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.

• Abdul Rauf and others vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary2022 PLC 1496, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1494 · Balochistan High Court
  recruitment processlegitimate expectationselection committeelocus poenitentiaeconstitutional petitionadministrative delayvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of Constitutional Petitions challenging the decision of the Balochistan Mines and Minerals Department to re-advertise posts for which the petitioners had already been selected. The petitioners had successfully qualified through written tests and interviews conducted by a duly constituted Selection/Recruitment Committee, which subsequently recommended them for appointment. The respondents justified the re-advertisement on the grounds of administrative delay in finalizing the recruitment process. The core legal question was whether the government could arbitrarily cancel a completed selection process and re-advertise posts due to administrative delays, despite the petitioners having acquired a vested right to appointment. The Court held that once a selection process is completed and candidates are recommended, the process cannot be arbitrarily upset. The Court ruled that administrative delays or lapses in clerical formalities do not justify the cancellation of a valid selection process. Consequently, the Court accepted the petitions, directing the respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioners, establishing the principle that a legitimate expectation of appointment arises once the selection process is finalized.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department arbitrarily re-advertise posts after a selection committee has already recommended candidates for appointment?
  • Does an administrative delay in finalizing a recruitment process justify the cancellation of a completed selection?
  • Does a candidate acquire a vested right to appointment once a selection process is completed and they are recommended by a recruitment committee?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf and 4 others vs Director Estate, Quetta Development Authority2022 CLC 139 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nafay vs Government of Balochistan and another2022 PLJ Quetta 130, 2024 CLC 1437 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1570 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-06
  criminal appealattempted murderbenefit of doubtinterested witnessabscondencemedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for attempted murder and causing hurt. The trial court had convicted the appellant under sections 324 and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, based on the testimony of the injured witness and the complainant. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution's evidence, characterized by contradictions and inconsistencies, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the trial court erred in relying on the appellant's abscondence without putting it to him during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from glaring contradictions, including discrepancies regarding the time of the occurrence, the identity of the person who transported the injured to the hospital, and the medical examination process. The Court emphasized that the presence of injuries on a witness does not automatically render their testimony truthful, and that in cases of enmity, independent corroboration is required. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of injuries on a witness automatically validate their testimony as gospel truth?
  • Can an accused be convicted based on evidence of abscondence if that specific incriminating circumstance was not put to the accused during their examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is independent corroboration required for the testimony of an injured witness when there is a history of enmity between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Khetran and another vs Government Of Balochistan through Secretary Irrigation Department and another2022 CLC 781 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs Muhammad Murad and others2022 CLC 1713 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Faizi Bibi (Widow) and others2022 PLJ Quetta 162 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Kudezai and 2 others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 2 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 1369 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-31
  benevolent fundretired civil servantjurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunalterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 by retired education department officers seeking the issuance of lump sum benevolent fund based on their promoted/time-scale grades rather than their original pay scales, given that 4% deductions were made from their salaries on the higher scale. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether a retired employee, for the purpose of terms and conditions of service and pensionary benefits, is considered a civil servant and whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution in favor of the Service Tribunal. The Balochistan High Court held that retired civil servants fall within the definition of civil servants under the relevant statutes and Article 212 of the Constitution regarding their terms and conditions of service. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such matters, and the petition was dismissed as non-maintainable, leaving the petitioners at liberty to approach the appropriate Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retired employee for the purpose of his terms and conditions of service and pensionary benefits is considered as a civil servant?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution bar the jurisdiction of High Courts in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of retired civil servants?
  • Can a retired civil servant agitate claims regarding pensionary benefits and benevolent funds before the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari vs Akhtar Rasheed, Station House Officer, Police Station Airport, Quetta and 5 others2022 MLD 805 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Ziauddin vs Khan Muhammad and 7 others2021 PLD Balochistan 67 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-17Read full judgment →
• Zahid and others vs Mst. Sadia and others2021 PLJ Quetta 235, 2021 MLD 798 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad and 4 others vs Muhammad Ali and 4 others2021 MLD 215 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-27Read full judgment →
• Wing Commander, Paf Base, Samungli, Quetta vs Naseebullah Khan and others2021 CLC 1738 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• Wazir Muhammad vs The State2021 YLR 611 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-20
  homicidal deathbenefit of doubtburden of proofabsconsioncircumstantial evidencemurder convictioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Court convicting the appellant for the murder of his wife under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal question was whether a conviction for murder can be sustained based solely on the unnatural death of the wife inside the appellant's house, his failure to explain the circumstances, his absconsion, and uncorroborated circumstantial evidence where the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the failure of an accused to explain an unnatural death occurring inside his house or his mere absconsion cannot take the place of positive evidentiary certainty, and cannot sustain a conviction when the prosecution's foundational evidence is unreliable. The court established that shifting of the burden of proof to an accused under such circumstances does not relieve the prosecution of its primary duty to establish guilt through independent and reliable evidence, and the benefit of any doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted of murder solely on the basis of an unnatural death occurring inside his house and his failure to explain the circumstances?
  • Whether mere absconsion of an accused is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of reliable prosecution evidence?
  • Does the failure of an accused to discharge the onus regarding an unnatural death in his home relieve the prosecution of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs Achar2021 CLC 1579 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Waheed and another vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 719 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-22
  dying declarationbenefit of doubtmurdercriminal appealmedical evidenceappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 302(b) and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an incident involving murder and police encounter, along with a connected revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions centered on the reliability and legal validity of an oral dying declaration made by the deceased, the presence of eyewitnesses, and the sufficiency of corroborative circumstantial and medical evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to fatal contradictions regarding the time of occurrence, doubtful presence of the complainant, non-compliance with statutory rules for recording dying declarations, and severe injuries to vital parts of the deceased rendering coherent speech improbable. The court established that a dying declaration, being a weak form of evidence, must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and corroborated by reliable circumstantial evidence, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential tests and requirements for determining the genuineness and reliability of a dying declaration in a criminal trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration when the deceased sustained fatal injuries to vital parts of the body making speech improbable?
  • Does a dying declaration require close scrutiny and corroboration from independent circumstantial evidence?
  • What is the effect of non-compliance with the prescribed statutory rules regarding the recording of a dying declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd., through Regional Chief Executive UBL vs Fareedullah Khan2021 PLC 111 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-29
  labour lawtermination from servicecompulsory retirementdoctrine of proportionalitydisciplinary penaltyabsence from dutylabour appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had modified an employee's termination from service to compulsory retirement. The employee, a bank cashier, was terminated for continuous absence from duty. While the Labour Court initially dismissed his grievance application, the Appellate Tribunal modified the penalty, finding termination too harsh given the employee's 19-year service record and the lack of evidence regarding habitual absenteeism. The core legal question was whether the modification of the penalty by the Appellate Tribunal was commensurate with the employee's misconduct under the doctrine of proportionality. The Court held that the penalty of termination was disproportionately harsh for a first-time instance of absence, especially considering the employee's long tenure. Affirming the Tribunal's decision, the Court laid down the principle that the discretion to impose disciplinary penalties must be exercised fairly, justly, and equitably, adhering to the doctrine of proportionality, which requires that the punishment be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and the specific circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of proportionality apply to the imposition of penalties in labour law cases?
  • Can a Labour Appellate Tribunal modify a penalty of termination to compulsory retirement?
  • Is termination from service a disproportionate penalty for an employee with long service who is not a habitual absentee?
  Read full judgment →
• Ubaidullah vs The State2021 P Cr.LJ 90 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-13
  post-arrest bailproscribed organizationterrorist financingprohibitory clauseanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail application filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 29 of 2019 registered under sections 11-F(2)(5) and 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for allegedly collecting donations for a proscribed organization. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that since the maximum punishment for the offence does not exceed five years, it falls outside the prohibitory clause, making the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception. The application was accordingly accepted and bail granted subject to furnishing surety. The key principle laid down is that in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does collecting funds for a proscribed organization under section 11-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Toba Saeed through her Father vs Chairman Admission Committee2021 MLD 520 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-05-21Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Amir Muhammad2021 MLD 1381 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-21
  bail cancellationnarcotic substancesstatutory perioddeeper appreciation of evidenceprivate witnessesnon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal revision application filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the trial court in a case involving the recovery of 4 kilograms of 'Ice' (narcotic substance). The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion correctly in granting bail, particularly regarding the statutory period of detention and the evidentiary assessment at the bail stage. The High Court held that the trial court erred by granting bail before the mandatory statutory period of two years had elapsed under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the High Court determined that the trial court engaged in an impermissible deeper appreciation of evidence and incorrectly relied on the absence of private witnesses, noting that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court cancelled the bail, emphasizing that courts should be cautious in granting bail at the final stage of trial for non-bailable offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of private witnesses in a narcotics case provide valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Is the deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage of a criminal trial?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted in a narcotics case before the statutory period of two years of detention has lapsed?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General Balochistan vs Muhammad Ashfaq2021 P Cr. L J 186 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-18
  criminal appealacquittalrecovery of weaponbenefit of doubtdouble presumption of innocencearms ordinancerevaluation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal appeal was filed by the State under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the private respondent by the trial court under Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution had established the recovery of the crime weapon beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant a conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery, citing an unexplained delay in sending the weapon to the firearms expert, the implausibility of recovering a lightweight bullet empty from a running water drain after twenty-five days, the failure to associate independent private witnesses from a populated area, and the fact that the accused had already been acquitted in the main murder case. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable dent in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt, and that an acquittal reinforces the double presumption of innocence which cannot be disturbed without strong and cogent evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused earn the benefit of doubt based on a single circumstance that creates a reasonable dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in sending a recovered weapon to a firearms expert affects the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal in an arms recovery case when the evidence in the connected main murder case has already been disbelieved?
  • What quantum of evidence is required to disturb the findings of an acquittal which carries a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• The People's Primary Healthcare Initiative Balochistan (Pphi-B) through Chief Executive Officer vs Auditor General Of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others2021 PLD Balochistan 24 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-15Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs, through Additional Collector of Customs and others vs Akhtar Hussain and others2021 PTD 1823 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Quetta vs FazalPTCL 2021 CL. 554 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-21Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs, Model Custom Collectorate, Quetta vs Muhammad Asif and 2 others2021 PTD 993 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-17Read full judgment →
• The Collector Customs, through Additional Collector Model Customs2021P T D 1732 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tayyab Raza vs The State2021 YLR 1291 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-19
  rapeunnatural offenceminor victimcapital punishmentforensic evidencecriminal appealmurder referencesentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and murder reference arising from the conviction of the appellant for committing rape and unnatural offenses against minor victims. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to death and life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through oral, medical, and forensic evidence, and whether the capital punishment was warranted. The High Court held that the prosecution’s case, supported by the consistent testimony of minor victims, medical reports confirming sexual assault, and the forensic recovery of incriminating digital material from the appellant’s devices, was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court upheld the convictions under Sections 376 and 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, the court modified the sentence, converting the death penalties to life imprisonment, noting that the prosecution failed to produce all alleged victims and that the delay in reporting the offenses warranted a more measured sentencing approach. The judgment reinforces the principle that a minor victim's testimony, when confidence-inspiring and corroborated by medical or circumstantial evidence, is sufficient for conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for rape or sodomy be based on the solitary statement of a minor victim?
  • Is forensic analysis of digital devices containing pornographic material admissible to corroborate charges of sexual assault?
  • Does the failure to produce all alleged victims in a sexual assault case necessitate the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Tauk Ali vs The Additional District Judge-VI, Quetta and 3 others2021 YLR 743 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
• Taqveem Shah vs Government Of Balochistan and 2 others2021 CLC 985 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahir Shah and another vs Habibullah alias Sabo and others2021 YLR 2239 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-18
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtdelay in FIRcontradictory statementsabductionconfessional statementdouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 365, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the credibility of contradictory prosecution evidence, the effect of an unexplained 25-hour delay in lodging the FIR, and whether the trial court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, noting severe contradictions among prosecution witnesses, reliance on hearsay evidence, failure to examine crucial supporting witnesses, and material discrepancies between the alleged abductee's court statement and his confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court affirmed that an order of acquittal carries double innocence and cannot be interfered with unless found perverse or arbitrary. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of 25 hours in lodging the FIR renders the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Can an acquittal judgment be interfered with when the prosecution fails to produce central corroborative witnesses?
  • Does a material contradiction between the court statement and the confessional statement of the alleged victim destroy the prosecution's case?
  • What is the evidentiary threshold required to interfere with an order of acquittal which carries a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Yaseen Shah vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1455 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-14
  quashment of FIRinherent jurisdictionabscondercriminal procedurecapital punishmenttrial court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of an FIR registered under sections 302, 147, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with pending proceedings before the Sessions Judge, contending that a co-accused had been acquitted and his case stood on the same footing. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings when the challan has been submitted, the petitioner is a proclaimed absconder, and the trial court has not yet examined the matter. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that inherent powers under section 561-A should not ordinarily be invoked as an alternative or additional remedy to bypass the trial court, especially in capital cases where the prosecution must be afforded an opportunity to produce evidence. The key principle laid down is that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is preserved to meet lacunae where no other remedy exists and should not be utilized to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings before the petitioner has approached the trial court?
  • Can the inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as an alternative or additional remedy to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure?
  • Should an FIR involving capital offences be quashed on the ground that a co-accused has been acquitted, without allowing the prosecution an opportunity to produce evidence at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Naseem Agha and 3 others vs Shuja Ud Din Kasi and others2021 PLD Balochistan 206, 2022 PLJ Quetta 97 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Lal Shah vs The State2021 MLD 922 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-24
  criminal appealnarcotics controlrecovery discrepancysafe custody of samplesbenefit of the doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge CNS, Naseerabad at Dera Murad Jamali, convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution proved the recovery of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt, given material discrepancies in ocular testimonies and unexplained delays in sending the sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Balochistan High Court held that contradictory statements between police witnesses regarding the number of vehicles checked and the unexplained delay in transmitting the safe custody of samples to the laboratory severely dented the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own strength through cogent and confidence-inspiring evidence, and any material contradictions or missing links in the safe custody of contraband warrant the benefit of the doubt and subsequent acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions in the statements of ocular police witnesses are sufficient to create doubt in a narcotics case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Must the prosecution prove its case against an accused on its own independent strength?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali vs Mir Shabir Ahmed Badini and 2 others2022 MLD 780, 2022 PLJ Quetta 87 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-12Read full judgment →
• Suleman Shah vs The State2021 MLD 392 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-16
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionfurther inquiryabsconsionovert actmurdertentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application concerns a request for post-arrest bail by an accused charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a case involving double murder. The core legal question was whether the accused, who was named in the FIR but attributed no specific overt act of firing and was alleged to have been empty-handed, was entitled to bail despite a nine-year period of absconsion. The Court held that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient to establish criminal liability without evidence of shared common intention or facilitation. It further noted that the prosecution's delayed recording of witness statements, which introduced new allegations against the accused, rendered the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed the principle that absconsion alone does not preclude the grant of bail if the accused has a prima facie case on merits. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the accused's role required evidentiary determination at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere presence at the scene of a crime, without an overt act, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Can an accused be granted bail despite having been an absconder for a significant period?
  • Does the introduction of new allegations in witness statements recorded after a long delay entitle an accused to further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Society For Community Development (SCD), through Executive Director vs United Nations International Children Emergency Fund, (Unicef), Pakistan through Representative and others2021 CLC 1379 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-31Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman and 4 others vs Government Of Balochistan, Secondary2021 CLC 532 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-13Read full judgment →
• Shah Maqsood vs Khair-Un-Nisa and 2 others2021 CLC 561 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-13Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed vs Muhammad Muzamil Hussain and another2021 PLD Balochistan 79 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-05Read full judgment →
• Shaban Khuda Bakhsh vs Hatima Ameer and 2 others2021 CLC 1807 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-13Read full judgment →
• Sewa Khan vs The State2021 MLD 1364 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-14
  Criminal appealIllegal armsBallistic expertBurden of proofAcquittalFirearm recoveryProsecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(e) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, by the trial court, which sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment for illegal possession of a firearm. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of the accused regarding the illegal possession and the functionality of the recovered weapon. The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court reasoned that the prosecution did not produce medical evidence regarding the alleged firing incident, failed to recover empty casings from the scene, and did not prove the appellant lacked a valid license for the weapon. Crucially, the Court emphasized that the failure to send the recovered weapon to a ballistic expert to ascertain its functional condition rendered the conviction unsustainable, as a non-functional weapon cannot support a conviction under the Arms Ordinance. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt firmly and irresistibly through concrete evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving that an accused person did not possess a valid license for a recovered firearm?
  • Is a ballistic expert report required to establish the functionality of a weapon in a case involving illegal possession of arms?
  • Can a conviction under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 be sustained if the recovered weapon is not proven to be in working condition?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Communication And Works Department, Government Of Balochistan, Quetta and another vs Abdul Majeed and 7 others2021 CLC 1127 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-16Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan and another vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 43 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-21
  fugitive from justiceright of audiencequashment of proceedingsnon-bailable warrantsabuse of processcriminal proceduredue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Judicial Magistrate in Harnai, following the dismissal of the petitioners' application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether a person who avoids appearance before a court and evades arrest is entitled to a hearing or audience in a court of law. The Court held that the petition could not be entertained because the petitioners were fugitives from justice. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that an individual seeking the aid of the court or challenging judicial orders must first submit to the due process of law. By repeatedly failing to appear despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the petitioners had lost their right of audience. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that a fugitive from justice cannot invoke the court's jurisdiction to seek relief while simultaneously evading its lawful process.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person who avoids appearance before a court and evades arrest entitled to be heard in a petition for quashment of proceedings?
  • Does a fugitive from justice have the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an order of a trial court?
  • Can a court entertain a petition filed by an accused who has failed to surrender to the process of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah vs Baz Muhammad2021 PLD Balochistan 196, 2022 PLJ Quetta 69 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-11Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad vs Executive Engineer Irrigation and 5 others2021 YLR 2425 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-24Read full judgment →
• Sahib Zada Din Muhammad vs Muhammad Zaman and others2021 CLC 1560 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-17Read full judgment →
• Sadia Gill vs Vishal Masih and another2021 PLD Balochistan 20 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs The State2022 YLR 173 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-19
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidencebenefit of the doubtmurdercriminal appealconfession in police custodyrecoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution case entirely rested on circumstantial evidence, specifically a belated 'last seen' witness, pointation, and alleged recoveries of a rope and the deceased's belongings. The core legal questions involved the standard of proof required for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of a belated 'last seen' witness, and the admissibility and reliability of police-custody disclosures and subsequent recoveries. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances connecting the appellant to the crime, that 'last seen' evidence is the weakest type requiring strict corroboration which was missing here, and that unsealed and non-exclusive recoveries coupled with delayed reporting created insurmountable doubts. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, while dismissing the revision petition for enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Can a conviction for murder be safely based solely on a belated 'last seen' witness without independent corroboration?
  • What are the legal requirements for admissibility and reliability of a fact discovered pursuant to a disclosure made in police custody under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and reporting a missing person create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rooh Ullah and another vs Matiullah and another2021 CLC 1998 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs The State2021 YLR 2366 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-18
  juvenile accusedretracted confessionconfessional statementbenefit of doubtrobberycontradictory evidencetime for reflectioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery and sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the reliability of contradictory prosecution evidence, the non-production of key eyewitnesses, and the legality and voluntariness of a retracted judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from a juvenile accused without mandatory procedural precautions and counseling. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, delayed FIR registration, lack of corroboration, and the involuntary and legally flawed nature of the retracted confession of the minor appellant. The court laid down the principle that extraordinary care, mandatory precautionary measures, time for reflection, and opportunities for legal counseling must be strictly observed while recording the confessional statement of a juvenile, and a retracted confession cannot form the basis of a safe conviction without strong independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted judicial confession of a juvenile accused can be relied upon for conviction without fulfilling mandatory procedural safeguards?
  • Does the non-production of material private eyewitnesses attract an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Whether material contradictions regarding the time and manner of the occurrence and the lodging of the FIR vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Is it mandatory to provide counseling through a guardian or a lawyer to a juvenile before recording their confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Mst. Bibi Zenora and 2 others2021 PLD Balochistan 145 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
• Razak Khan Khajjak vs The Chairman/Chairperson, Q.D.A.Government Of2021 PLD Balochistan 41 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rakhshanda Jamal vs Shahid-Ul-Hassan and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 1598 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-28
  reinvestigationsubmission of challanjustice of peacecriminal trialclean hands doctrineconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought to set aside an order passed by the trial court dismissing her application under Section 22-A(6)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the transfer of investigation to the Crimes Branch regarding the alleged abduction of her daughters. The core legal question was whether an application for reinvestigation is competent before a Justice of Peace or trial court after the completion of investigation, submission of challan, framing of charge, and recording of prosecution evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that while police may conduct further investigation and submit a supplementary challan prior to the final disposal of a case by the trial court, provisions under Sections 22-A and 22-B do not interfere with judicial functions once cognizance is taken, and an application for reinvestigation at a belated trial stage is meritless. The court further held that a petitioner who makes a misstatement regarding court observations does not approach the court with clean hands. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 22-A(6)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is competent after the submission of a challan and commencement of the trial?
  • Does any legal bar exist for the police to carry out a reinvestigation or submit a supplementary challan after the submission of a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can reinvestigation of a criminal case be allowed after the case has been finally disposed of by a trial court?
  • Does a petitioner making a misstatement regarding previous court orders qualify for discretionary and equitable relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Rakhshanda Jamal vs Shahid-Ul-Hassan 5 others2021 YLR 90 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-14Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs The State2021 MLD 553 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-10
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsborderline casesentencing discretionheinous offencebail stage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of two kilograms of charas and 26 grams of crystal from his possession. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail based on the argument that the quantity recovered was a 'borderline' case and that the court should consider the likely sentence rather than the maximum statutory punishment. The court held that the application was without merit and dismissed it. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in 'Socha Gul v. State', the court determined that at the bail stage, it is improper to engage in speculative exercises regarding the quantum of sentence or to pre-empt the trial court's sentencing discretion. Furthermore, the court emphasized that narcotics offences are heinous crimes against society, and the statutory caution under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, must be observed, rendering the 'borderline' quantity argument inapplicable in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • Is it permissible for a court at the bail stage to speculate on the quantum of sentence likely to be awarded to an accused?
  • Does the recovery of a quantity marginally exceeding the threshold for a lesser offence entitle an accused to bail in narcotics cases?
  • Should a court consider the maximum statutory sentence when deciding a bail application for a narcotics offence?
  • Is the principle of 'borderline' quantity applicable to bail applications involving the recovery of both charas and crystal?
  Read full judgment →
• Quetta Development Authority through Director General, Q.D.a vs Sajjad2021 YLR 795 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1169 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-05-20
  criminal appealretracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtdeath sentencewitness credibilityrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for double murder. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, and the reliability of recoveries made during the investigation. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The court emphasized that a retracted judicial confession, without independent corroboration, cannot sustain a conviction. Furthermore, the court found that the complainant made deliberate and dishonest improvements in his testimony, undermining his credibility. The recovery of the alleged crime weapon from an open, non-exclusive place was deemed unsafe, and the delay in sending forensic samples rendered the evidence inconclusive. Establishing the principle that the prosecution must prove its case on its own merits without relying on defence weaknesses, the court ruled that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroboration?
  • Does a deliberate and dishonest improvement in a witness's testimony destroy the credibility of their entire statement?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon from an open place accessible to others sufficient to prove guilt?
  • Must the prosecution prove the ownership of recovered items to rely on them as incriminating evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad and others vs Mehmood Khan and others2021 PLJ Quetta 165, 2022 CLC 1646 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-05Read full judgment →
• Nozo vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1729 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-16
  explosive substanceschain of custodysanction for prosecutionbenefit of doubtforensic reportanti-terrorismcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of an Improvised Explosive Device. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery and chain of custody of the explosive material, and whether the trial was legally competent in the absence of the mandatory sanction for prosecution required by law. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to significant procedural lapses, including an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, failure to seal the recovered material at the spot, and an eighteen-day delay in transmitting samples to the forensic laboratory, which shattered the chain of custody. Furthermore, the Court held that the mandatory requirement for prior sanction for prosecution was not satisfied, rendering the trial proceedings void. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case without doubt, and any failure to establish the chain of custody or obtain mandatory statutory sanctions entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to seal recovered explosive material at the place of occurrence render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Is the prior sanction for prosecution mandatory for a trial under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • Does an unexplained delay in transmitting forensic samples to a laboratory break the chain of custody?
  • Can a trial proceed under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, if the mandatory sanction for prosecution was neither sought nor granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ud Din and 4 others vs The Secretary Board Of Revenue Department2021 PLD Balochistan 5 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-16Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed and others vs Gul Ahmed and others2021 YLR 1867 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed vs Arbela Khan and 2 others2021 YLR 2271 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-18
  quashment of FIRinherent powers of High Courtdishonoring of chequealternative remedycriminal procedureacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the quashment of FIR No. 153 of 2019, registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the setting aside of an order passed by the Sessions Judge/Justice of the Peace, Jaffarabad, which had directed the registration of said FIR following an application under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings when alternative statutory remedies remain available to the accused. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the inherent power of the High Court is extraordinary and should not be invoked to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure when other remedies exist. The key principle laid down is that quashment proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not maintainable or preferred when the accused has not first exhausted the alternative remedies of acquittal provided under Sections 249-A and 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR when alternative remedies under Sections 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are available?
  • Is it permissible for the High Court to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure through quashment proceedings at an early stage of the case?
  • Does the trial court have the discretion to acquit an accused at an early stage if there is no sufficient incriminating material?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah and 2 others vs Essa Khan and 9 others2021 CLC 1647 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed vs Sumeyya and another2021 MLD 420 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-27Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed and another vs Ghafoor Khan2021 PLJ Quetta 223, 2021 MLD 1180 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-30Read full judgment →
• Naseebullah and others vs The State through Prosecutor General2022 YLR 885 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-23Read full judgment →
• Nasar Ud Din vs The State2021 YLR 457 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-31
  narcoticschemical examiner reportsampling protocolchain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, who was found guilty by the trial court for an offence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the recovery of 80 kilograms of charas from a vehicle. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence regarding the sampling protocol, the chain of custody, and the scientific validity of the chemical analysis. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to several critical lapses: the failure to secure and test separate samples from each recovered packet as required by law; the failure to adhere to established chemical testing protocols in the Forensic Science Laboratory report; the failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of the recovered substance; and the lack of evidence regarding the existence of secret cavities in the vehicle. The judgment reaffirms that strict adherence to sampling procedures and proof of safe custody are mandatory for a conviction in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for the prosecution to secure and separately test samples from each individual packet of recovered narcotic substance?
  • Does a chemical analysis report that fails to detail the specific testing protocol constitute conclusive proof of the nature of the recovered substance?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained if the prosecution fails to establish the safe custody and transmission of the recovered material?
  • What constitutes a valid 'protocol' for the chemical testing of narcotic substances under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Najeebullah vs The State through Prosecutor General, Balochistan2021 YLR 2182 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-05-13
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidenceFIR delayprosecutorial misconductmaterial witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the significant discrepancies in the ocular evidence and the investigation process. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing an unexplained 23-hour delay in lodging the FIR, material improvements in the complainant's supplementary statements regarding the appellant's role, and the failure to examine natural and material witnesses. The Court emphasized that such improvements and the suppression of material facts create reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and extended him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where ocular evidence is inconsistent, improved upon, or unreliable, and where the investigation is tainted by the suppression of material witnesses, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal consequence of a complainant making material improvements in a supplementary statement regarding the role of an accused?
  • Does the failure to examine natural and material witnesses during an investigation constitute prosecutorial misconduct?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular evidence is provided by interested witnesses whose testimony is inconsistent with the initial FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Naimatullah and 11 others vs Faizullah and 2 others2021 PLD Balochistan 15 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-19Read full judgment →
• Nadir Ali vs The State2021 MLD 895 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-12
  emigration offencecriminal appealstatutory cognizanceburden of proofreasonable doubtprocedural irregularityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly receiving money from complainants under the false promise of securing overseas employment. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial court had lawfully taken cognizance of the offence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to produce credible evidence, noting that the witnesses' testimony regarding their financial capacity to pay the alleged amounts was implausible and that no documentary evidence of payment existed. Furthermore, the court found that the trial court acted in violation of Section 24(6) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, by taking cognizance of the offence based on a police report rather than a written complaint accompanied by the mandatory prior sanction of the Federal Government. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court reaffirmed that criminal proceedings initiated without adhering to mandatory statutory procedures are coram non judice, and that any doubt in the prosecution's case must benefit the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Special Court take cognizance of an offence under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, based on a police report without a written complaint and prior sanction of the Federal Government?
  • Does the failure to produce documentary evidence of payment in an emigration fraud case create reasonable doubt sufficient for acquittal?
  • What is the legal consequence when a trial court fails to comply with the mandatory sanction requirements under Section 24(6) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bakhsh and 3 others vs The State and another2021 PTD 1078 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-06
  double jeopardyquashment of FIRCustoms ActPakistan Penal Codesame transactiondistinct offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of FIR No. 35/2018, registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the grounds of double jeopardy. The petitioners contended that because an earlier FIR (No. 77-CUS/2018) had already been lodged under the Customs Act 1969 regarding the same incident, the subsequent FIR was legally impermissible. The core legal question was whether the registration of two separate FIRs for distinct offenses arising from the same transaction violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The Court held that the offenses under the Customs Act 1969 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are distinct, governed by different enactments, and involve different procedures and forums. Consequently, the Court determined that the acts committed by the petitioners did not constitute the same offence under the law. The principle of double jeopardy, as enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was found inapplicable. The petition was dismissed in limine as the separate prosecutions were legally permissible.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of two separate FIRs for distinct offenses arising from the same incident constitute double jeopardy?
  • Can an accused be prosecuted under both the Customs Act 1969 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for acts committed during a single transaction?
  • Does the principle of double jeopardy apply when offenses are governed by different enactments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zeeshan vs The State2021 MLD 60 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-19
  criminal revisioncriminal breach of trustfalse FIRcriminal negligencebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencemens reapresumptions and assumptions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from concurrent judgments of the lower courts convicting the petitioner, a police constable, under sections 182, 211, and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly lodging a false FIR regarding the theft of an official Kalashnikov and committing criminal breach of trust. The core legal question was whether a criminal conviction for embezzlement and lodging a false information can be sustained when the prosecution's case rests entirely on presumptions and assumptions arising from the delayed deposit of official property rather than tangible incriminatory evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that convictions cannot be based on mere presumptions and that the petitioner's failure to deposit the weapon amounted at most to civil or departmental negligence rather than criminal liability, especially absent proof of mens rea. The court laid down the principle that the degree of negligence in criminal law must be gross or of a very high degree, and that the benefit of any doubt arising from a lack of incriminatory evidence and the existence of competing reasonable hypotheses must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction for embezzlement be sustained solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions drawn from the non-deposit of official property?
  • What degree of negligence is required to establish criminal liability as distinguished from civil or departmental negligence?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts based on wrong presumptions and ignoring material doubts are sustainable in criminal revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman and another vs Bibi Amina and others2021 CLC 1196 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and another vs Samna Tabasum and another2021 MLD 1610 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan vs The State2021 YLR 690 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-05-05
  post-arrest bailsubsequent bail applicationfresh groundsnarcotics recoverymaintainability of bailcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a second post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Sultan, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 4000 grams of charas from a vehicle he was driving. The accused previously had a bail application rejected by the High Court on merits. The core legal question was whether a subsequent bail application is maintainable in the absence of any fresh grounds, particularly when the applicant contends that the previous order failed to address all arguments raised. The Court held that the application was not maintainable, dismissing it as meritless. Relying on the principle established in State v. Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 SC 173), the Court affirmed that a subsequent bail application only lies if there is a fresh ground that did not exist at the time of the first application. It further clarified that the court is not required to provide elaborate, separate reasoning for every single contention raised in a bail application, and a failure to do so does not render the previous dismissal invalid or incomplete.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subsequent bail application be entertained if no fresh grounds exist?
  • Is a court required to provide separate, elaborate reasoning for every contention raised in a bail application?
  • Does the failure of a court to explicitly address every argument in a bail order render the order invalid or incomplete?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique alias Qurban Ali vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1230 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-21
  concurrent sentencesinherent powerscriminal revisionsentencingrobberyillegal arms
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from an application seeking to run two separate sentences awarded to the applicant concurrently. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment in case FIR No. 179 of 2015 under sections 392 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and to one year's rigorous imprisonment in case FIR No. 181 of 2015 under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the court has the power to direct sentences arising from different transactions to run concurrently. The Balochistan High Court held that pursuant to section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court is empowered to order different sentences inflicted upon the same accused to run concurrently. Consequently, the application was accepted and the two sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

  Questions settled

  • Does the court have the power to order sentences for separate offences to run concurrently?
  • Can sentences arising from different transactions be directed to run concurrently under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to order different sentences to run concurrently?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs The State2021 YLR 1410 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-01-03
  murdercapital punishmentmitigation of sentencerelated witnessesabsence of motiveocular accountcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question concerns the reliability of related eye-witness testimonies, the effect of an unproven motive and discarded weapon recovery, and whether the sentence of death should be mitigated to imprisonment for life under the circumstances. The Balochistan High Court held that the ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and prompt registration of the FIR, reliably established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and that the absence of a proven motive warrants mitigation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The key principles laid down are that related witnesses who are confidence-inspiring and unimpeached do not require corroboration; substitution of real culprits is a rare phenomenon; and absence of motive does not destroy the prosecution case but serves as a mitigating circumstance justifying the substitution of the death penalty with imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related witnesses requires independent corroboration when their presence is natural and their evidence remains unshaken during cross-examination?
  • Does the absence of a proven motive affect the core prosecution case or warrant the mitigation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained while altering the sentence from death to imprisonment for life based on mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and others vs Station House Officer P.S. City Sibi and others2022 P Cr.L J 167, 2021 PLJ Quetta 181 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-18
  Ex-officio Justice of the Peacepowers of Justice of Peacecorrection of FIRconstitutional petitioninvestigation procedurecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed to challenge an order passed by the Sessions Judge and Ex-officio Justice of the Peace, Sibi, whereby an application for correction of an FIR or lodging a new FIR was allowed, and directions were issued to the Investigating Officer to make specific entries in the challan and witness statements regarding crime weapons. The core legal question before the court was whether an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace has the jurisdiction under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the police on the manner of investigation or to incorporate specific details in the challan. The Balochistan High Court accepted the petition and set aside the impugned order, holding that the jurisdiction of an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace is strictly limited to matters enumerated in Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such as non-registration of a criminal case, transfer of investigation, or police neglect, failure, or excess. The court laid down the principle that an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace cannot interfere with the investigation, suggest a particular procedure, or direct the police to include specific details in the challan or present a challan under a particular penal provision.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace have the jurisdiction to direct the police to include specific details or crime weapons in the challan?
  • What are the statutory limits of the powers of an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace suggest a particular procedure of investigation or direct the police to register a case under specific penal provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddiq and another vs Ghulam Sarwar and 3 others2021 MLD 2123 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim and another vs Abdul Samad and others2021 CLC 1357 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim Tareen vs Abdul Karim Baryalai and 3 others2021 PLD Balochistan 116 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qaim vs Muhammad Wali Alias Bhutto and 4 others2021 YLR 2132 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-21
  hurtTazir imprisonmentDamanfirst offendercriminal revisionconstitutional petitionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal revision petition and a constitutional petition challenging the concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby the petitioners were convicted under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing hurt and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment along with payment of Daman. The core legal questions related to the sustainability of the conviction based on ocular and medical evidence and the legality of awarding imprisonment by way of Tazir under Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to first-time offenders. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence. However, following the principles settled by the superior courts, the High Court held that since the convicts were first offenders and not hardened criminals or involved in honor crimes, the sentence of imprisonment by way of Tazir could not be sustained under Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court accordingly set aside the sentence of imprisonment while maintaining the conviction and restoring the original Daman amount.

  Questions settled

  • Whether imprisonment by way of Tazir can be awarded for an offence of hurt under Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the accused is a first offender and not a previous convict or hardened criminal?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and appellate court regarding the conviction for hurt be interfered with when ocular testimony is corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Whether the revisional court is justified in enhancing the quantum of Daman awarded by the trial court without strong grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Owais vs Aawal Khan and another2021 P Cr. L J 1638 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-07
  exhumationpost-mortemquashment petitioncause of deathcriminal proceduremedical evidencecross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This quashment petition, filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged lower court orders permitting the exhumation of a deceased person's body. The accused requested the exhumation to verify the cause of death and the weapon used, despite existing medical reports and a six-month delay. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is empowered to order exhumation at the accused's request for academic purposes or to challenge established medical evidence. The High Court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable. It ruled that the purpose of Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is strictly to discover the cause of death when it is shrouded in mystery, not to facilitate academic inquiries or re-litigate established medical findings. The court emphasized that an accused’s proper remedy to challenge medical reports is through the cross-examination of expert witnesses during trial. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court orders, establishing that exhumation should not be ordered lightly, especially when it disrespects cultural values and the deceased, without compelling justification.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person request the exhumation of a deceased body to challenge the cause of death or weapon used?
  • Is the power of a Magistrate under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 intended for academic inquiries or to identify perpetrators?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for an accused to challenge the medical opinion regarding the cause of death?
  • Under what circumstances may a Magistrate order the disinterment of a dead body?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Noor vs Muhammad Usman and 4 others2021 PLD Balochistan 51 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem vs Vice-Chancellor Bolan University Of Health2021 MLD 1333 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem vs Station House Officer, Police Station Zarghoom2021 P Cr. L J 1570 · Balochistan High Court
  FIR quashmentcognizance of offencemandatory procedural requirementsfalse information to public servantnon-cognizable offenceinherent powers of High Courtlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of FIR No. 51/2020 registered under sections 325, 182, 420, and 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, initiated by a private complainant alleging that the petitioner provided false information regarding self-inflicted injuries in a prior case. The core legal question was whether a private individual has the legal standing to initiate criminal proceedings for offences under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or if such proceedings are barred by the procedural requirements of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, ruling that the proceedings were void ab initio. The court established the principle that section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 acts as a mandatory exception to the general rule that any person can set the criminal law in motion. For offences such as those under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, cognizance cannot be taken by a court unless a complaint is filed in writing by the concerned public servant or their superior. Consequently, a private complainant lacks the authority to initiate such criminal proceedings, and failure to adhere to this statutory requirement renders the resulting police investigation and FIR a nullity in the eyes of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a private person initiate criminal proceedings for an offence under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create a mandatory bar on courts taking cognizance of certain offences without a complaint from a public servant?
  • Is an FIR registered by a private person for a non-cognizable offence without following the procedure under section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 valid?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR that violates mandatory statutory provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State2021 YLR 969 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-30
  dacoityidentification paradejoint discoverycustodial confessionacquittal appealenhancement of sentenceQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Balochistan High Court disposes of an appeal against conviction, a revision petition for sentence enhancement, and an acquittal appeal arising from a dacoity case. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of a disclosure statement leading to discovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the evidentiary value of an identification parade, the legality of the trial court awarding a lesser sentence under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the interference threshold against an acquittal order. The court held that information leading to the discovery of looted property and incriminating articles on the pointation of an accused in police custody is fully admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that an identification parade serves as corroborative rather than substantive evidence. Furthermore, the court upheld the conviction and maximum ten-year sentence, declining to interfere with the acquittal of co-accused lacking corroborative evidence. The key principles established relate to the strict conditions for admitting custodial disclosures and discoveries, and the double presumption of innocence attached to acquittals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether information given by an accused in police custody leading to the recovery of looted property is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is an identification parade considered a substantive piece of evidence or merely corroborative?
  • What is the scope of interference by a superior court against an order of acquittal carrying a double presumption of innocence?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report invariably render the prosecution's case untrustworthy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nabi vs Bibi Malika2021 CLC 1189 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaffar Magsi vs Sanaullah and 2 others2021 PLD Balochistan 63 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imam-Ud-Din vs Mst. Saira Bano and 2 others2021 CLC 911 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Ishfaq alias Munshi and 3 othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1006 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-18
  criminal acquittal appealocular testimonyinterested witnessadverse inferenceforensic delaydouble presumption of innocencerecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal acquittal appeals filed against the judgments of the trial court, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had produced sufficient, consistent, and reliable evidence to overturn the trial court's acquittal. The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution's case was fraught with material contradictions, including discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of bullets fired. The Court emphasized that the ocular witnesses were interested parties whose testimony required independent corroboration, which was absent. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce a key independent witness, triggering an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Additionally, the recovery of the alleged murder weapon was not independently proven, and a significant delay in sending crime empties to the forensic laboratory destroyed their evidentiary value. The Court reaffirmed that an acquittal order carries a double presumption of innocence, warranting interference only if the judgment is arbitrary or capricious.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce a material witness warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence?
  • Does a significant delay in sending crime empties to a forensic laboratory destroy their evidentiary value?
  • Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State2021 PCr. LJ 412, 2022 YLR 600 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-15
  electricity theftcognizance of offensecomplaint procedurenon obstante clauseillegal raidquashment of convictionmandatory procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for electricity theft under Section 462-K of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a trial court could take cognizance of an electricity theft offense based on a direct FIR lodged with the FIA rather than a formal complaint filed in accordance with Section 462-O of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Balochistan High Court held that Section 462-O of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 expressly excludes the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and mandates that cognizance of offenses under Chapter XVII-B can only be taken upon a written complaint by a duly authorized officer of Grade 17 or above. The court established the principle that when the law prescribes a specific mandatory procedure for taking cognizance, deviation from it vitiates all subsequent proceedings, rendering the trial and conviction illegal and void ab initio.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court take cognizance of electricity theft under Chapter XVII-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on the basis of a direct FIR instead of a written complaint under Section 462-O?
  • Does Section 462-O of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 exclude the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the assumption of jurisdiction by a trial court?
  • What are the legal consequences when mandatory procedural requirements prescribed by statute for taking cognizance of an offense are violated?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mera Jan and 3 others2021 P Cr. L J 1476 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-10
  Illegal Dispossession Actcivil disputeproperty grabberscriminal revisionfactual controversypossession of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta, which dismissed a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had illegally occupied his property after he had purchased it and commenced construction. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and involved factual controversies unsuitable for summary proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, noting that the police report indicated the property was in the possession of third parties not named in the complaint, and that there was an underlying business dispute between the parties involving property, cash, and cars. The Court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is intended to curb property grabbers and protect lawful owners, not to resolve complex civil disputes. It affirmed that matters involving disputed questions of fact requiring evidence should be adjudicated through ordinary civil litigation rather than summary criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be maintained when the underlying dispute is essentially a civil business dispute?
  • Is the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 an appropriate forum for resolving complex factual controversies regarding property ownership and possession?
  • Should a court interfere with a trial court's dismissal of a complaint where the dispute requires extensive evidence and civil adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mahrban Khan and 5 others2021 CLC 1001 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and 6 others vs Syed Zakir Hussain Shah and 8 others2022 MLD 143 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Essa Rooshan vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1342 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-10
  quashment of FIRcognizance of offences against the Statesanction for prosecutionabuse of process of courtinherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of FIR No. 48/2019 registered at Police Station Pishin under sections 109, 153-A, 123-A, and 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Balochistan Sound System (Regulation) Act, 2016. The core legal question was whether the police could independently register an FIR and investigate offences under Chapter VI and related sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a formal complaint authorized by the Federal or Provincial Government pursuant to Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that the offences in question require a complaint instituted by order or under the authority of the Federal or Provincial Government, and the absence of such a complaint vitiates the entire proceedings and renders the police action a nullity in the eye of the law. The court laid down the principle that mandatory statutory procedures requiring governmental sanction for taking cognizance of state offences must be strictly followed, and failure to do so warrants the quashment of the FIR under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent the abuse of the process of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Can local police independently register an FIR for offences under Chapter VI of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a government-authorized complaint?
  • Does the non-compliance with Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate investigation and proceedings?
  • Whether High Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an illegally registered FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 839 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-03
  retracted confessionjudicial confessionbenefit of doubtmurder trialburden of proofunnatural deathcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his two wives. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession and whether the burden of proof regarding the unnatural death of a dependent spouse shifts to the accused when the prosecution's case is fundamentally flawed. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. It found that the prosecution failed to provide credible evidence, the ocular account was unreliable, and the motive was unproven. Crucially, the judicial confession was vitiated by procedural irregularities, including the magistrate's failure to administer necessary warnings or allow sufficient time for reflection. The Court reaffirmed that a retracted judicial confession requires independent corroboration to support a conviction. Furthermore, while an accused may bear some onus to explain an unnatural death occurring within their home, this principle does not apply when the prosecution’s case is utterly demolished and unbelievable. Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction, and ordered his immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of a magistrate to administer the required warning and provide time for reflection vitiate a judicial confession?
  • Can an accused be convicted for the unnatural death of a dependent spouse when the prosecution's entire case is found to be unreliable?
  • Is the failure to prove a motive fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dawood Khan vs Abdul Ghani and 2 others2021 CLC 1766, 2022 PLJ Quetta 54 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs Additional Sessions Judge-VII_Justice Of Peace, Quetta and others2021 MLD 994 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C.1534, 2021 P Cr. L J 586 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-18
  dishonest issuance of chequeSection 489-F PPCcriminal revisionunderlying obligationbenefit of doubtadverse inferencereappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the judgments of the courts below whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for allegedly issuing dishonored cheques. The core legal question was whether the essential ingredients of Section 489-F, specifically dishonest intention and the existence of a valid underlying transaction or obligation, were established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that mere issuance of a cheque and its subsequent dishonor do not constitute an offence under Section 489-F unless dishonest intent and a lawful underlying transaction or obligation are affirmatively proved, which the prosecution failed to do in this case, especially where the complainant filled the cheque himself and delayed reporting. The Court laid down the principle that the foundational elements of Section 489-F require proof of issuance with dishonest intention toward loan repayment or obligation fulfillment, and the absence of a verified commercial transaction or direct proof of fraudulent intent entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere issuance of a cheque and its subsequent dishonor by itself constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 without proof of dishonest intent?
  • What are the foundational elements and pre-conditions that must be fulfilled and proved by the prosecution to make out an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Can a criminal conviction under Section 489-F be sustained when the complainant fails to produce any agreement or documentary evidence establishing a valid business partnership or underlying transaction?
  • What is the legal effect under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 of the non-production of crucial material witnesses by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →