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.

• Muhammad Ashraf Magsi vs Mst. Shafiqa Akbar and another2021 CLC 1342 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Kasi and 3 others vs Muhammad Yahya Kasi and others2022 YLR 910 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and 2 others vs The Islamic Republic Of Pakistan, through Secretary Defence Islamabad and 2 others2021 PLJ Quetta 230, 2021 CLC 92 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs National Bank Of Pakistan through Manager2021 CLD 553 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen vs The State2022 YLR 694 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-11
  narcoticscharas recoverypolice witnesseschemical examiner reportdelayed dispatch of samplepresumption of guiltjail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9-b of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months with a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the non-association of private witnesses vitiates the recovery, whether delay in sending the narcotics sample to the chemical examiner is fatal to the prosecution's case, and whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimony of police officials is competent and credible in the absence of proven enmity, that the provisions regarding the 72-hour timeframe for sending samples to the laboratory are directory rather than mandatory, and that the prosecution successfully discharged its onus of proof, raising a presumption of guilt under the special law which the appellant failed to rebut. The appeal was consequently dismissed and the conviction maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases without joining private witnesses?
  • Is the delay in sending the narcotic sample to the chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Whether the provisions regarding the timeframe for sending samples under the relevant rules are mandatory or directory?
  • Does section 29 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997 raise a presumption of guilt against the accused once the prosecution discharges its initial onus?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 373 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29
  criminal appealmurderocular testimonybenefit of doubtchance witnessesdishonest improvementmotiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under sections 302(c) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged ocular testimony, motive, and recovery evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court observed that the ocular witnesses, despite being close relatives of the deceased, were spared by the assailants, which was deemed unnatural. Furthermore, the alleged motive of illicit relations remained unsubstantiated, and the recovery of the crime weapon was compromised by delays and lack of exclusive possession. Significant contradictions between the testimonies of the witnesses and the police, alongside dishonest improvements in the witnesses' statements, rendered the prosecution's evidence unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing the golden rule that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when guilt is not proven firmly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove an alleged motive entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can the testimony of ocular witnesses be discarded if they are found to be chance witnesses and their presence is doubtful?
  • What is the legal effect of dishonest improvements made by prosecution witnesses during trial?
  • Does the recovery of a crime weapon from an open place, combined with a delay in forensic analysis, lose its evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal and others vs Province of Balochistan through Secretary Irrigation and others2022 CLC 965 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal and 3 others vs Province Of Balochistan through Secretary Irrigations and others2021 PLD Balochistan 105 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naik Murgh and others vs Sanaullah and others2021 CLC 1138 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khair Bibi and 4 others vs Ghulam Sarwar and 17 others2021 CLC 151 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Arbab Khatoon vs Imam Bakhsh and 3 others2021 MLD 1286 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-15
  criminal acquittal appealchance witnessocular and medical evidence conflictdouble presumption of innocenceforensic evidence delaymotive as double-edged weaponmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Allah Yar, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was based on a sound appreciation of evidence or suffered from legal infirmity. The Balochistan High Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution witnesses were "chance witnesses" who failed to justify their presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, the court identified a fatal conflict between the ocular testimony, which alleged the use of automatic weapons, and the medical evidence, which indicated shotgun pellet injuries. Additionally, the court noted the absence of recovered light sources for identification and an unexplained three-month delay in submitting forensic evidence. Reaffirming that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, the court concluded that the trial judge’s reasoning was neither perverse nor fanciful, and thus dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the type of weapon used entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can the testimony of a chance witness be accepted without a convincing explanation for their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending forensic evidence to the laboratory render the report unreliable as corroborative evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Abida Khanum and another vs Sarfaraz and others2021 PLJ Quetta 217, 2021 PLD Balochistan 28 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Raza vs The State2021 MLD 1800 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-07
  post-arrest bailmurdermedical evidencebenefit of doubtfalse implicationenmitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Mohsin Raza, in a murder case registered under FIR No. 45 of 2020 at Police Station Cantt: Quetta. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail given the discrepancies between the medical evidence and the complainant's version, and the existence of prior enmity between the parties. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that the post-mortem report did not align with the FIR's allegations of strangulation, as the deceased was a cardiac patient and the cause of death remained to be determined by chemical analysis. Furthermore, the Court observed that the existence of prior civil litigation between the parties raised the possibility of false implication. The key principle laid down is that where reasonable doubt arises regarding an accused's participation in a crime, the benefit of that doubt must be extended to the accused at the bail stage, as there is no legal compulsion to incarcerate an accused merely due to their nomination in an FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere nomination of an accused in an FIR constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Should the benefit of doubt regarding the medical evidence be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the cause of death remains to be determined by forensic reports?
  • Does the existence of prior civil litigation between the parties warrant a consideration of false implication in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Iqbal vs Mohammad Hussain and 3 others2021 CLC 1282 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-29Read full judgment →
• Misri Ladhani Ex-Chairperson Balochistan Revenue Authority vs Government Of Balochistan, through Chief Secretary and 3 others2021 PLC 127 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-02
  Balochistan Revenue Authoritychairperson dismissalmisuse of authoritydisciplinary proceedingsstatutory appointmentservice rulesillegal posting
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Chairperson of the Balochistan Revenue Authority (BRA) and the subsequent posting of a government officer as Chairperson. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner's services were governed by civil servant rules, whether the competent authority lawfully removed him after disciplinary proceedings under the Balochistan Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Act (BEEDA), 2011, and whether the appointment/posting of the replacement respondent complied with the Balochistan Revenue Authority Act, 2015. The Balochistan High Court held that since the petitioner accepted terms making civil service rules applicable and misused his authority by self-fixing higher salaries, his dismissal through competent authorities was valid. However, the court held that posting a government official as Chairperson without following the mandatory statutory appointment procedure under the 2015 Act was illegal. The court laid down the principle that an authority competent to approve an appointment is equally competent to approve removal, and statutory appointment procedures cannot be bypassed by a simple transfer or posting.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an authority competent to approve an appointment is equally competent to approve the removal of a person from service?
  • Can a government official be posted as Chairperson of a statutory authority without following the prescribed statutory appointment procedure?
  • Whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated under civil servant efficiency and discipline rules against the head of a statutory body when specific terms incorporate such rules?
  • Does an inquiry officer have the authority to dispense with a full-fledged inquiry when allegations are proven through undisputed and unrebutted record?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirwise vs Mohib-Ur-Rehman, Si/Sho Police Station Saddar, Loralai and2021 P Cr. L J 1032 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-23
  juvenile offenderdetermination of agecriminal quashmentNADRA recordschool leaving certificateossification testmedical board
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal quashment petition challenged the orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application for the transfer of his trial to a juvenile court and for the determination of his age via a medical board. The core legal question was how to determine the age of an accused person claiming to be a juvenile when there is a contradiction between educational certificates and NADRA records. The Balochistan High Court held that NADRA records alone are not conclusive proof of age and that when a controversy exists, the court must conduct a proper inquiry, which includes medical examination where necessary. The court established that under the relevant law, holding an inquiry into the age of an accused person claiming to be a juvenile is a mandatory requirement unless there are strong reasons to dispense with it.

  Questions settled

  • Is NADRA record conclusive proof of an accused person's date of birth in determining juvenile status?
  • What is the procedure for the determination of the age of an accused person claiming to be a juvenile?
  • Whether holding an inquiry for the determination of age under the Juvenile Justice System Act is mandatory for the court?
  • Can a court rely solely on documentary evidence when there is a contradiction regarding the age of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad Ali and others vs Government Of Balochistan, through Chief Secretary and 7 others2021 MLD 1979 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mir Dost alias Kiraro and others vs The State2021 YLR 1109 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-23
  honor killingKaro KaricompromiseQisasDiyatBadl-e-Sulhcriminal appealminor legal heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentences imposed by the trial court for triple murder committed on the pretext of "Karo Kari" (honor killing). The appellants sought acquittal based on a compromise deed reached with the legal heirs of the victims. The core legal question was whether this compromise could be accepted to set aside the convictions. The Balochistan High Court held that the compromise was legally deficient, particularly regarding minor legal heirs, as the required Badl-e-Sulh (compensation) had not been deposited, violating the requirements of Section 310, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, the Court ruled that in cases involving honor killings, courts are not mere "post offices" and must exercise judicial discretion to determine the fitness of a compromise rather than accepting it mechanically. Emphasizing that honor killings are gruesome and repulsive, the Court refused to sanction the compromise, dismissed the application for acquittal, and directed the appeal to proceed on its merits. The judgment reaffirms that judicial scrutiny is mandatory for compounding offenses under Chapter XVI of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court mechanically accept a compromise in a murder case without exercising judicial discretion?
  • Is a compromise valid where the right of Qisas vests in a minor but no Badl-e-Sulh has been deposited?
  • Does the court have the authority to refuse a compromise in a case of honor killing?
  • Can the right of Qisas be waived on behalf of a minor legal heir?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs S.Q. Corporation through Proprietor and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Internal Affairs, Government. of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2022 CLD 128, 2022 PCTLR 1219 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-06-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Meerab Enterprises, through Authorized Attorney vs The Federation2021 PTD 1764, 2022 PLJ Quetta 102, 2022 PCTLR 1069 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khair Buksh Rice Mill and others vs National Bank Of Pakistan2021 CLD 675 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jeeand Coal Company through Managing Partner and others vs Appellate Authority_Secretary, Mines And. Minerals Development Department Quetta and others2021 PLJ Quetta 7 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Baz Muhammad & Sons through Chief Executive vs Government Of Balochistan, through Secretary Communication and Works Department, Quetta and 3 others2021 MLD 1344 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Amir Jan Oil Mill through Proprietor and another vs National Bank Of Pakistan through Manager2021 CLD 25 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abdul Hadi Marbles Mines through 2nd Partner vs The Secretary, Mines And Mineral Department, Government Of Baochistan, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 3 others2021 CLC 522 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abaseen Ore through Azmat Khan vs Director General (Licensing2021 PLJ Quetta 196, 2021 PLD Balochistan 9 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs a&B Petrol Urunleri Pazarlama through Authorized Attorney vs MV2021 CLD 1049, 2022 PLD Balochistan 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
• Master Fazalullah and another vs Mummy and others2022 YLR 941 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-08-30Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed and another vs The State2022 YLR 798 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-04
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencybenefit of doubtfurther inquirymurdervicarious liabilitybail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicants in a case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail despite being nominated in the FIR for a heinous offense. The court held that the applicants were entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the "rule of consistency," as a co-accused with an identical role had previously been granted bail by the same court. The court further held that the mere involvement of an accused in an offense punishable by death does not automatically disentitle them to bail, especially when the case requires further inquiry. It was affirmed that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused even at the bail stage. Consequently, the court admitted the applicants to bail, noting that their guilt or innocence remained to be determined by the trial court after a full recording of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications where a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted bail?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Does the mere involvement in an offense punishable by death automatically disentitle an accused from the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mandokhail vs The State2021 YLR 1696 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-29
  criminal appealmurderdelay in FIRcommon intentionvicarious liabilitybenefit of the doubtinterested witnessesmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 302(b) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to imprisonment and compensation. The core legal questions involved the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, the reliability of related ocular witnesses, the proof of motive, and the application of vicarious liability under Section 34 without proof of an overt act. The Balochistan High Court held that an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the prosecution case, that failure to prove the set-up motive damages the prosecution, and that mere presence without an overt act is insufficient to attract vicarious liability under Section 34, especially when the conduct of the armed accused leaving close relative witnesses unharmed is unnatural. The court laid down the principles regarding the fatal nature of delayed FIRs, the necessity of proving established motives, and the strict requirement of proving a pre-arranged plan or overt act for common intention, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report create fatal doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case?
  • Whether failure of the prosecution to prove the motive set up in the FIR damages the prosecution's case?
  • Can mere presence of an accused at the crime scene without any overt act attract vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is it unnatural and improbable for armed assailants to spare close relative eyewitnesses present at the spot during a murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ameen vs Mst. Saeeda Maqbool and others2022 YLR 742 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
• Malik Mehrullah Khan vs Muhammad Hayat and 3 others2021 PLD Balochistan 94 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-02Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs Government Of Balochistan through Secretary Mines and Minerals Development Department Balochistan and 2 others2021 MLD 1587 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-20Read full judgment →
• Khushhal vs The State2021 YLR 1579 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-08
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidenceabscondanceburden of proofacquittalidentification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Allah Yar, for an offence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the ocular account and surrounding circumstances. The Balochistan High Court found significant flaws in the prosecution's case, noting an eight-hour delay in lodging the FIR, the non-examination of material witnesses, and inconsistencies between the medical evidence and the alleged incident. Furthermore, the court highlighted the lack of secured evidence regarding lighting conditions at the 1:30 a.m. incident, rendering the identification of the accused unreliable. The court held that abscondance, not put to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, could not serve as substantive evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt, a right of the accused when reasonable doubt exists.

  Questions settled

  • Can abscondance be treated as substantive evidence of guilt?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused?
  • Does the failure to confront an accused with the allegation of abscondance during a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect its evidentiary value?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to examine material witnesses mentioned in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda-E-Dad and 15 others vs Bhawal Khan and another2021 MLD 1141 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-15Read full judgment →
• Khamisa and 2 others vs The State2021 YLR 347 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-29
  post-arrest bailrecovery of weaponpointationfurther inquirytentative assessmentcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from a criminal case involving charges under Sections 302, 109, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an FIR alleging murder due to a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the evidence of recovery of weapons and their nomination in the FIR. The Court held that while the applicants Sikandar and Kareem Bakhsh were not entitled to bail due to the recovery of crime weapons on their pointation—making their disclosure admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984—the applicant Khamisa was entitled to bail. The Court established that mere nomination in an FIR without a specific role attributed to an accused, and in the absence of incriminating recovery, warrants further inquiry into guilt. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed for two applicants but allowed for the third, subject to the provision of surety, emphasizing that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is a disclosure made to the police admissible as evidence if it leads to the discovery of a new fact?
  • Does mere nomination in an FIR, without specific attribution of a role, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Can an accused be granted bail if no incriminating material or weapon is recovered from them during investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamaluddin and 13 others vs Abdullah and another2021 CLC 37 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-09Read full judgment →
• Janan Khan through Purchase on Installments Kaleemullah vs The State2021 MLD 80 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-30
  confiscation of vehiclenarcotics transportationsecret cavitiesthird-party claimalternate remedyControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an appeal under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 against the judgment of the Special Court, which confiscated his vehicle after a huge quantity of charas was recovered from secret cavities of the coach during a narcotics case, though the main accused were acquitted. The core legal question was whether a vehicle confiscated upon acquittal of the accused can be released to a third-party claimant on appeal when ownership documents were never produced before the trial court. The Balochistan High Court held that the appellant failed to establish ownership during the trial, relied on unverified photocopies, and showed implausible ignorance of his vehicle's detention and his employees' arrest. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had an alternate and efficacious remedy to approach the trial court at the first instance by filing an appropriate application, leaving the trial court to determine the matter strictly in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can unverified photocopies of ownership documents be considered for the first time at the appellate stage to release a confiscated vehicle?
  • Whether an appeal is maintainable against a confiscation order when the claimant failed to appear or produce ownership documents before the trial court?
  • Does the owner of a vehicle used in a narcotics offense have an alternate remedy to approach the trial court for release of the vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Jadoon Nasim Akhtar and others vs The State2021 PLD Balochistan 72 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-15
  transfer of sentenced personsforeign prisonerssentence adaptationcriminal justice cooperationquantum of sentencebilateral agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications filed by several Pakistani nationals convicted by courts in the Islamic Republic of Iran and subsequently transferred to Pakistan to serve their remaining sentences under the 2014 Agreement on Transfer of Sentenced Persons. The core legal question was whether the sentences imposed by the foreign jurisdiction were compatible with Pakistani law and, if not, how they should be adapted. The Court held that under the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance, 2002, and the bilateral agreement, the receiving state has the authority to adapt a foreign sentence to ensure it does not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed by its own domestic laws for similar offenses. The Court affirmed the principle that while the administrative state enforces the sentence, it must ensure the sentence is not more severe than what is permissible under its national statutes. Consequently, the Court modified the sentences of the applicants to align with the maximum penalties prescribed under relevant Pakistani laws, such as the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and the Foreigners Act, 1946, reducing the terms to the period already undergone where appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court in Pakistan modify the sentence of a prisoner transferred from a foreign state if the original sentence exceeds the maximum penalty prescribed by Pakistani law?
  • Does the Transfer of Offenders Ordinance 2002 permit the adaptation of foreign sentences to ensure compatibility with domestic legislation?
  • Is the administrative state bound by the factual findings of the sentencing state when adapting a sentence for a transferred prisoner?
  Read full judgment →
• Izzatullah vs The State2021 YLR 1184 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-08
  murdercapital punishmentrelated witnesseseyewitness testimonysite planmitigation of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on multiple counts for murder and sentenced to death and life imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around the credibility of related and interested eyewitnesses, the corroborative value of medical evidence, and the legality of basing a conviction without the recovery of the crime weapon or the precise depiction of witnesses in the site plan. The Balochistan High Court held that mere relationship to the deceased does not discredit a witness if their testimony is confidence-inspiring and natural, and that site plans and weapons recoveries are merely corroborative rather than substantive. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, maintaining the convictions and sentences for life imprisonment but mitigating the death sentence for one count to life imprisonment due to suppressed motive.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and interested witnesses can form the sole basis of a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the omission of the position of eyewitnesses in the site plan vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the recovery of a crime weapon a mandatory requirement of law to sustain a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the suppression of motive by the prosecution serve as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a sentence of death to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmed Shahid, Advocate High Court, Quetta vs The Government Of Balochistan through Secretary Health Department, Quetta2021 PLD Balochistan 134 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-19Read full judgment →
• Hayatullah vs Deputy Inspector General Of Balochistan Police, Quetta and 3 others2021 P Cr. L J 1079 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-10
  quashment of FIRcognizable offenceregistration of FIRinherent powersinvestigation stage
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Balochistan High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to declare an inquiry and the consequent First Information Report illegal and liable to be quashed. The core legal question was whether an officer in charge of a police station can conduct an inquiry under section 157(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first registering a criminal report under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon receiving information of a cognizable offence, and whether the High Court should quash an FIR at the investigation stage. The court held that the mandatory statutory duty to register an information regarding a cognizable offence under section 154 must precede any recourse to section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the High Court generally should not interfere with an investigation or quash an FIR under section 561-A unless exceptional circumstances are shown. The court laid down the principle that the police cannot bypass the mandatory registration of an FIR under section 154 to conduct preliminary inquiries, and that factual disputes and the truthfulness of allegations are matters to be determined by the trial court after evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an officer in charge of a police station can conduct an inquiry under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first registering a First Information Report under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court quash an FIR under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while the case is still at the investigation stage?
  • What are the precise eventualities or grounds upon which an FIR can be legally quashed by the High Court?
  • Is the question of truthfulness or falsity of allegations in an FIR a matter of fact to be resolved through inherent jurisdiction or by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Hakeem and 3 others vs Rabia and others2021 CLC 548 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-30Read full judgment →
• Hadi Bakhsh vs Muhammad Arif and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 502 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-29
  cancellation of bailprohibitory clausetentative assessmentmisuse of bailcriminal procedurebail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the Judicial Magistrate in connection with FIR No. 90 of 2019, registered under Sections 337-F(i), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the bail granted to the accused should be cancelled. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the application, holding that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making bail the rule and refusal the exception. The Court emphasized that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage and that cancellation of bail requires strong, exceptional grounds, such as evidence of tampering with prosecution evidence or hindering the complainant, which were absent in this case. The key principle laid down is that once bail is granted based on a tentative assessment of evidence, it cannot be cancelled without demonstrating that the accused has misused the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail as a rule?
  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible during the consideration of a bail cancellation application?
  • What specific grounds are required to justify the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Samadani and 3 others vs Akbar Khan and 3 others2021 CLC 944 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Khuda Bakhsh2021 CLC 1181 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastagir alias Dodo vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1390 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-25
  constitutional petitionpresidential remissionremission of sentenceintelligible differentiaheinous crimeslife imprisonmentclassification of convicts
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a convict serving a life sentence for murder, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction to the authorities to grant him special remissions previously announced by the Federal and Provincial Governments and the President of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a prisoner convicted of murder is entitled to the benefit of special remissions granted by the President of Pakistan under Article 45 of the Constitution, despite specific exclusions in the relevant notifications. The Court held that the petition lacked merit, noting that the petitioner had already availed of general remissions. Relying on the principle of intelligible differentia established by the Supreme Court in Nazar Hussain's case (PLD 2010 SC 1021), the Court held that the President has the authority to classify convicts and exclude those involved in heinous crimes, such as murder, from remission benefits. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that such exclusions are constitutionally valid and not discriminatory.

  Questions settled

  • Is a prisoner convicted of murder entitled to Presidential remissions that specifically exclude those convicted of heinous crimes?
  • Can the President of Pakistan classify convicts based on the nature of their offences when granting remissions under Article 45 of the Constitution?
  • Does the exclusion of murder convicts from Presidential remission notifications violate the equality clause of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 438 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-05-21
  confiscation of vehiclenarcotics traffickinginnocent ownerburden of proofsuperdariappellate jurisdictioncase property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the confiscation of a truck by the trial court following a narcotics case, despite the acquittal of the accused. The core legal question is whether a vehicle used in the commission of an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, can be confiscated when there is no evidence that the owner had knowledge of the criminal activity, and whether an appellate court can interfere with such a confiscation order under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that confiscation is not automatic or mechanical; it requires proof that the owner was aware of the vehicle's use in the crime, with the burden of proof resting on the prosecution. Finding no evidence of the owner's knowledge or involvement, the Court set aside the confiscation order. The key principle laid down is that the proviso to Sections 32 and 33 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, acts as a beneficial enactment to protect innocent owners, necessitating proof of guilty knowledge before a vehicle can be confiscated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle used in a narcotics offense be confiscated if the prosecution fails to prove the owner's knowledge of the crime?
  • Does the acquittal of an accused person in a narcotics case automatically absolve the vehicle used in the commission of the offense from liability of confiscation?
  • Does Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower a superior court to interfere with a confiscation order passed by a lower court?
  • Is the confiscation of a vehicle under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 a mechanical or automatic process?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan and others vs The State and others2021 P Cr. L J 969 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-23
  murdervicarious liabilityunlawful assemblyinjured witnesscommon objectocular accountcriminal appealplea of alibi
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals and revision petitions arising from a shooting incident that resulted in the murder of one person and injuries to two others. The core legal questions involved the credibility of injured and related eye-witnesses, the effect of minor discrepancies and delays in lodging the FIR and sending incriminating articles to the forensic laboratory, the application of vicarious liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the burden of proof regarding defence pleas. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular testimony of injured witnesses, medical evidence, and corroborative material. The court ruled that minor contradictions do not shatter otherwise credible eye-witness accounts, that related and injured witnesses are natural witnesses whose testimony carries high probative value, and that proof of a specific overt act is unnecessary when a member shares the common object of an unlawful assembly. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals and revision petitions, upholding the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured witness can be discarded merely on account of minor discrepancies or delays in recording statements?
  • Is proof of a specific overt act mandatory to convict an accused as a member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a mere relationship between the complainant or eye-witnesses and the deceased render their testimony untrustworthy without independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a site plan in criminal trials when it omits certain details or the specific positions of accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad and 3 others vs The State2021 YLR 503 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-29
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausehurtitlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udwheinousness of crimebail as punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Balochistan High Court through a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, Faqir Muhammad and others, seeking release in case FIR No. 109 of 2019 registered under Sections 336, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 354, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Dera Murad Jamali, District Naseerabad. The core legal question involves determining whether reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause, specifically concerning the applicability of Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on the medico-legal certificate. The court held that since the tentative assessment of the medical evidence showed no permanent impairment of any organ, the applicability of the penal provision required further inquiry, bringing the case within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the key principle that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment merely due to the heinousness of the crime or because an offense falls within the prohibitory clause, and that tentative assessment of record warranting further inquiry entitles an accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be withheld merely on the ground that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the tentative assessment of a medico-legal certificate showing no permanent destruction or impairment of an organ bring a case under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for further inquiry?
  • Is mere heinousness of a crime a sufficient ground to keep an accused person in jail during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Dad vs The State2021 YLR 2230 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-05-28
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabscondancetentative assessmentacquittal of co-accusedmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Faqir Dad, in relation to a murder case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that he was not nominated in the FIR, his arrest was based on a delayed supplementary statement, and co-accused had already been acquitted. The Court held that the case against the applicant required further inquiry, as the evidence was merely based on a disclosure statement lacking corroboration. Furthermore, the Court noted that the acquittal of co-accused persons on similar charges was a relevant factor in favor of the applicant. The Court also rejected the prosecution's argument that the applicant's ten-year abscondance barred him from bail, affirming that abscondance is not an absolute bar if the case is otherwise fit for bail on merit. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that where a case calls for further inquiry, bail is a right rather than a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Is the abscondance of an accused an absolute bar to the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons on similar charges provide grounds for the grant of bail to the remaining accused?
  • Is bail a right or a concession when a criminal case calls for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Eduard Bilyayev through Attorney and 4 others vs M.V. "Figaro" (Ex-Free2021 CLD 1180, 2022 PLD Balochistan 21 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ilyas and another vs Government Of Balochistan through Chief2022 PLD Balochistan 58, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 770 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-12-06
  constitutional petitionappointment of Vice-ChancellorGovernor's powersadvice of Chief Ministerprovincial autonomy18th Constitutional Amendmentparliamentary democracy
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the vires of sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Bolan University of Medical and Health Sciences Act, 2017, which empowered the Governor/Chancellor to appoint the Vice-Chancellor without the advice of the Government, Cabinet, or Chief Minister. The core legal question was whether a provision in a provincial statute can dispense with the constitutional requirement for the Governor to act on the advice of the Chief Minister or Cabinet in the performance of statutory functions. The Balochistan High Court allowed the petition, holding that sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Act are violative of Article 105 of the Constitution and striking them down. The court laid down the principle that under the parliamentary democracy established by the Constitution, the Governor is bound to act on the advice of the Chief Minister or Cabinet in all matters, including the appointment of Vice-Chancellors of public sector universities, and cannot exercise discretionary or independent powers under any statute unless expressly authorized by the Constitution itself.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Governor of a province is bound to act on the advice of the Chief Minister or Cabinet when exercising powers under a provincial statute?
  • Are sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Bolan University of Medical and Health Sciences Act, 2017, violative of Article 105 of the Constitution?
  • Does a Governor possess any inherent, residual, or implied powers outside those expressly conferred by the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aziz Ur Rehman and others vs Noor Bibi and others2021 CLC 106 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-22Read full judgment →
• Director General, Provincial Disaster Management Authority (Pdma), Balochistan and others vs Amirullah and others2021 PLD Balochistan 211 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-23Read full judgment →
• Director General Civil Aviation Authority through Airport Manager, Quetta2021 YLR 848 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-27Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)/Collector, Quetta and another vs Begum2021 YLR 283 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-01-03Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)/Collector and another vs Mehrullah2021 YLR 110 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Danish Ali and 2 others vs National Bank Of Pakistan through Manager and another2021 CLD 468 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-02-10Read full judgment →
• Criminal Appeal No. 197 and Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2019 vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1538 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-31
  criminal appealmurder convictionfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubtocular testimonycorroborationabscondenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where ocular testimony was previously disbelieved regarding co-accused and where significant evidentiary inconsistencies existed. The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court reaffirmed that where ocular testimony is rejected for some accused, it cannot be accepted for others without strong, independent corroboration, which was absent here. Furthermore, the court applied the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, ruling that deliberate falsehood on material aspects invalidates witness testimony. It was also established that medical evidence serves only to contradict ocular accounts regarding injuries and does not corroborate the identity of the accused. Finally, the court held that abscondence alone is insufficient to prove guilt, and any doubt arising from the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can ocular testimony be accepted against an accused if it has been disbelieved regarding co-accused without strong corroboration?
  • Does the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to corroborate the identity of an accused in a criminal trial?
  • Can abscondence alone serve as proof of guilt for an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Constructors Association Of Pakistan, through Authorized Representative2021 PLJ Quetta 205, 2021 CLC 60 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Quetta vs M/s.2023 PLJ Quetta 60, 2022 PTD 1844 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, Regional Tax Office, Quetta vs M/s.2023 PLJ Quetta 76, 2022 PTD 1889 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
• Collector, Model Customs C Llectorate, Custom House Gawadar a GaddaniPTCL 2021 CL. 667, 2021 PTD 1035 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-23Read full judgment →
• Collector Customs through Additional Collector Model Customs2021 PLJ Quetta 212 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chairman Nab through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB HQ2021 P Cr. L J 1420 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-26
  acquittal appealwhite-collar crimeSection 265-K Cr.P.C.corruption referencecircumstantial evidenceabuse of processtrial procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau against an order of the Accountability Court, which acquitted the respondent under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the prosecution could present evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion to acquit the accused at a pre-evidence stage in a corruption reference. The High Court held that the trial court erred by prematurely acquitting the respondent without allowing the prosecution to present its case, especially in a complex white-collar crime involving circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized that while Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exists to prevent the abuse of process, it should not be used to throttle justice when sufficient prima facie evidence exists. The principle laid down is that in corruption cases, courts must exercise extreme caution and provide the prosecution a fair opportunity to prove its case through a full-fledged trial, rather than resorting to hasty acquittals, unless the proceedings are clearly futile or an abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 carry the same sanctity as an acquittal on merits after a full trial?
  • Is it appropriate for a trial court to acquit an accused in a corruption reference before the prosecution has recorded any evidence?
  • What is the primary consideration for a court when exercising its power under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an appellate court re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against an acquittal order passed under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Bismillah vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1145, 2021 MLD 1131 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-15
  criminal appealacquittal on compromiseconfiscation of case propertycancellation of arms licenselicensed pistolWest Pakistan Arms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ziarat, whereby the appellant's licensed pistol was confiscated in favour of the State and a direction was issued to the Deputy Commissioner to cancel his arms license following the appellant's acquittal based on a compromise under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal question was whether a trial court has the power to confiscate a licensed weapon and order the cancellation of an arms license upon acquitting an accused on the basis of a compromise. The Balochistan High Court held that an acquittal on the basis of a compromise carries all the legal benefits and consequences of a lawful acquittal, entitling the accused to the release of seized property. The Court further held that a trial court lacks the authority under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance to cancel an arms license in such circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order of confiscation and cancellation was set aside, and the licensed pistol was ordered to be returned to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal based on a compromise between the parties entitles the accused to the return of seized case property?
  • Does a trial court have the authority under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance to order the cancellation of an arms license upon acquitting an accused?
  • What are the legal consequences and benefits of an acquittal recorded on the basis of a compounding of a compoundable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilal Ahmed and 2 others vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 261 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-15
  discharge of accusedpolice report under section 173revisional jurisdictioninherent jurisdictionnarcotics recoveryexecutive orderquashing of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. sought to quash various orders passed by subordinate courts, including an order of the Judicial Magistrate discharging an accused in a narcotics case following an investigation report. The core legal question concerned the nature of a Magistrate's order concurring with a police report under section 173, Cr.P.C., the availability of revisional jurisdiction against such orders, and the power of a Magistrate to discharge an accused in a case triable exclusively by the Sessions Court. The Balochistan High Court held that a Magistrate discharging an accused under section 173, Cr.P.C. acts in an executive or administrative capacity as a personal designate rather than as a criminal court, meaning such orders are not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C., but may be challenged through a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the Magistrate's power to discharge an accused of his bond under section 173(3) remains intact even in cases exclusively triable by the Court of Session until formal transmission of the case. Finding no illegality in the impugned orders, the High Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a Magistrate concurring with a police report under section 173, Cr.P.C. to discharge an accused is judicial or executive in nature?
  • Can an order of a Magistrate discharging an accused under section 173, Cr.P.C. be revised under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C.?
  • Does a Judicial Magistrate retain the power to discharge an accused under section 173(3), Cr.P.C. in cases triable exclusively by a Court of Session?
  • Is a Magistrate empowered to discharge an accused after taking formal cognizance of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Quresh vs The Government Of Balochistan, through Secretary Home2021 CLC 1635 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Baz Muhammad and another vs Tahir Mehmood and 3 others2022 CLC 1601 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-10-20Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan vs The Vice-Chancellor, Balochistan University Of Medical2021 PLD Balochistan 84 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-04-26Read full judgment →
• Babar Jahangir and another vs Nadir Ali2022 YLR 570 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
• Attaullah and 9 others vs Zainullah and 20 others2021 PLJ Quetta 201, 2021 CLC 592 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• Associated Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. through authorized person and another vs Province Of Balochistan through Chief Secretary Balochistan and 4 others2021 PLD Balochistan 157 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-07-15Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 889 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-11
  concurrent sentencesmultiple trialssentencingcriminal revisioninherent powersinterpretation of statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner, Asmatullah, seeking the concurrence of his sentences awarded in two separate cases, namely FIR No. 107 of 2017 and FIR No. 108 of 2017 of Police Station Shalkot Quetta, under sections 392 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 respectively. The core legal question involves the interpretation and application of sections 35 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding whether multiple sentences arising from separate trials can be ordered to run concurrently. The Balochistan High Court held that while section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to multiple offences tried at one trial, section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers the court to consolidate sentences awarded in different trials. Furthermore, invoking its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court can direct separate sentences to run concurrently, particularly adhering to the principle that penal provisions restricting liberty must be construed strictly in favour of the accused. The petition was accepted, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial, appellate, or revisional courts have the power to order separate sentences awarded in different trials to run concurrently?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct sentences from separate trials to run concurrently?
  • How should provisions of criminal law curtailing personal liberty be interpreted when multiple constructions are possible?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah and another vs The State2021 YLR 1368 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-17
  court witnessescriminal proceduresummoning of witnessesSection 540 CrPCjust decisioncriminal trialevidencejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Loralai, which dismissed the petitioners' application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon specific medical records and an eye-witness as court witnesses. The core legal question concerned the scope and mandatory nature of the court's power to summon material witnesses at any stage of a trial. The High Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the application on the grounds of delay and the potential for filling lacunae. The Court emphasized that Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 consists of two parts: a discretionary power and a mandatory obligation. When evidence is essential for a just decision, the court must summon the witness regardless of the stage of proceedings or the risk of filling gaps in the prosecution or defense case. The key principle laid down is that the primary objective of Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is to discover the truth and prevent the punishment of innocent persons, rendering technical objections like delay irrelevant when the evidence is necessary for a just conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court dismiss an application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground of delay?
  • Is the power of the court under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon witnesses limited by the stage of the trial?
  • Does the court have a mandatory duty to summon witnesses under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if their evidence is essential for a just decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Asadullah vs The State and another2021 MLD 408 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-29
  supplementary statementexhibition of evidenceadmissibility of evidencecriminal revisiontrial court procedureSection 161 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the trial court's order allowing the exhibition of the complainant's supplementary statement as evidence. The core legal question was whether a supplementary statement recorded during police investigation holds the status of an FIR or can be exhibited as substantive evidence. The High Court held that the trial court erred in exhibiting the document. It affirmed that a supplementary statement is merely a statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and cannot be equated with an FIR or treated as an extension thereof. The Court further emphasized that trial courts are legally obligated to decide objections regarding the admissibility of evidence immediately when raised, rather than deferring such decisions until the final adjudication of the case. Consequently, the Court sustained the defence's objection, ordered the supplementary statement to be discarded from the complainant's evidence, and set aside the trial court's order, clarifying that such statements cannot be used for purposes other than those provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a supplementary statement of a complainant recorded during police investigation be exhibited as evidence at trial?
  • Is a supplementary statement equivalent to a First Information Report?
  • Should a trial court defer decisions on the admissibility of evidence until the final adjudication of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbab Nizam Ud Din Kasi vs Government Of Balochistan through Chief2022 YLR 110 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs Additional Sessions Judge Sariab, Quetta and 3 others2021 MLD 1742 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-02Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Bazai through Attorney vs Director General Of Mines And Mineral (Dev.) Department, Balochistan and another2021 PLD Balochistan 45 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• Allah Muhammad and others vs The State and others2021 P Cr. L J 1788 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-29
  common intentionvicarious liabilitydying declarationappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubtcriminal appealhurt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals and revision petitions challenging the convictions of the appellants for murder and related offences. The core legal questions were whether the appellants shared a common intention with the absconding co-accused to commit murder, and whether the trial court correctly relied upon a statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as a dying declaration. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish common intention, as the appellants were not armed and did not participate in the fatal shooting, rendering them liable only for their individual acts. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the statement of the deceased could not be treated as a valid dying declaration because it lacked the necessary medical or magisterial certification regarding the deceased's mental capacity at the time of recording. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions for murder and attempted murder, acquitting the appellants of those charges, while upholding their convictions for causing hurt. The key principle laid down is that vicarious liability under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires proof of a pre-planned design or common intention, which cannot be inferred from mere presence at the scene.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be held vicariously liable for murder under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based solely on their presence at the crime scene?
  • Is a statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible as a dying declaration without certification of the declarant's mental capacity?
  • Does the absence of common intention absolve an accused of liability for the principal offence while maintaining liability for individual acts of hurt?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State2021 MLD 972 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-14
  criminal appealmurder trialbenefit of doubtcontradictory ocular testimonyunnatural conduct of complainantinadmissible confessional statementunproven motiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Balochistan High Court was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, corroborative medical and forensic evidence, and established motive. Upon reviewing the record, the High Court observed glaring contradictions among the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, unnatural conduct of the complainant in leaving the fatally injured brother to register an FIR, unexplained delay in sending forensic items to the laboratory, failure to prove the alleged motive, and reliance on inadmissible police confessions. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused through unimpeachable evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge, reaffirming the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions in the testimonies of eyewitnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of an accused?
  • Does a confession made before the police during custody possess any evidentiary value under the law?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to prove an alleged motive once it has been specifically asserted in the FIR?
  • Can a positive forensic report lose its evidentiary value due to an unexplained delay in dispatching the recovered items to the laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others2021 MLD 987 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-24
  criminal acquittal appealvicarious liabilityocular evidencepresumption of innocencecommon intentionappreciation of evidenceFIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Model Criminal Court, Sibi, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302, 324, 337-H(2), 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence not mentioned in the FIR and the applicability of vicarious liability for mere presence at the crime scene. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to substantiate the guilt of the respondents. The Court observed that the ocular witnesses were not named in the FIR, rendering their testimony unreliable and requiring strict scrutiny. Furthermore, the Court held that mere presence at the scene of the occurrence, without evidence of a coercive role or common intention, is insufficient to establish vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court reaffirmed that an order of acquittal carries a presumption of innocence and that medical evidence, while confirming the nature of the injury, does not implicate specific individuals. Consequently, the trial court's well-reasoned acquittal was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without an attributed coercive role, establish vicarious liability?
  • What is the evidentiary value of ocular witnesses whose names are not mentioned in the First Information Report?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to implicate an accused in a criminal case?
  • What is the standard of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan vs Mst. Sumaira Khalid and 7 others2021 MLD 542 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-30Read full judgment →
• Ali Bakhsh vs The State2021 MLD 1168 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-06
  narcotics smugglingcharas recoverypolice witnessessafe custodychemical examiner reportdirectory rulescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, where he was sentenced to life imprisonment following the recovery of 40 kilograms of charas from secret cavities of a vehicle he was driving. The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to associate private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that the chemical examiner's report was deficient, and that there was an unexplained delay in transmitting the samples. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 explicitly excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotics cases. The Court further ruled that the testimonies of police officials are competent and reliable, and that Rules 4 and 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 regarding the 72-hour transmission window are directory rather than mandatory. Safe custody and transmission were fully established by the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 render the non-association of private witnesses a fatal defect in narcotics cases?
  • Are the testimonies of police officials sufficient to sustain a conviction in a narcotics case if they are consistent and confidence-inspiring?
  • Are Rules 4 and 5 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001 mandatory or directory regarding the 72-hour limit for transmitting samples to the chemical examiner?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar and 4 others vs Mir Ghulam Ali and others2021 PLD Balochistan 34, 2022 PLJ Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-10Read full judgment →
• Akbar Haripal and another vs Zahid Noor and 3 others2022 YLR 953 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-27Read full judgment →
• Agha Shahzaib Durrani vs Election Commission Of Pakistan through Chief2021 CLC 276 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-09Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali and another vs Muhammad Tahir and 3 others2021 CLC 1788 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-04Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 7 others vs Province Of Balochistan through Secretary2021 PLC (C.S.) 272 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-29
  service rulesrecruitment policysubordinate legislationstatutory interpretationphysical education teacherconstitutional petitioncivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the exclusion of the 'Diploma in Physical Education' requirement for the post of Physical Education Teacher (BPS-14) in the Recruitment Policy, 2019, issued by the Secondary Education Department, Government of Balochistan. The petitioners, who held such diplomas, argued that the 2019 policy conflicted with the existing Balochistan Education Department (Schools Branch) (Men's Section) (Basic Pay Scale 1 to 15) Service Rules, 1984, which explicitly mandated this qualification. The core legal question was whether an executive recruitment policy could override statutory service rules. The High Court held that the 2019 policy could not supersede the 1984 Rules, as the latter constituted subordinate legislation derived from the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Court affirmed the principle that executive policies cannot override or conflict with established statutory rules. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to reinstate the diploma requirement as stipulated in the 1984 Rules for the recruitment of Physical Education Teachers, ensuring that appointments are made in accordance with the established service regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive recruitment policy override existing statutory service rules?
  • Does a rule-making body have the authority to frame rules in conflict with the parent statute?
  • Is a recruitment policy that removes a mandatory qualification prescribed by service rules legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and others vs The State and others2021 YLR 913 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-30
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRrelated witnessesimprovementsacquittal appealfalsus in uno falsus in omnibus
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, an acquittal appeal, and a revision petition regarding quantum of sentence arising from a murder case. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related and injured eyewitnesses, the effect of inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, improvements in witness testimonies, and the application of the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to unnatural delays, consultations, material improvements, and contradictions in the ocular account. The court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the connected acquittal appeal and revision petition, reaffirming that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and injured eyewitnesses can be relied upon when the FIR is lodged with an inordinate and unexplained delay after deliberation?
  • Does the presence of injury marks on the person of a witness automatically prove that their deposition regarding the identity and specific role of the assailant is truthful?
  • What is the evidentiary effect under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 of withholding material witnesses who shifted the injured and deceased to the hospital?
  • Whether material and dishonest improvements made by witnesses in their statements before the court render their testimonies untrustworthy for maintaining a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wadood and another vs The State2021 YLR 560 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-18
  benefit of doubtocular evidencedelayed FIRanti-terrorismappreciation of evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants, Abdul Wadood and Muhammad Rafiq, by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences including murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the ocular evidence and the circumstances of the FIR registration. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court found that the FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay of seven hours, allowing for deliberation and consultation, and that the ocular evidence was unreliable due to inconsistencies between the medical reports and the specific roles attributed to the accused. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation was biased, failing to associate independent witnesses. The court reiterated the principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt is sufficient for acquittal and that conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR, coupled with consultation, undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony when the medical evidence contradicts the specific roles attributed to the accused?
  • Is the presence of injuries on the person of a witness sufficient to establish the truthfulness of their testimony?
  • Can abscondence of an accused, in isolation, serve as a sufficient basis for a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Abbas and 2 others2021 PLJ Quetta 226, 2021 CLC 1315 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mateen through guardian/father vs Bibi Khadija and others2021 PLD Balochistan 113, 2022 PLJ Quetta 93 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs State and anotherPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1486, 2022 YLR 1938 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-11-26
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcommon intentionvicarious liabilityocular testimony contradictionsabsconsionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), Section 324, and Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced accordingly. The core legal questions involved the reliability of contradictory ocular testimony, the application of vicarious liability and common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the evidentiary value of absconsion and delayed forensic reports, and the proof required beyond reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that material contradictions among prosecution witnesses, the absence of overt acts attributed to the appellant, unexplained delays in sending forensic materials, and doubtful circumstantial evidence rendered the prosecution case untrustworthy. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of the charges, laying down that criminal liability must rest on evidentiary certainty and that mere presence or absconsion without independent corroboration cannot sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions in the statements of ocular witnesses can form the basis of a safe conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does mere presence at the crime spot ipso facto establish common intention and vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can absconsion alone establish the guilt of an accused when the primary prosecution evidence is unreliable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of blood-stained articles and forensic reports sent to the laboratory after a significant and unexplained delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Sher Ali and 3 others2021 YLR 1619 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-30
  appeal against acquittalaggrieved personhurt caseslocus standicontradictions in evidencebenefit of doubtdouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 427, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a complainant who has not sustained any injuries in a hurt case is competent to file an appeal against an acquittal under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that in hurt cases, only the injured victim qualifies as 'a person aggrieved' competent to file an appeal under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, unless the victim is a minor or insane, in which case specific legal heirs may act on their behalf. The Court laid down that an uninjured complainant lacks the locus standi to maintain an appeal against acquittal in cases of hurt, and further noted that the trial court's acquittal judgment was based on proper appreciation of evidence with no jurisdictional defect or perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Who qualifies as a person aggrieved to file an appeal against an acquittal under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases involving hurt?
  • Can a complainant who sustained no injuries in the alleged incident maintain an appeal against acquittal under section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances can an appeal against an acquittal be interfered with by an appellate court?
  • Who is competent to file an appeal on behalf of an injured victim who is a minor or insane in a hurt case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and 6 others vs Muhammad Anwar Nasir and others2021 MLD 1197 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem vs Sultan Badshah2021 PLD Balochistan 139, 2022 PLJ Quetta 48 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Khan and 6 others vs Nasrullah and others2021 PLD Balochistan 59 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-26Read full judgment →
• Zia Ul Haq vs The State2020 MLD 1298 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-22
  criminal appealrash and negligent drivingbenefit of the doubtmotor vehicle accidentconviction set asidediyat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 320 and 279 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of a levies constable. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved that the appellant was driving in a rash or negligent manner and established a close proximity between such driving and the fatal injuries. The Balochistan High Court held that mere high speed or the fact of an accident does not suffice to prove rashness and negligence, especially where eyewitnesses admitted they did not witness the incident occurring in pitch darkness, the site map lacked crucial details, and no independent witnesses were examined. Setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant on the benefit of the doubt, the court laid down the principle that rashness and negligence are conditions precedent requiring proof through surrounding circumstances and lack of reasonable care, rather than mere assertions of speed or vehicle operation.

  Questions settled

  • Does driving a vehicle at a high speed automatically constitute a rash and negligent act under criminal law?
  • What are the essential elements required to bring home a charge under section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for vehicular homicide be sustained solely on the testimony of witnesses who did not actually witness the accident?
  Read full judgment →