 CLC 1756, 2024 PLJ Quetta 145 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-05-08Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahid Amin vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Food Security and Research and another2023 PLC (C.S.) 1218 · Balochistan High Court
  recruitment processpublic sector companiesconstitutional petitionadministrative lawmala fideappointment of CEOdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of a recruitment process for the position of Chief Executive Officer of the Livestock and Dairy Development Board. The petitioner, having secured the highest marks in the initial interview process, contested the Board's decision to unilaterally cancel the selection and initiate a fresh recruitment drive. The core legal question was whether the Board acted within its lawful authority in abandoning the established selection process without adhering to the prescribed regulatory framework. The Court held that the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedure outlined in the Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines, 2015. Specifically, the Guidelines require that if a line ministry does not concur with proposed candidates, it must provide reasons and refer the matter back for reconsideration, rather than allowing the Board to unilaterally restart the process. Consequently, the Court declared the fresh recruitment proceedings illegal and directed the authorities to finalize the appointment based on the original merit-based recommendations. The judgment establishes that administrative recruitment processes must strictly comply with statutory guidelines to prevent arbitrary or mala fide actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Board of Directors of a public sector company have the authority to unilaterally cancel a recruitment process without following the procedure for non-concurrence prescribed in the Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines, 2015?
  • What is the mandatory procedure for a line ministry when it does not concur with the appointment of candidates recommended by a public sector company?
  • Can a recruitment process be set aside on the grounds of mala fide when the Board of Directors restarts the process without providing valid reasons for the cancellation of the initial merit-based selection?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sara Jaffer vs Zarak Khan and another2023 CLC 77 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Akbar vs Mst. Safia Kakar and 9 others2023 MLD 24 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-12Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Malik Shah Muhammad and 6 others2023 PCRLJ 326 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-20
  hostile witnesscross-examination of witnessimpeaching credit of witnessmedical legal certificateconstitutional petitiondiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to declare a prosecution witness (PW-3, a medical doctor) as a hostile witness, to permit cross-examination of the said witness by the complainant, and to initiate criminal proceedings against him. The core legal question revolved around whether a witness who denies issuing a medical-legal certificate and gives testimony unfavourable to the party calling him can be declared hostile under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court's discretion to declare a witness hostile must be exercised with caution, and a witness is not hostile merely because their testimony is unfavourable or contrary to expectations, provided there is no equivocation, suppression of truth, or deviation from a previous statement. The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the witness consistently denied issuing or signing the disputed medical certificate from the inception, and thus no legal grounds existed to declare him hostile or interfere with the lower courts' orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a witness can be declared hostile merely because their testimony is unfavourable or unhelpful to the party calling them?
  • What constitutes a hostile witness under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is it mandatory for a court to permit a party to cross-examine its own witness upon request?
  • Can a witness be treated as hostile when their trial testimony remains consistent with their prior stance throughout the investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railways through Authority/Authorized2023 PLJ Quetta 155, 2024 CLC 1293 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-01Read full judgment →
• Deedar Hussain and others vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and others2023 PLJ Quetta 118 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-06Read full judgment →
• Dad Muhammad vs The State and another2023 YLR 1595 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-07-07
  benefit of doubtocular evidencechance witnessmaterial improvementabscondenceanti-terrorismcapital chargeappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction and sentence of death awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, alongside a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on ocular evidence from related and chance witnesses, significant delays in recording statements, and material improvements in testimony. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It found the ocular evidence unreliable due to the witnesses' unnatural conduct, their status as chance witnesses, and material contradictions in their testimonies. The Court emphasized that motive is a double-edged weapon and that abscondence, while relevant, cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of substantive evidence. The key principles laid down are that the benefit of reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused even in heinous crimes, that material improvements in witness statements render them untrustworthy, and that conviction cannot be based on suspect ocular evidence or motive alone.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of abscondence when the substantive ocular evidence is found unreliable?
  • Does a material improvement in a witness's statement, when confronted with their previous testimony, render their entire evidence untrustworthy?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness admissible without a plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Can motive alone serve as the basis for a conviction in a criminal case when the ocular account is disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Quetta vs M/s.2023 PLJ Quetta 27 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Quetta vs Messrs Quetta Electric Supply Company Limited, Zarghoon Road, Quetta2023 PLJ Quetta 4 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Collector, Collectorate of Customs, Custom House, Gawadar vs Mr.2023 PLJ Quetta 1 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Collector, Collectorate of Customs, Custom House, Gawadar and others vs Wali Muhammad and others2023 PLJ Quetta 19 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Collector, Collectorate of Customs, Custom House, Gawadar and others vs Abdul Qadir and others2023 PLJ Quetta 141 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Collector Modell Custom Collectorate Of Gawadar, Custom House2023 PLJ Quetta 114 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Collector Model Customs Collectorate of Gawadar vs Syed Shabbir Ahmed2023 PTD 662 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-04Read full judgment →
• Bibi Sakina and another vs : Zakir Hussain alias Shah Wali and 3 others2023 YLR 1241 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-24
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencedelayed FIRsupplementary statementidentification paradebenefit of doubtmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting respondents of murder charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was intercepted and shot dead by unidentified assailants on motorcycles, whose names later surfaced through highly delayed supplementary statements and witness testimonies. The Balochistan High Court evaluated the evidence and found that the initial FIR was lodged against unknown persons without any physical descriptions, and the subsequent statements of eyewitnesses were recorded after unexplained, inordinate delays, rendering them unreliable and losing evidentiary value. The Court reiterated that an acquittal judgment carries a double presumption of innocence which cannot be dislodged lightly without exceptional and compelling reasons. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a supplementary statement and delayed eyewitness testimony recorded without plausible explanation?
  • Does an acquittal by a trial court carry a double presumption of innocence, and what standard of proof is required to interfere with it?
  • What is the effect of failing to give a description of unknown accused persons in the initial FIR upon a subsequent identification parade?
  • When is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Ayesha vs Muhammad Akbar and others2023 PLD Balochistan 56 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-26Read full judgment →
• Behzad Hussain vs Bibi Ansa and 2 others2023 CLC 143 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-03Read full judgment →
• Bandenawaz (Private) Limited Through Director vs Federation of Pakistan2023 PLD Balochistan 98, 2024 PLJ Quetta 150 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Azizullah vs The Inspector General of Police Balochistan, Central Police2023 PLC (C.S.) 100 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-04
  constitutional petitionpolice recruitmentphysical standardsheight measurementservice matterpolice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an eligible candidate seeking appointment as an Inspector Police after being declared physically unfit due to short height during the recruitment process. The core legal question was whether the petitioner met the mandatory physical standards prescribed for recruitment under the relevant rules and whether interference was warranted. The Balochistan High Court held that since the petitioner's height was found to be below the mandatory requirement of five feet and seven inches stipulated by the rules, and no general or special relaxation had been sanctioned by the competent authority, he was not entitled to the relief claimed. Consequently, the constitution petition was dismissed and the interim order was recalled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate failing to meet the mandatory height requirement under the Police Rules can claim appointment as a police inspector?
  • Can physical standards prescribed for police recruits be relaxed without the sanction of the Deputy Inspector General?
  • Whether an erroneous measurement by one committee creates a vested right for appointment when subsequent inquiry confirms disqualification?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah and another vs The State2023 MLD 1435 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-10
  circumstantial evidenceconfessional statementjuvenile offendergrave and sudden provocationunnatural actdisappearance of evidencereduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The criminal jail appeals arose from a common judgment wherein the appellants were convicted by the trial court under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to life imprisonment along with compensation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of judicial confessional statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the rule that a confessional statement must be taken as a whole, and whether the proven motive of sexual assault brought the case within the mitigating exceptions of section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution relied primarily on circumstantial evidence and judicial confessions, which established that the crime was committed due to repeated sexual assaults on the juvenile appellant. Applying the principle that a confession must be accepted as a whole, the court converted the conviction of the first appellant from section 302(b) to section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing his sentence. Regarding the second appellant, who did not participate in the murder but assisted in concealing evidence, the court set aside his murder conviction and instead convicted him under section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principles laid down are that a confessional statement cannot be used in piecemeal against an accused and that continuous sexual abuse leading to homicide attracts the lesser punishment under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judicial confessional statement be accepted in part and rejected in part for the purpose of convicting an accused?
  • Whether repeated sexual assault by the deceased on the accused can constitute a mitigating circumstance bringing the case within the purview of Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the standard of proof required when the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and confessional statements?
  • Is an accused who merely conceals evidence of a crime properly punishable under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than for the primary murder charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Asfand Yar vs The State2023 YLR 824 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-31
  double murdercompromise in murder casecommutation of death sentencehostile witnessesocular testimonycriminal appealmurder referencefamily dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference concern the conviction of the appellant for the double murder of his brothers and causing firearm injuries to his mother and another brother. The trial court sentenced the appellant to death and imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite hostile witnesses, and whether a partial compromise by one legal heir could be accepted in a murder case. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony of natural witnesses credible and the medical evidence corroborative. However, the Court held that a compromise under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is only effective to the extent of the specific legal heir who enters into it, provided other heirs do not consent. Consequently, the Court accepted the compromise regarding the mother's injuries but not the murders. Furthermore, noting the lack of pre-meditation and the existence of a sudden family quarrel, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, maintaining the conviction while adjusting the sentences accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted if only one of several legal heirs agrees to it?
  • Does the hostility of injured witnesses automatically invalidate the prosecution's case when other natural witnesses provide consistent ocular testimony?
  • Is the absence of pre-meditation in a sudden family quarrel a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Are family members who reside in the same house as the occurrence considered natural witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Almas Mandokhail vs Ainuddin and Others2023 CLC 374 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-12Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad and 4 others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2023 PLD Balochistan 31 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1619 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-06-16
  narcotic possessionretrospective application of lawcriminal appealsentencing guidelinesconstitutional protectionControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 3000 grams of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the enhanced penalties introduced by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act 2022, promulgated after the date of the offense, can be applied retrospectively to the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics, establishing the appellant's guilt. However, regarding the sentence, the Court ruled that applying the 2022 Amendment to an offense committed prior to its promulgation violates Article 12 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which prohibits the retrospective application of penal laws. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing the term of imprisonment from nine years to three years and the fine from Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 30,000, citing the principle that penal statutes cannot be enforced retrospectively to the detriment of an accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a penal statute be applied retrospectively to enhance the punishment for an offense committed before the law's enactment?
  • Does the application of a new sentencing scheme to a past offense violate Article 12 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is a sentence based on an amendment promulgated after the commission of an offense legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamzaib Khan vs Kasi Behria Town Main Jinnah Road, Quetta through CEO2023 CLC 2050, 2024 PLJ Quetta 126 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan and 3 others vs The State2023 YLR 778 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-11
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryextortionidentification paradesupplementary statementAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from a criminal case involving charges of extortion, robbery, and terrorism, where the applicants sought post-arrest bail after the trial court rejected their initial application. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the specific allegations of extortion and the recovery of stolen property, versus the lack of specific nomination for some co-accused. The Court held that while the primary accused, who were specifically nominated in the FIR and from whom stolen property was recovered, were not entitled to bail, the other co-accused were entitled to relief. The Court reasoned that the case against the latter co-accused, who were only implicated via a supplementary statement and an affidavit without an identification parade, constituted a case of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that at the bail stage, courts must avoid deep appreciation of evidence, and where the prosecution's case against specific accused relies on supplementary statements without identification parades, it creates grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of an identification parade for accused persons named only in a supplementary statement constitute a case of further inquiry for bail purposes?
  • Should a court conduct a deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
  • Are accused persons specifically nominated in an FIR with recovered stolen property entitled to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State2023 PCRLJ 387 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-22
  criminal appealmurderinjured witnesscredibility of testimonyinsanity pleamedical evidenceappreciation of evidenceQisas and Diyat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife and causing injuries to his mother. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of the testimony provided by the injured mother and other close relatives, and whether the appellant’s plea of mental instability due to depression could exonerate him. The Balochistan High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution successfully established the charge through direct, circumstantial, and medical evidence. The court emphasized that the testimony of an injured witness is highly credible and, when consistent, sufficient for conviction. Regarding the defense of mental instability, the court held that in the absence of medical evidence, a mere bald plea of loss of senses or depression is insufficient to exonerate an accused from criminal liability. The court affirmed that the presence of the accused at the scene, the recovery of the weapon from his possession, and the consistent testimony of eye-witnesses, including the injured mother, proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the solitary statement of an injured witness be sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • Does a bald plea of depression or loss of senses without medical evidence constitute a valid defense to a murder charge?
  • Is the testimony of close relatives inherently unreliable in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and another vs Noor-ud-Din and others2023 CLC 1784, 2024 PLJ Quetta 121 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs The State2023 MLD 1709 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-05-31
  post-arrest bailabsconsioncommon intentionocular accountcriminal conspiracytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application seeks post-arrest bail on behalf of the accused in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicants entered the complainant's house and opened fire, resulting in one death and multiple injuries, with the motive being an unapproved court marriage. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to post-arrest bail despite being nominated with promptitude, having a clear motive, and remaining fugitive from law for nearly five years. The Balochistan High Court held that the accused had active participation with a common intention, were linked by supporting medical and ocular evidence, and that their prolonged absconsion disentitled them to bail. The court established the principle that a fugitive from law and noticeable absconder is generally not entitled to the concession of bail, and dismissed the application accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does prolonged absconsion disentitle an accused person to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether active participation with a common intention in a crime precludes the grant of bail at the tentative assessment stage?
  • Does corroboration of ocular testimony by medical evidence create reasonable grounds to believe an accused's involvement in a capital charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 655 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-21
  rapezina-bil-jabrforensic evidencevictim testimonyinvestigative lapsescriminal appealcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether a conviction for rape can be sustained based on the victim's testimony when forensic DNA and serology reports are negative or inconclusive. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions. The Court held that the victim's testimony, corroborated by police witnesses who apprehended the appellants at the scene, provided sufficient evidence for conviction. The key principle laid down is that negative forensic reports do not automatically negate the prosecution's case, as factors like improper sample handling can affect results. The integrity of the prosecution's case cannot be pinned solely on forensic findings when other overwhelming evidence exists. Furthermore, investigative lapses, such as failures in sample preservation or semen grouping, are the responsibility of the state and do not entitle the accused to acquittal if the victim's testimony is credible and consistent. The solitary statement of a rape victim, if found truthful, is sufficient for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained when forensic DNA and serology reports are negative?
  • Do investigative lapses in the handling of forensic samples entitle an accused to an acquittal?
  • Is the solitary testimony of a rape victim sufficient for conviction if found credible?
  • Does the failure to perform semen grouping in a rape case materially affect the prosecution's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and 3 others vs Messrs Progressive Minerals through Najeeba and others2023 PLD Balochistan 78 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq and others vs Hoor Jan and others2023 CLC 977, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 776 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-29
  succession certificatetarkapensionary benefitsinheritanceservice ruleslegal heirsestate of deceased
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated appeals challenging orders passed by the District Judge, Mastung, regarding the grant of a Succession Certificate for the estate of a deceased government employee. The core legal question was whether the pension and pensionary benefits of a deceased employee constitute 'tarka' (heritable estate) distributable among all legal heirs under Sharia law, or if they are a statutory grant payable exclusively to the next-of-kin as prescribed by the relevant service rules. The Court upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing the appeals of the distant relatives. Relying on precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Court held that pensionary benefits accruing after death do not form part of the deceased's 'tarka' because the deceased had no dominion or control over them during their lifetime. Consequently, such benefits are treated as a grant or concession governed by specific service statutes rather than general inheritance law, and are payable only to the beneficiaries designated by those statutes, excluding distant legal heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Do pension and pensionary benefits of a deceased government employee constitute 'tarka' (heritable estate) under Islamic law?
  • Are pensionary benefits accruing after death distributable among all legal heirs according to Sharia law?
  • Does a deceased employee have the legal authority to claim or dispose of post-death pensionary benefits during their lifetime?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeem Shah vs Abdul Wadood and another2023 PCRLJ 143 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-29
  criminal acquittal appealcircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencemedical evidencepresumption of innocenceburden of proofcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, medical evidence, and an FSL report. The complainant had nominated the accused in a subsequent application filed days after the FIR, without explaining the source of information. The High Court examined the evidence and held that the subsequent application could not be equated with the FIR. It further ruled that medical evidence, while confirming the cause of death, does not identify the offender or connect the accused to the crime. Additionally, the court found the last-seen evidence to be a weak form of proof, insufficient for a capital charge without strong corroboration. Emphasizing that an acquittal order carries a double presumption of innocence, the Court held that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned and not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that conviction cannot rest on suspicion or probability but must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subsequent application filed during an investigation be treated as part of the FIR?
  • Does medical evidence regarding the cause of death serve as substantive evidence to identify an accused?
  • Is last-seen evidence sufficient to sustain a capital conviction without strong corroboration?
  • What is the standard of proof required to dislodge a presumption of innocence in an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nasir and others vs The State and another2023 YLR 107 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-07
  murdercapital punishmentmitigating circumstancesunproved motiverelated witnessinjured witnesscommon intentionmedical corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder, attempted hurt, and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution case alleged that the appellants, along with an absconding co-accused, entered the complainant's house and fired upon his parents, causing their deaths, and injured the complainant. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related and injured eyewitnesses, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR, the consequences of unproved motive on the quantum of sentence, and the evidentiary value of unverified weapon recoveries. The High Court held that the ocular testimony of the injured and related eyewitnesses was natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. However, because the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and the recovery of the weapon was inconclusive, the court found mitigating circumstances to commute the death sentence of the principal accused to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the rest of the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and injured eyewitnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive constitute a mitigating circumstance for altering a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a crime weapon recovery when it is not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison with crime empties?
  • Can a circumstance or piece of evidence not put to an accused during examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. be considered against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nasir and 2 others vs Bibi Hajira and others2023 CLC 1391 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nabi and others vs The State through Deputy Prosecutor General2023 PCRLJ 31 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-31
  National Accountability Ordinancemisuse of authorityillegal transfer of landcorruption and corrupt practicesrevenue officialshandwriting expertcriminal ehtesab appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two criminal ehtesab appeals arising from a judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellants for offences under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The core legal question involved whether the appellants, including a public association president and revenue officials, misused their authority by illegally selling and transferring government land allotted for a housing scheme to an unauthorized private individual. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through documentary evidence, official records, and handwriting expert reports establishing that the appellants acted in connivance to misappropriate the property and misuse their official authority. The court affirmed that public functionaries and association representatives cannot exceed their limited legal mandates or dispose of state-allotted welfare land, laying down the principle that the misuse of authority to grant undue benefits constitutes corruption under the National Accountability Ordinance, and that revenue and association officials must strictly adhere to statutory powers and act in good faith.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unauthorized sale of government land allotted for an association's housing scheme constitutes corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Can a public representative or association president dispose of property entrusted for member welfare without legal authority?
  • Whether revenue officials who facilitate the illegal mutation of state land can be convicted for misuse of authority?
  • Does an attempt to misuse authority to gain a benefit for another person fall within the scope of corrupt practices?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs The State2023 MLD 702 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-14
  common intentionvicarious liabilityocular testimonyspur of the momentcriminal appealhurtmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased and assault on injured witnesses. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who participated in a group attack but did not fire the fatal shot, shared a common intention to commit murder, thereby attracting vicarious liability under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a pre-concerted common intention or object to commit murder, noting the incident occurred at the spur of the moment. While the ocular and medical evidence confirmed the appellant assaulted the injured with an axe, the Court found no evidence of intent to kill. Consequently, the conviction for murder was set aside. The Court established that in the absence of proof of shared common intention for the fatal act, an accused is only liable for the specific injuries they personally inflicted, leading to the appellant's conviction under provisions relating to causing hurt rather than murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-recovery of a weapon of offence automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Can an accused be held vicariously liable for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the prosecution fails to prove a shared common intention?
  • Does an axe blow resulting in a lacerated wound contradict a witness statement claiming the axe was used, or can it be explained by the use of the blunt side of the weapon?
  • Is an accused liable for murder if the incident occurred at the spur of the moment without prior planning?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem etc. vs Muhammad Basil and another2023 PLJ Quetta 82 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem and another vs Muhammad Basil and another2023 PLD Balochistan 22 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-07-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Government of Balochistan, Forest and Wildlife2023 CLC 1808, 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1399 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-21
  public office appointmentland donation for employmentvoid contractpublic policyspecific performanceconstitutional petitionmerit-based appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking a declaration that the Forest and Wildlife Department, Government of Balochistan, was bound to prioritize candidates from the Panezai Tribe for advertised public posts in District Ziarat. The petitioner relied on an agreement dated 27.04.2000, under which the tribe allegedly donated land free of cost in exchange for employment preferences in the department. The High Court of Balochistan reviewed the terms of the agreement and statutory provisions. The court held that public offices cannot be sold or assigned in exchange for land, and any agreement stipulating such terms is illegal, void ab initio, and contrary to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872. Furthermore, such continuous obligations extending beyond three years cannot be specifically enforced pursuant to Section 21(g) of the Specific Relief Act 1877. Reaffirming that public appointments must be made strictly on merit, the court dismissed the petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Is an agreement to offer public employment in exchange for land donation valid under public policy?
  • Can a contract obligating a public department to provide continuous employment preferences over generations be specifically enforced?
  • Does an agreement stipulating the sale or reservation of public office create enforceable legal rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haye vs The State2023 PLD Balochistan 70 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-11
  child sexual assaultrapesolitary testimony of victimchild witnessmedical evidenceprompt FIRcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 376 and 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for child sexual assault and kidnapping, resulting in sentences of imprisonment for life and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions involved the credibility and sufficiency of a minor child victim's solitary testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence in sexual offense cases. The Balochistan High Court held that the statement of a minor child witness, when found mentally competent and consistent under cross-examination, is sufficient to base a conviction without requiring multiple eyewitnesses, particularly when corroborated by prompt lodging of the FIR and supporting medical and forensic evidence. The court established that in heinous offenses like rape and child assault, families do not risk their honor by falsely implicating innocent persons, and sole testimony of a victim inspiring confidence is legally adequate to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for rape and sexual assault can be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a minor victim?
  • How is the mental competence and capacity of a minor child witness assessed prior to recording testimony?
  • Does prompt lodging of an FIR effectively rule out fabrication and consultation in sexual assault cases?
  • Whether medical and forensic evidence corroborating ocular testimony is sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Khair Bibi and 3 others2023 YLR 180 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State2023 YLR 1200 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-30
  confiscation of vehiclenarcotics transportmotor vehicle registrationownership of vehiclesuperdaricontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, challenging the judgment of the trial court solely to the extent of the confiscation of a vehicle used in the transportation of narcotics. The core legal questions involved were whether the appellant qualified as the lawful owner of the vehicle to claim its release, and whether the vehicle was rightly confiscated under Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Balochistan High Court held that under Section 2(24) of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965, an owner is defined as the person in whose name the vehicle is registered, and since the vehicle was not registered in the appellant's name, he could not claim ownership. The court consequently dismissed the appeal, upholding the confiscation of the vehicle. The key principles laid down are that ownership of a motor vehicle for statutory relief is strictly determined by registration in the claimant's name, and vehicles used in the transportation of illicit narcotics are liable to confiscation under Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, unless the registered owner establishes lack of knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Who qualifies as the owner of a motor vehicle for the purpose of claiming its release under the West Pakistan Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965?
  • Under what circumstances is a vehicle used in transporting narcotics liable to confiscation pursuant to Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a person claim the release of a seized vehicle based on a private sale deed without formal registration of the vehicle in their name?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Faizi Bibi and 2 others2023 YLR 54 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and others vs The State2023 PCRLJ 769 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-28
  murdercapital punishmentbenefit of the doubtchance witnessescall data recordunnatural death in housearmed weapon recoverycriminal appealmurder referenceacquittal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Abdul Ghaffar, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and mother-in-law, sentencing him to death, while acquitting the co-accused. The complainant also filed an acquittal appeal against the co-accused. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related and chance eye-witnesses, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the evidentiary value of weapon recoveries sent belatedly to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and whether a conviction can be sustained solely because a crime occurred inside the accused person's house under Article 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the eye-witnesses, that call data records contradicted their claims, that recoveries were doubtful, and that unnatural death inside a house does not shift the ultimate burden of proof onto the accused without independent primary evidence. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appellant's appeal, set aside his conviction and death sentence, answered the murder reference in the negative, and dismissed the complainant's acquittal appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted for murder solely on the presumption that the crime took place inside his house when prosecution evidence is otherwise unreliable?
  • Does the failure of prosecution eye-witnesses to explain their presence at the crime scene render their testimony untrustworthy?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a forensic ballistic report when crime empties and the weapon are sent to the laboratory with an unexplained delay?
  • Whether the testimony of related and chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration and natural explanation of presence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit and others vs The State2023 YLR 1066 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-10-12
  common intentionvicarious liabilitymurder referenceocular evidencerobberydeath sentenceforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the criminal appeals and a murder reference arising from the conviction of appellants Abdul Basit and Altaf Raja for the murder of Mst. Malik Naz and injuries caused to a minor during a robbery. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the appellants' guilt, specifically regarding the vicarious liability of the appellant Altaf Raja under the principle of common intention, despite him not being the primary shooter. The Balochistan High Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the prosecution's ocular evidence was consistent, reliable, and corroborated by forensic reports, including the recovery of the murder weapon. The court upheld the conviction and death sentence of Abdul Basit and the life imprisonment of Altaf Raja. The key principle laid down is that under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, common intention does not require direct proof of prior agreement but can be inferred from the attendant circumstances of the crime, rendering all participants vicariously liable for acts committed in furtherance of that shared criminal purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be inferred from the circumstances of the crime without direct evidence of a prior agreement?
  • Is an accused vicariously liable for a murder committed by a co-accused during the course of a robbery if they shared a common intention?
  • Does the recovery of a crime weapon supported by positive forensic analysis corroborate ocular testimony in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz alias Sadam vs The State2023 YLR 1821 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-04-17
  anti-terrorismexplosive substancesprosecution sanctionmandatory sanctioncriminal appealacquittalevidentiary contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, following allegations of possessing explosive materials and involvement in terrorist activities. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of explosives and the mandatory requirement of government sanction for trial under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with material contradictions, particularly regarding the handling of evidence and the failure to produce key witnesses from the Bomb Disposal team. Furthermore, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any nexus between the appellant and a proscribed organization. Crucially, the Court determined that the trial court proceeded without the mandatory sanction required under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, rendering the proceedings void. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release, emphasizing that statutory requirements for prosecution sanction are mandatory conditions precedent for a valid trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is the prior sanction of the Provincial Government a mandatory condition precedent for a trial under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • Does the failure to obtain mandatory prosecution sanction render the entire trial proceedings void?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce key witnesses responsible for the destruction and analysis of recovered explosive evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakia Begum and another vs Nasir-Ul-Islam Khan and others2022 YLR 2015 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-30Read full judgment →
• Zainullah vs Hizbullah and others2022 PLD Balochistan 81 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-29Read full judgment →
• Zaibo and others vs Habibullah and 2 others2022 PLJ Quetta 44 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-02Read full judgment →
• Torab Khan vs Tahir Khan2022 PLJ Quetta 109 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
• The State through Deputy Attorney General vs Zahid Khan and others2022 CLD 484 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-30
  Foreign Exchange Regulation ActHawala Hundicognizance of offencemandatory procedurecriminal acquittalstatutory interpretationFIA raid
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four Criminal Acquittal Appeals filed by the State against the judgments of the trial Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges related to illegal foreign exchange business (Hawala/Hundi). The core legal question was whether the registration of FIRs and subsequent prosecution by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) were legally sustainable given the specific procedural requirements under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Court held that the prosecution failed to adhere to the mandatory statutory procedure. Specifically, the Court found that the Act requires cognizance to be taken only upon a written complaint by an authorized person from the State Bank of Pakistan or the Federal Government, and that the registration of FIRs without such authorization and compliance with Section 19(3) of the Act was illegal. The Court affirmed the acquittals, emphasizing that when a statute mandates a specific procedure for an action, it must be followed strictly. The principle laid down is that procedural safeguards in special statutes cannot be bypassed by administrative or executive actions, and failure to follow the prescribed mode of initiating proceedings renders the prosecution void.

  Questions settled

  • Does the declaration of an offence as cognizable under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, dispense with the requirement of a formal complaint by an authorized person?
  • Can a court take cognizance of an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, based on an FIR rather than a written complaint?
  • Is the procedure for initiating prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to follow the specific procedural requirements of a statute for initiating criminal proceedings entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Quetta vs Messrs Quetta Electric Supply Company Limited, Zarghoon Road, Quetta2022 PTD 1265 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-06Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Quetta vs Messrs Hajvairy Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd2022 PTD 1377 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-22Read full judgment →
• Taj-ud-Din and another vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1710 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-30
  sodomyunnatural offencekidnappingDNA evidencecriminal appealalteration of chargeforensic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the alleged kidnapping and sodomy of the victim. The core legal questions were whether the ingredients of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 364-A were satisfied, and whether the conviction for sodomy under Section 377 was sustainable based on the evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the offence of kidnapping under Section 364-A, as the victim, who was not a minor under the statutory definition, had boarded the vehicle voluntarily, and no force or deceit was established to constitute kidnapping or abduction. However, the Court found the medical evidence, including DNA reports linking the appellants to the semen stains on the victim's clothing and anal swabs, to be conclusive proof of sodomy. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 364-A and altered the charge to an offence under Section 377, sentencing the appellants to ten years of rigorous imprisonment each. The principle laid down is that while kidnapping requires proof of taking or enticing a person from lawful guardianship or against their will, a conviction for sodomy can be sustained independently based on corroborative medical and forensic evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the act of offering a lift to a person who voluntarily boards a vehicle constitute kidnapping under Section 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for sodomy under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained based on forensic DNA evidence despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the charge of kidnapping?
  • Is the statement of a victim sufficient for conviction if supported by corroborative medical and forensic evidence?
  • Does the definition of kidnapping under Section 361 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply to an adult who voluntarily enters a vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajjad Ali vs The State2022 MLD 1773 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-01-29
  post-arrest bailidentification paradebenefit of doubtfurther inquiryblind FIRmurderfingerprint report
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Syed Sajjad Ali in case FIR No. 168 of 2019 (subsequently referred to as FIR No. 163 of 2019) registered under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Kechi Baig Quetta for the murder of Najeebullah. The core legal questions involved whether the identification parade of an accused by a co-accused after an unexplained delay of fourteen days carries legal weight, and whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage given that fingerprint reports did not match and the FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons. The Balochistan High Court held that identification of an accused by a co-accused is not permissible under the law, that an unexplained delay of fourteen days in conducting an identification parade creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution story, and that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of doubt for further inquiry. The court laid down that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused even at the bail stage and that identification parades must be conducted in accordance with settled legal principles rather than having co-accused identify one another.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade where one co-accused identifies another accused is permissible under the law?
  • Does an unexplained delay of fourteen days in conducting an identification parade create a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused person at the bail stage?
  • Does a negative fingerprint report matching the accused provide sufficient grounds for grant of bail in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohsin Ali vs The State through Deputy Prosecutor General (DPG), National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Balochistan2022 P Cr. L J 549 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-24
  National Accountability Ordinancecriminal breach of trustcheatingpublic-at-largecivil disputeacquittalhousing scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant by the Accountability Court-I, Quetta, for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, involving a housing scheme dispute. The core legal questions were whether the appellant's failure to deliver plots constituted the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust under the Ordinance, and whether the number of affected individuals satisfied the statutory requirement of defrauding the "public-at-large." The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish dishonest intention, noting that the project's failure resulted from civil litigation and stay orders, rendering the matter a civil dispute rather than a criminal offence. Furthermore, the Court determined that the involvement of only ten complainants did not constitute the "public-at-large" required to invoke the special jurisdiction of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment affirms that special laws like the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, must be strictly construed and are not intended to replace civil remedies for contractual breaches involving limited parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to deliver plots in a housing scheme due to civil litigation constitute the offence of cheating under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can a dispute involving a limited number of complainants satisfy the statutory requirement of defrauding the 'public-at-large' under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is the offence of criminal breach of trust under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, established when a project fails due to a civil court stay order?
  • Should the provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, be applied to disputes that are essentially contractual in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Gulistan vs Gulab Khan and 2 others2022 MLD 563 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-02Read full judgment →
• Suleman Khan vs Government Of Balochistan through Secretary Home &2022 PLJ Quetta 156, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 428 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-11-08
  constitutional petitionshaheed quotapolice departmentemployment policynominee of spouse
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the Police Department under the Shaheed Quota based on his qualifications and various government notifications. The core legal question was whether a brother of a martyred police official is eligible for appointment under the Shaheed Quota as a nominee of the spouse under the applicable government policies. The Balochistan High Court held that under the modified policy notifications, particularly the notification dated 15.04.2015, if a Shaheed employee was married, either the spouse, one child, or a nominee of the spouse may be given employment provided they qualify for the post. Since both widows of the deceased Sub-Inspector appeared before the court and filed affidavits nominating their brother-in-law (the petitioner) for the appointment, the court accepted the petition and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner according to his qualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a brother of a martyred police employee can be appointed under the Shaheed Quota as a nominee of the spouse under the applicable government notifications?
  • Does the notification dated 15.04.2015 issued by the Finance Department Government of Balochistan allow the nomination of a family member other than the spouse or child for employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman and another vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1623 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-04
  criminal appealocular evidencebenefit of doubtmurderwitness credibilitySection 161 CrPCballistic reportacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for the murder of the deceased, as handed down by the Sessions Judge, Gwadar. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony provided by interested witnesses, the impact of unexplained delays in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the evidentiary value of weapon recovery when ocular evidence is discredited. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the witnesses could not have identified the assailants in the dark without a proven source of light, and the unexplained delay in recording their statements rendered their testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the court noted significant contradictions regarding the investigation officer's presence at the crime scene and the recovery site, alongside an unexplained delay in forensic analysis. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, affirming the principle that the benefit of every doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a proven light source at the scene of a nighttime occurrence render the identification of assailants by eye-witnesses unreliable?
  • Is an unexplained delay in recording the statements of eye-witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can the recovery of a crime weapon sustain a conviction if the primary ocular evidence has been disbelieved by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd., Regional Office and others vs Muhammad2022 MLD 1664 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-30
  gas theftGas Utility Courtcriminal acquittal appealprivate complaintnon-cognizable offencemandatory procedurestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal acquittal appeals filed by Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. challenge the orders of the trial court acquitting the respondents of charges relating to gas theft under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016. The core legal question was whether the trial court rightly acquitted the accused where the gas utility company had mistakenly initiated proceedings through police FIRs instead of filing a formal private complaint as mandated by the statute. The Balochistan High Court held that the offences under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 are non-cognizable and that Section 5(2) of the Act expressly restricts cognizance exclusively upon a written complaint made by an authorized person, overriding contrary procedures. The Court affirmed that when a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and not otherwise. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the initiation of FIRs instead of statutory complaints was fundamentally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Gas Utility Court take cognizance of an offence under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 upon a police FIR rather than a written complaint?
  • Whether offences punishable under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 are cognizable or non-cognizable in nature?
  • Does the requirement under Section 5(2) of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 for a complaint by an authorized person operate with an overriding non-obstante effect?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan through Chief Manager vs Federation of Pakistan2022 CLC 1574 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-31Read full judgment →
• Sorat Khan vs The State2022 YLR 406 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-28
  circumstantial evidenceconfessional statementextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtanti-terrorismbomb blastvehicle ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 in connection with a fatal car bomb explosion targeting a judicial convoy. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through circumstantial evidence, specifically regarding vehicle ownership, extra-judicial confession, and a judicial confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's ownership and possession of the crime vehicle, that the confessions were involuntary and tainted by police torture, and that missing links in the circumstantial evidence rendered the case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the links in the chain must be unbroken, and that a retracted confession bearing indications of torture or coercion cannot form the basis of a conviction without strong, independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence when the links in the chain of evidence are incomplete?
  • Is a judicial confession admissible when the record indicates it was preceded by police torture?
  • Whether an extra-judicial confession can form the basis of a conviction without strong independent corroboration?
  • Does failure to prove ownership and control of a vehicle allegedly used in a crime vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sherzaman, Ex-Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Directorate of Excise2022 KLR Labour & Service Cases 82 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs Syed Abdul Sadiq and 2 others2022 YLR 1276 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Bibi Safia and 4 others2022 CLC 1987 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Arsalan vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1308 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-13
  criminal appealconviction and sentencestatement of accusedrecovery witnessescase propertyremand of casefair trialprocedural illegality
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 302(b) and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the trial court. The core legal question involves whether a conviction can be sustained when material recovery witnesses and case property are not produced, and when mandatory procedures under sections 342 and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are violated by the trial court. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court committed grave illegality by failing to examine key recovery witnesses, omitting to put crucial incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused during his examination under section 342, and neglecting to invoke its powers under section 540 to ensure a just decision. The ratio laid down is that a trial court cannot act as a silent spectator and must ensure the examination of essential witnesses and proper adherence to procedural safeguards to guarantee a fair trial. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision after recording the necessary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can incriminating evidence not put to an accused during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used for his conviction?
  • What is the scope and mandatory nature of a trial court's power to summon material witnesses under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an appellate court can set aside a conviction and remand a criminal case for retrial upon noting severe procedural lapses and failure to examine key recovery witnesses?
  • Does the omission to specify points for determination as required by section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a trial court judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Aziz vs The State2022 MLD 1845 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-03-29
  pre-arrest bailmala fidecounterblast FIRprohibitory clauseconcurrent jurisdictioncriminal intimidationarson
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of arson and criminal intimidation. The core legal questions addressed were whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a pre-arrest bail application directly, bypassing the Sessions Court, and whether the applicant satisfied the criteria for pre-arrest bail, specifically the requirements of mala fide and the absence of incriminating material. The Court held that while parties should generally approach the Sessions Court first, the High Court possesses concurrent jurisdiction that may be invoked in compelling circumstances. Finding that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of 20 hours, that the applicant had previously lodged a cross-FIR against the complainants, and that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute, the Court confirmed the bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief intended to protect against malicious prosecution, and where a case appears to be a counterblast or lacks sufficient incriminating material, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person approach the High Court directly for pre-arrest bail without first moving the Sessions Court?
  • Does the registration of a cross-FIR by the accused against the complainant party support a claim of mala fide in a bail application?
  • Is an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR a relevant factor for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitle an accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharaf-Ud-Din vs Abdul Wadood and 3 others2022 CLC 1282 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →