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.

• Zaman Khan vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1017 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-24
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcontradictory testimonyeyewitness credibilityacquittalocular accountappreciation of evidence
  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 imprisonment for life, along with convictions under Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony and corroborative evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the eyewitnesses made major contradictions and dishonest improvements, failed to justify their presence, and their conduct of remaining unhurt during indiscriminate firing rendered their presence doubtful. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the charge without independent corroboration and that multiple circumstances created reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt. The appeal was accepted, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses containing material contradictions and improvements can form the basis of a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of close relative eyewitnesses to sustain any injury during an alleged indiscriminate firing incident cast serious doubt on their presence at the crime scene?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when multiple circumstances create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can medical evidence alone serve as a substitute for reliable direct ocular testimony in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain Khan vs Shams Ullah2020 PLD Balochistan 78 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The Judge Accountability Court-I, Balochistan, Quetta and another2020 P Cr. L J 486 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-12
  trial in absentiawillful abscondencefair trialdue processNational Accountability Ordinancecriminal appealnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Ehtesab Appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Accountability Court-I, Quetta, under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The appellant was convicted in absentia for willful abscondence following the publication of a proclamation in a local newspaper. The core legal question was whether a conviction under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 can be sustained when the trial court failed to frame a charge, record evidence, or prove willful abscondence, and when the trial proceeded in absentia. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, ruling that trial in absentia violates the constitutional right to a fair trial. The Court emphasized that Section 31-A constitutes a distinct offence requiring the prosecution to prove willful abscondence through evidence, following the framing of a charge and providing the accused an opportunity for cross-examination. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a trial conducted in accordance with due process and the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 be sustained without framing a charge or recording evidence?
  • Is a trial in absentia constitutionally permissible under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving willful abscondence to secure a conviction under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad vs National Bank Of Pakistan through Manager2020 CLD 362 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-22Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad vs National Bank of Pakistan through its Manager2020 PCTLR 993 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-22Read full judgment →
• Waqas Ahmed vs Arshad Mehmood and 2 others2020 YLR 437 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-24
  criminal acquittal appealacquittaldelayed FIRdouble presumption of innocencehostile witnessunnatural conductdishonest investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the private respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pursuant to an application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question revolved around the propriety of the acquittal order and whether the prosecution successfully established the presence of ocular witnesses, a credible motive, and a reliable chain of evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, doubtful presence and unnatural conduct of the eyewitnesses, material contradictions, a hostile witness, and a flawed investigation including belated recovery of crime empties. The court reaffirmed the principle that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence which cannot be interfered with unless found perverse or suffering from misreading of evidence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal order under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be interfered with in the absence of perversity or misreading of evidence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • Whether the natural conduct of eyewitnesses is a material factor in determining their presence at the scene of the crime?
  • What is the evidentiary weight of an acquittal and the strength of the presumption of innocence attached to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Ali and 17 others vs The Secretary, Religious Affairs and Inter-2021 PLJ Quetta 123, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 242 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-30
  constitutional petitionappointment ordersrecruitment processselection committeepublic functionariesequal treatmentfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by successful candidates seeking directions against the Religious Affairs and Inter-Faith Harmony Department, Government of Balochistan, to issue their appointment orders for the posts of Stenographer (B-14) and Junior Clerk (B-11). The petitioners had qualified the written tests and interviews conducted by the Departmental Selection Committee, which recommended their appointment in August 2018. However, due to a temporary ban on recruitments and subsequent queries raised regarding age limits, the department withheld their appointment letters while issuing them for lower-grade posts. The core legal issue was whether public functionaries could arbitrarily withhold appointment letters of candidates who had successfully completed the recruitment process. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the respondents' inaction lacked plausible justification and violated the petitioners' fundamental rights. The Court laid down the principle that public functionaries are constitutionally bound under Articles 4 and 5 to act strictly within the framework of the law and treat citizens in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether public functionaries can arbitrarily withhold appointment orders of candidates who have successfully qualified the complete selection process?
  • Does failure to issue appointment letters to successful recruitment candidates without valid reason violate Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a administrative ban on recruitments affect candidates whose selection process was already completed prior to the ban?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Mukhtar vs The State through Director General Regional2020 MLD 696 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-27
  corruptionmisuse of authorityNAB Ordinanceburden of proofpresumption of guiltmens reawheat subsidyaccountability appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of three Criminal Ehtesab Appeals filed against a single judgment of the Accountability Court-I, Balochistan Quetta, which convicted the appellants under Section 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 for alleged embezzlement of wheat quota and causing loss to the public exchequer. The High Court analyzed the evidentiary material and provincial food policies, noting that monitoring wheat distribution was the explicit statutory responsibility of the District Administration (DCO and local representatives), yet the prosecution failed to record statements from administrative officers, DCOs, union council officials, or Fair Price Shop owners. Furthermore, no reliable evidence was produced to prove that one appellant was the owner of the flour mill or that the deceased officials misused their authority for personal gain. Reaffirming established precedent, the High Court held that under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999, the initial burden of proving a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt remains on the prosecution before any presumption of guilt can arise or shift onto the accused. Consequently, all appeals were allowed, and the convictions were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the initial burden of proving a prima facie case under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 rest upon the prosecution before any presumption of guilt shifts to the accused?
  • Can an accused be called upon to prove innocence under Section 14 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 without the prosecution establishing misuse of authority under Section 9(a)?
  • Is proof of mens rea and criminal intention mandatory to establish an offence under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Toor Jan vs The State2020 KLR Criminal Cases 368, 2021 PLJ Cr.C.(Quetta) 89, 2020 YLR 1099 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-25
  dishonestly issuing a chequedishonoured chequebusiness transactioncriminal revisionburden of proofbenefit of doubtdelayed witness statementacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the judgments of the lower courts whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code for issuing a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question revolves around whether the mere issuance and dishonour of a cheque, without proving an underlying business transaction or enforceable liability, constitutes an offence under Section 489-F, and whether unexplained delays in recording witness statements vitiate the conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish any genuine business transaction, agreement, or vehicle documents supporting the alleged debt, and that unexplained delays in recording witness statements create fatal doubts in the prosecution case. The court ruled that an offence under Section 489-F requires a proved underlying transaction creating an instant liability, and mere dishonour of a cheque without consideration does not attract criminal liability. The petition was consequently accepted, and the petitioner was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere issuance and subsequent dishonour of a cheque constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of a proved underlying business transaction or liability?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in recording the statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right even if the defence creates only a slight doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Tooba Saeed vs Chairman, Admission Committee Bolan University Of Medical And Sciences Quetta Balochistan and 3 others2020 MLD 1510 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-13Read full judgment →
• The State through District and Sessions Judge, Kalat vs Assistant2021 PLJ Quetta 79, 2020 PLD Balochistan 26 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-06Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Quetta vs Fazal2020 PT D 1821 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali vs Syed Fasahat Hussain and 5 others2020 CLC 976 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Abid Gillani and another vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 594 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-14
  unregistered drugdrug inspectorterritorial jurisdictionburden of proofherbal medicinedrug manufacturingcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants by the Drug Court of Balochistan for manufacturing and selling an unregistered drug, "Skysim Fort Syrup," in violation of the Drugs Act, 1976. The core legal questions were whether a Drug Inspector is competent to inspect premises within their appointed local limits without prior permission, and whether the appellants successfully established that the product was an exempt herbal drug. The Court held that the conviction was sound, dismissing the appeal. It affirmed that a Drug Inspector possesses the statutory authority to inspect premises within their designated local limits under the Drugs Act, 1976, without requiring prior authorization from the licensing authority. The Court further established that once the prosecution proves the manufacturing and sale of an unregistered drug, the burden shifts to the accused to substantiate any claim of exemption or registration. As the appellants failed to provide evidence supporting their defense that the product was an exempt herbal preparation, the conviction was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Drug Inspector authorized to inspect premises within their local limits without prior permission from the licensing authority?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to prove a drug is exempt from registration once the prosecution establishes it is unregistered?
  • Can a conviction under the Drugs Act, 1976 be sustained if the accused fails to provide evidence that a product is a herbal drug exempt from registration?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Deputy Attorney General for Government of Pakistan vs Ikramullah2021 PLD Balochistan 1, 2020 CLD 1203 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-09
  FIA jurisdictioncopyright infringementintellectual property tribunalquashment of FIRinherent powers of High Courtprivate disputestatutory jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the State against an acquittal order passed by a Judicial Magistrate in a case involving the sale of pirated books. The core legal question was whether the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) possessed the jurisdiction to investigate copyright infringement disputes between private parties, and whether the trial court had the authority to proceed with such a case. The Court held that the FIA lacks jurisdiction over private copyright disputes, as such matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal established under the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012. The Court determined that the cognizance taken by the FIA was illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court converted the appeal into an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and quashed the FIR, affirming that the Intellectual Property Organization has the exclusive authority to investigate and initiate proceedings regarding copyright offences. The principle laid down is that the FIA's mandate is restricted to matters concerning the Federal Government, and it cannot usurp the specialized jurisdiction of Tribunals created for intellectual property matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have jurisdiction to investigate copyright infringement disputes between private parties?
  • Does the Tribunal established under the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012, have exclusive jurisdiction to try offences related to intellectual property laws?
  • Can the High Court convert an appeal against acquittal into an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to quash proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sodhal Khan vs The State2020 MLD 1340 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-05
  criminal appealArms Ordinancebenefit of doubtrecovery of weaponforensic reportacquittalprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(e) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, by the trial court, which sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment for the alleged possession of an unlicensed shotgun and cartridges. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the alleged recovery of the weapon and the credibility of the prosecution's narrative of an encounter. The High Court held that the prosecution's story was inherently implausible, noting contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the duration of the alleged firing and the absence of any injuries or damage despite a prolonged exchange. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the failure to send the recovered weapon for forensic analysis to verify its working condition rendered the recovery inconsequential. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case, and granted the appellant the benefit of the doubt, leading to his acquittal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any slight doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to send a recovered weapon for forensic analysis to determine its working condition create a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution's narrative of an encounter is inherently implausible and contradicted by witness testimony?
  • Does the principle of benefit of doubt apply when the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman Ex-Assistant Excise And Taxation Officer (B-16) vs Board Of Revenue Balochistan (Excise And Taxation Branch) through Member Board of Revenue-II_Secretary Excise and another2020 PLC (C.S.) 969 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-28
  pensionary benefitscivil servantright to propertywithholding of pensionconstitutional petitionNAB referencesuperannuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a retired Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer seeking the release of pensionary benefits withheld by the respondents due to the petitioner's involvement in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can be deprived of pensionary benefits solely on the basis of the pendency of criminal proceedings or inquiries. The Court held that pension and gratuity are not bounties but are earned rights acquired through long, faithful service, and cannot be withheld during the pendency of criminal proceedings absent specific legal authority. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that withholding such benefits violates the right to property guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court allowed the petition, directing the immediate payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner, noting that he had already been acquitted by a competent court, and ordered the Chief Secretary of Balochistan to circulate the judgment to all administrative departments for future compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be deprived of pensionary benefits solely due to the pendency of criminal proceedings or inquiries?
  • Are pension and gratuity considered bounties or earned rights of a civil servant?
  • Does the withholding of pensionary benefits without lawful authority violate the constitutional right to property?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali Kakar vs Station Head Quarters, through Umair Hameed2021 PLJ Quetta 50, 2020 CLC 125 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-22Read full judgment →
• Shams-Ud-Din vs Salahuddin and others2020 CLC 387 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Khan vs The State2020 YLR 1048 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-23
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidenceforensic delaymotive proofFIR registrationwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while a revision petition sought sentence enhancement. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular testimony and forensic evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing significant infirmities: the ocular witness was a close relative without independent corroboration, the site plan failed to verify the witness's presence, and the investigation commenced prior to the registration of the FIR. Furthermore, the Court noted that a two-month delay in sending forensic samples to the laboratory rendered the positive report unreliable, and the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged motive. Key principles laid down include: when a motive is specifically alleged, it must be proven or the benefit goes to the accused; unexplained delays in forensic analysis invalidate the evidence; and any doubt regarding the registration of the FIR or witness credibility must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove an alleged motive in a criminal case entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending forensic samples to the laboratory render the forensic report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the investigation is initiated prior to the registration of the First Information Report?
  • Is the testimony of an interested ocular witness sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration in a public place?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Yasmin vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1536 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-11
  surety bondforfeiture of suretydeath of suretycriminal revisionbail bond liabilityCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the order of the trial court refusing to fully waive the forfeited surety amount. The brief facts are that the accused was granted bail subject to furnishing surety, which was provided by the petitioner's husband who subsequently died before the accused absconded and before the bond was forfeited. The core legal question was whether the estate of a surety remains liable under a bail bond when the surety dies prior to the forfeiture of the bond. The court held that under section 514(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if a surety dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate stands discharged from all liability in respect of the bond, rendering any subsequent forfeiture proceedings illegal and void. The key principle laid down is that the death of a surety prior to the forfeiture of a bail bond completely discharges the surety's estate from any liability, and trial courts cannot initiate or continue forfeiture proceedings against a deceased surety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the estate of a surety is discharged from liability if the surety dies before the bail bond is forfeited?
  • Are proceedings initiated under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 valid against a surety who died prior to the absconsion of the accused and bond forfeiture?
  • Can a trial court forfeit a surety bond after the death of the surety?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and 9 others vs Habibullah and 25 others2020 PLD Balochistan 5 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-05Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs Shafi Muhammad2021 KLR Criminal Cases 120, 2020 MLD 1651 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-10Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs Sessions Judge, Lasbela At Hub and 3 others2020 PLJ Quetta 32, 2020 P Cr. L J 711 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-12
  constitutional petitiondefence evidenceright to fair trialsummoning of witnesscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders passed by the lower courts rejecting the petitioner's application to summon a company representative for the verification of an attendance sheet as defence evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in refusing the accused the opportunity to adduce defence evidence and summon documents. The Balochistan High Court held that under Section 265-F(6) and (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the trial court is under a legal obligation to allow defence evidence and issue processes for witnesses or documents unless the application is proven to be for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice. The court ruled that refusing such evidence without valid grounds constitutes an illegality and violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition was accepted, the impugned orders were set aside, and the trial court was directed to summon the company representative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is bound to allow an accused to adduce defence evidence under Section 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances can a trial court refuse an application for the production of documents as defence evidence?
  • Does the refusal to receive defence evidence violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State2020 MLD 659 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-28
  juvenile offenderretracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencelast-seen evidencebenefit of the doubtmurder referencedeath sentenceabduction for ransom
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pishin, convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for a murder committed during an alleged abduction for ransom. The core legal questions involved the legality of the trial of a juvenile under ordinary law rather than the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, the evidentiary value and voluntariness of a retracted judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without legal counseling or precautions, and the sufficiency of circumstantial and last-seen evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offense and could not be awarded the death penalty, and that the retracted judicial confession was involuntary, uncorroborated, and obtained after illegal detention and torture. The court laid down the principle that a retracted judicial confession of a juvenile, recorded without mandatory legal precautions and counseling, cannot form the sole basis for a conviction without strong, independent corroboration, and that benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused where prosecution evidence is fraught with fatal discrepancies. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession of a juvenile accused sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Whether a person who was a juvenile at the time of the commission of an offense can be awarded the death penalty under the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018?
  • What mandatory precautions and counseling opportunities must a Judicial Magistrate provide before recording a judicial confession of a minor accused?
  • Does last-seen evidence alone constitute sufficient proof to warrant capital punishment in a murder trial?
  • What is the effect of prolonged illegal detention prior to the recording of a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Iqbal and another vs Muhammad Ashiq and others2020 MLD 2039 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-18
  appeal against acquittalretracted confessionconfessional statementcircumstantial evidencedouble presumption of innocencebenefit of doubtrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal acquittal appeals filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality and voluntariness of retracted judicial confessions recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the credibility of circumstantial evidence including delayed recoveries from public places with running water, and the standard of interference in appeals against acquittal where the accused enjoy a double presumption of innocence. The Balochistan High Court held that the confessional statements were involuntary, suffered from procedural defects such as lack of adequate time for reflection and failure to observe safeguards under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the circumstantial evidence and delayed recoveries failed to form a complete and unerring chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The court laid down that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal order unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a complete misreading of evidence, reinforcing that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal without establishing perversity or legal infirmity in the trial court judgment?
  • Can a retracted judicial confession alone form the basis of a criminal conviction without reliable corroborative evidence?
  • Does a failure to provide adequate time for reflection before recording a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the confession involuntary?
  • Whether a delayed recovery of a crime weapon from a public drain with running water can be considered trustworthy and incriminating circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq vs The State through Prosecutor General, Quetta2020 KLR Criminal Cases 226, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 650, 2020 MLD 758 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-17
  abscondencefair trialanti-terrorism lawcriminal procedureright to hearingconviction in absentiadue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, where the appellant was sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment by the Anti-Terrorism Court for abscondence. The core legal question was whether a trial court can convict an accused for the offence of abscondence under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without framing a specific charge, recording evidence, or following the procedural requirements of Section 19 of the Act. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, noting that the trial court failed to frame a charge, record evidence regarding the ingredients of the offence, or provide the accused an opportunity of hearing. The Court emphasized that Section 21-L is not a summary offence and requires adherence to the full trial procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Failure to follow these procedures violates the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Articles 9 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of abscondence under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 require a formal trial procedure under Section 19 of the Act?
  • Can a trial court convict an accused for abscondence without framing a specific charge or recording evidence?
  • Is a conviction in absentia for the offence of abscondence under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 violative of the right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabzal Khan and 9 others vs Muhammad Akbar and 10 others2020 CLC 142, 2021 PLJ Quetta 62 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
• Ruqqiya Atta vs Secretary, Education Department, Civil Secretariat Quetta2020 PLC (C.S) 368, 2020 PLJ Quetta 35 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-16
  service matterappointment cancellationdue processrecruitment policyconstitutional petitionservice tribunaltermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment as a Physical Training Instructor (PTI) following a decision by the Complaint Redressal Cell (CRC) which favored respondent No. 4. The core legal question was whether the appointment of a candidate could be implicitly terminated by the appointment of another person without following due process or issuing a formal termination order. The Court held that the petitioner’s appointment, having been issued by a competent authority, remained intact as no formal order of cancellation or termination was ever passed. The Court emphasized that the issuance of an appointment order in favor of another candidate does not automatically terminate the service of an existing employee. Furthermore, the authorities failed to adhere to the procedural requirements of the Recruitment Policy 2014. The Court established the principle that if authorities intend to terminate an employee's service, they must adopt the legal course provided by applicable law and rules; an implicit termination through the appointment of a successor is legally insufficient and invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointment order be implicitly terminated by the appointment of another candidate to a similar post?
  • Does the decision of a Complaint Redressal Cell automatically terminate the service of a previously appointed employee without a formal termination order?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when the petitioner has simultaneously approached the Service Tribunal for the same relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Rozi Khan and others vs The State and othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 720, 2020 MLD 580 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-16
  murdercriminal appealbenefit of the doubtrelated eyewitnessesdelay in FIRpost-mortem delayunnatural conductacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from a judgment of the Sessions Judge Pishin, whereby the appellant Rozi Khan was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions pertained to the credibility of closely related eyewitnesses whose conduct was unnatural, the legal effect of inordinate delays in lodging the First Information Report and conducting the post-mortem examination, and the safe administration of criminal justice in capital cases. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting fatal flaws including unexplained delays, material improvements in the ocular account through supplementary statements, and the unnatural conduct of eyewitnesses who remained unhurt and failed to protect the deceased. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the connected revision petition. The key principle laid down is that where the testimony of related eyewitnesses lacks corroboration, is contradicted by medical evidence, and is accompanied by unnatural conduct and suspicious delays, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt resulting in an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report casts serious doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of related eyewitnesses be relied upon when their conduct at the time of the incident is unnatural and inconsistent with normal human behavior?
  • Does a material contradiction between the ocular account and the medical report regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased undermine the credibility of the prosecution witnesses?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal where the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in accordance with the golden rule of the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan vs The State2020 MLD 59, 2021 KLR Criminal Cases 117, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 488 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-20
  post-arrest bailborderline casenarcotics recoveryfurther inquirymedical groundsControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Rizwan seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 158 of 2019 registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1300 grams of Charas and 300 grams of Crystal. The core legal question is whether an accused is entitled to bail when the recovered narcotic quantity falls within a borderline range between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and where the accused suffers from a serious illness. The Balochistan High Court held that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given the borderline quantity and the medical condition of the applicant, and accordingly granted bail. The key principles laid down are that where a recovered narcotic quantity marginally exceeds a threshold, making it a borderline case, the lesser quantum of sentence is considered for bail, and that serious medical conditions such as cancer warrant the grant of bail when continued detention poses a danger to life.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the recovered quantity of narcotics falls on the borderline between different punishment clauses?
  • Does the availability of two different quanta of sentences in a statute require the lesser sentence to be considered for the purpose of bail?
  • Can the serious illness of an accused, such as being a cancer patient, serve as a ground for granting bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah and 5 others vs Aziz Ullah and another2020 MLD 1990 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-29
  circumstantial evidenceblind murderacquittalbenefit of doubtcriminal appealchain of evidencepresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent in a murder case. The matter originated from a blind murder where the deceased was found injured in the respondent's guestroom and subsequently succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused, or if the evidence left reasonable doubt. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It noted that the accused's conduct—calling a neighbor for help and assisting in transporting the victim to the hospital—was inconsistent with the hypothesis of guilt. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish any motive. The court affirmed the principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete and exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Finding no perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence, the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing that acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required to convict an accused based solely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the conduct of an accused in assisting a victim to the hospital create a reasonable doubt regarding their culpability in a murder charge?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Razia Bibi vs Muhammad Younas Bhatti and 4 others2020 CLC 688 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
• Pure Mineral (Pvt.) Limited through duly Authorized Attorney vs Province2020 CLC 152 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-29Read full judgment →
• Obaidullah etc vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 532 · Balochistan High Court
  retracted confessioncircumstantial evidencejudicial confessiondeath sentence commutationballistic expert reportcriminal appealmurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals and a murder reference arising from the conviction of appellants for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question addressed is whether a conviction can be sustained based on retracted judicial confessions and circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of a crime weapon. The Court held that while retracted confessions require careful scrutiny, they are legally admissible and can form the sole basis for conviction if the court is satisfied they are voluntary and truthful. In this case, the chain of circumstantial evidence, including the judicial confessions and ballistic reports, was sufficient to establish guilt. However, regarding sentencing, the Court exercised discretion to commute the death sentence of one appellant to life imprisonment, noting the influence of an absconding co-accused and the delay in recording the confessions. The key principle laid down is that while the rule of corroboration for retracted confessions is one of abundant caution, it is not an inflexible requirement if the confession is otherwise reliable and voluntary.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroboration?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession made while in police custody admissible as evidence?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the confession?
  • Under what circumstances can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Obaidullah and others vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 637 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21
  retracted confessionjudicial confessioncircumstantial evidencemurderdeath sentence commutationballistic expert reportrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals, revisions, an acquittal appeal, and a murder reference arising from a trial court judgment convicting appellants Zubair Ahmed and Obaidullah for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the admissibility and evidentiary value of retracted judicial confessions, the requirement of independent corroboration, and the evaluation of circumstantial evidence including weapon recovery and ballistic reports. The Balochistan High Court held that a retracted judicial confession, if found truthful, voluntary, and confidence-inspiring, can be legally relied upon and even form the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration, though corroboration as a rule of caution is desirable. The court upheld the convictions based on voluntary judicial confessions, pointing recoveries, and positive forensic reports, but commuted the death sentence of Zubair Ahmed to imprisonment for life due to mitigating circumstances including a delay in recording the confession and influence by an absconding co-accused. The acquittal of a co-accused based on an inadmissible extra-judicial confession was also maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession be used as the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Whether a delay of six or seven days in recording a judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the confession.
  • What is the evidentiary value of information received from an accused in police custody leading to a discovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to imprisonment for life on the ground of mitigating circumstances such as influence by a co-accused and delay in recording a confession?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor-Ud-Din Bugti through Secretary General and others vs Sultan2021 PLJ Quetta 39, 2020 PLC 135 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-24
  trade union registrationgovernment servantscivil servantsindustrial relationscollective bargaining agentwelfare associationlabour lawsjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged a Labour Appellate Tribunal order concerning the disqualification of office bearers of two trade unions formed by employees of the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Balochistan. The core legal question was whether government employees qualify as "workers" or "workmen" entitled to form trade unions under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Court held that government employees are civil servants and do not fall within the definition of "worker" or "workman" under the Act. Consequently, they lack the legal standing to form trade unions under that legislation. The Court set aside the judgments of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal for lack of jurisdiction and declared the registration of such unions illegal. The key principle laid down is that government employees are governed by the Balochistan Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, and may only form welfare associations under specific conditions, not trade unions under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Registrar of Trade Unions was directed to cancel such illegal registrations immediately.

  Questions settled

  • Do government employees fall within the definition of 'worker' or 'workman' under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Can government employees form trade unions under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Are government departments considered 'establishments' for the purpose of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • What is the legal scope for government servants to form associations under the Balochistan Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State2020 MLD 1071 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-16
  criminal transfer applicationtransfer of criminal casefair trialapprehension of dangerburden of proofmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Transfer Application was filed by the applicant, a sitting minister of the Balochistan Provincial Assembly, seeking the transfer of a murder case (FIR No. 27/2011) from the court of the Sessions Judge, Loralai, to a court of competent jurisdiction in Quetta. The applicant contended that he faced serious threats of dire consequences from the complainant, thereby necessitating a transfer to ensure his safety and a fair trial. The core legal question was whether the applicant established sufficient grounds to justify the transfer of the criminal trial based on mere apprehensions of danger. The Court held that the application was devoid of merit, noting that the applicant failed to produce any cogent evidence, such as copies of threatening messages or reports to authorities, to substantiate his claims of danger. The Court emphasized that the transfer of a case cannot be claimed as a matter of routine or at the mere wish of a party. The key principle laid down is that a criminal case should not be transferred from a court of competent jurisdiction unless the grounds seeking such transfer are supported by strong, cogent reasons or convincing evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be transferred from a court of competent jurisdiction based solely on the applicant's apprehension of danger?
  • Is a sitting minister entitled to the transfer of a criminal case as a matter of right?
  • What is the evidentiary standard required to justify the transfer of a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizam Ud Din vs Senior Vice-President And Regional Manager Operation2020 CLC 1934 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-27Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed alias Chaloo vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 810 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-09
  unnatural offencesodomychild witnessmedical evidencerelated witnessSection 377 PPCcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Jail Appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasirabad at Dera Murad Jamali, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine, along with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed an unnatural offence against an eight-year-old child. The core legal questions pertained to whether the conviction could stand on the testimony of a child victim and related witness, and whether such evidence was properly corroborated by medical evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence, holding that the victim's testimony was direct, natural, and unshaken, fully corroborated by prompt medical examination and the potency certificate of the appellant. The Court established that the solitary, confidence-inspiring testimony of a minor victim of sodomy is sufficient for conviction when corroborated by cogent circumstantial and medical evidence, and that related witnesses are competent absent any proof of enmity or motive to falsely implicate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the solitary and confidence-inspiring testimony of a minor victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction for sodomy under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can the testimony of a related witness be relied upon to support a conviction in a criminal trial?
  • Can the evidence of a child witness be acted upon if the trial court has satisfied itself regarding the child's competence and rational capacity to answer questions?
  Read full judgment →
• National Construction Limited, through Authorized Officer and others vs National Industrial Relations Commission and others2021 PLJ Quetta 89, 2020 PLC 82 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-25
  limitationcondonation of delayex parte orderindustrial relationsconstitutional petitionappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Balochistan High Court disposes of forty-three constitutional petitions filed by National Construction Limited challenging orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) Quetta Bench and its Full Bench. The petitioner-employer had failed to properly contest the initial proceedings before the NIRC Bench, leading to an ex parte order directing the payment of outstanding dues and salaries to the respondent employees. Subsequently, the employer's appeals before the Full Bench of the NIRC were dismissed as time-barred due to a delay of twenty-two days without a satisfactory explanation. The core legal question revolved around the condonation of delay in filing statutory appeals and whether a time-barred matter can be examined on its merits. The High Court held that the law of limitation must be strictly applied, that delay defeats equity, and that where a matter is barred by time, a court or tribunal cannot go into the merits of the controversy. The petitions were accordingly dismissed in limine, upholding the principle that the law assists the vigilant and not the indolent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate forum is justified in dismissing an appeal as time-barred when the delay in filing has not been explained by plausible reasons?
  • Can a court or tribunal examine the merits of a controversy when the matter is admittedly barred by the period of limitation?
  • Does the expiry of the limitation period create a valuable right in favour of the opposite party?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 711, 2020 YLR 644 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-29
  criminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtsite planforensic evidenceocular testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concern the reliability of the identification parade, the evidentiary value of the site plan, the impact of unexplained delays in FIR registration, and the admissibility of recovery evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the identification parade was conducted in violation of established guidelines, rendering it unreliable. Furthermore, significant contradictions regarding the timing of the occurrence, the presence of ocular witnesses, and discrepancies between multiple site plans created substantial doubt. The Court also noted that the recovery of the weapon from an open place, coupled with an unexplained delay in forensic analysis, failed to corroborate the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, and ordered his acquittal, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove its case through consistent, credible evidence rather than improved or inconsistent accounts.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade conducted in a police lockup without following established judicial guidelines lose its evidentiary value?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are significant contradictions between multiple site plans prepared by the investigating officer?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon from an open place, without forensic matching to crime scene casings, sufficient to support a conviction?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR, when coupled with inconsistencies in witness testimony, entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseebullah vs The State2021 PLD Balochistan 127 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-28Read full judgment →
• Naqeebullah and others vs The State and others2020 MLD 1492 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-31
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtsupplementary statementforensic science agencycriminal appealQatl-e-Amdchain of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and a revision petition seeking sentence enhancement. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellants' guilt through circumstantial evidence, specifically regarding the evidentiary value of a supplementary statement and the integrity of forensic evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a continuous, unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the appellants to the crime. The court emphasized that a supplementary statement nominating an accused after an initial FIR against unknown persons carries no higher evidentiary value than a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, unexplained delays in forensic analysis and discrepancies between recovered crime empties and alleged weapons created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, affirming the principle that in cases dependent on circumstantial evidence, any missing link or reasonable hypothesis of innocence necessitates acquittal, as the burden of proof must be discharged beyond any shadow of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a supplementary statement nominating an accused after the initial FIR have the same evidentiary value as the FIR itself?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending recovered crime weapons and empties to the forensic laboratory?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of events is incomplete?
  Read full judgment →
• Nahida Jabeen vs Agha Muhammad and 6 others2020 P Cr. L J 763 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-26
  appeal against acquittalvicarious liabilitycommon intentionocular evidenceinjured witnessmurdermisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against an acquittal judgment passed by an Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta, regarding charges of murder and assault. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal of the respondents was perverse, given the ocular and medical evidence presented by the prosecution. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the acquittal. It held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent testimony of injured eye-witnesses, which was corroborated by medical evidence, despite the absence of recovered weapons. The court reaffirmed that the mere close relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not discard their testimony if it is trustworthy and confidence-inspiring. Furthermore, it established that vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies when participants act with a common intention, even if individual fatal roles are unascertainable. Finally, it emphasized that while the scope of interference in acquittals is narrow, appellate courts must intervene when trial court findings are artificial or based on misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the close relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased automatically invalidate their testimony?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the individual fatal role of each accused is not ascertainable?
  • Is the non-recovery of weapons of offense fatal to the prosecution's case if ocular and medical evidence are otherwise convincing?
  • Under what circumstances may an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Naheeda Jabeen vs Agha Muhammad and othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 657 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-06
  appeal against acquittalcommon intentionvicarious liabilityinjured eye-witnessmedical evidencedelay in FIRmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 302, 337-ADF, 354, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an incident where the complainant's husband sustained fatal injuries and family members were injured. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents. The Balochistan High Court held that the ocular testimony of injured and related eye-witnesses was natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence, and that delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained. The court set aside the acquittal, ruling that the respondents acted in furtherance of a common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key principles laid down are that minor discrepancies do not discredit otherwise reliable injured eye-witnesses, that close familial relationship does not disqualify a witness whose presence is natural, and that vicarious liability applies under Section 34 when a pre-planned attack by an armed assembly results in fatal injuries.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution case when adequately explained?
  • Can the testimony of related and injured eye-witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to recover the weapon of offense invalidate an otherwise proven ocular and medical account?
  • How is common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 established in the absence of an individually assigned fatal blow?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bakhsh vs The State2020 MLD 1580 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-19
  criminal appealrash and negligent drivingqatl-i-khatastatement of accusedburden of proofvehicular accidentacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 320, 279, 337-G, 337-A(i)(ii)(iii), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing death and injuries through a vehicular accident resulting from an overturned passenger vehicle. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved rash and negligent driving beyond a reasonable doubt and whether a conviction could be sustained solely on a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without evaluating the prosecution's evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that none of the ocular witnesses supported the prosecution's case regarding rash and negligent driving, the complainant was hostile, and the trial court erred by ignoring prosecution evidence and improperly relying on a fractured portion of the accused's statement coupled with unverified physical inspection of the vehicle months later. The court laid down that the prosecution must independently prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that high speed alone does not constitute rashness or negligence, and that an accused's statement under Section 342 must be accepted or rejected in toto. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does driving a vehicle at a high speed alone constitute a rash and negligent act under criminal law?
  • Must an accused's statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted or rejected in toto?
  • Can a court convict an accused solely on the basis of a statement under Section 342 without independently evaluating and believing the prosecution evidence?
  • Is medical evidence considered substantive proof to identify the culprit in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed Khan Kakar and another vs Province of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and 7 others2020 PLD Balochistan 58 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-06-04
  civil servantstransfers and postingstenure protectionRules of Businessdelegatus non potest delegarepolitical interferenceimplementation of Supreme Court judgmentconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 read with Article 187(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 seeking implementation of Supreme Court judgments regarding transfers and postings of civil servants and executive governance. The Advocate General raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability under Article 212 and High Court jurisdiction under Article 187. The High Court held that the petition was maintainable as the petitioner was not a civil servant and sought enforcement of Supreme Court judgments for public interest. On the merits, the Court declared that executive notifications delegating posting and transfer powers to Provincial Ministers were ultra vires the Balochistan Government Rules of Business 2012 and the Constitution. It held that Ministers handle policy while departmental administration vests in Secretaries. The Court mandated strict adherence to statutory tenure policies, prohibited premature transfers without compelling written reasons, and barred postings based on verbal orders or political interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Provincial High Court direct the implementation of Supreme Court judgments under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution bar a public interest petition filed by a non-civil servant regarding civil service transfers?
  • Can a notification empower a Provincial Minister to make transfers and postings in derogation of statutory Rules of Business?
  • Is a premature transfer of a civil servant valid if made without complying with statutory tenure rules and procedural requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State2020 YLR 1423 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-11
  criminal appealmurder convictionsolitary eye-witnessFIR delaymedical evidenceinjured witnessappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the conviction could be sustained despite a one-day delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and whether the testimony of a solitary injured eye-witness, who was a relative of the deceased, was sufficient to establish guilt. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment. The Court held that a delay in lodging an FIR does not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case, provided the delay is explained by circumstances, such as the need for urgent medical treatment, and does not suggest deliberation or fabrication. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the testimony of a solitary eye-witness is not inherently disqualified; if such testimony is confidence-inspiring, rings true, and is corroborated by medical evidence, it is sufficient for conviction. The relationship between the witness and the deceased does not discredit the testimony absent evidence of enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a solitary injured eye-witness?
  • Does the relationship of an eye-witness to the deceased necessarily discredit their testimony?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to corroborate the testimony of a solitary eye-witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wali vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1442 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-31
  narcoticscharasdelay in FIRsafe custody of sampleschain of custodybenefit of the doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the alleged possession of 10 kilograms of Charas. The core legal questions revolve around the unexplained delay in the registration of the First Information Report and the delayed transmission and unsafe custody of narcotics samples sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Balochistan High Court held that an unexplained delay of six hours in FIR registration, coupled with an inordinate delay of eleven days in dispatching samples to the Government Analyst in violation of Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 and the failure to prove safe custody and examine the official who transported the samples, breaks the chain of custody and renders the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR affect the veracity of a narcotics case?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to transmit narcotic samples to the Government Analyst within the timeframe prescribed by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Does failure by the prosecution to prove the safe custody and transmission of samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique alias Qurban Ali vs The State through Prosecutor2020 P Cr. L J 923 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-10
  criminal revisionrobberyocular evidenceappreciation of evidenceconvictionwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner for robbery under sections 392 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given the ocular evidence provided by the complainant and an eyewitness, and the subsequent recovery of the stolen motorcycle and an unlicensed pistol. The High Court examined the consistency of the prosecution's witnesses, noting that the FIR was lodged promptly and the accused was apprehended at the scene. The Court held that the ocular account was natural, direct, and confidence-inspiring, and that the defense failed to establish any motive for false implication or malice. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the prosecution evidence was of sufficient quality to sustain the verdict. The key principle laid down is that the credibility of a witness depends on the intrinsic value of their statement rather than their status, and that where ocular evidence is consistent and reliable, it suffices for conviction without requiring further corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of an incriminating weapon prove a prosecution case if the ocular evidence is disbelieved?
  • Is the presence of a witness at the scene of a crime sufficient to establish the truthfulness of their testimony?
  • Should criminal evidence be tested based on the quantity of witnesses or the quality of their statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and another vs Bismillah Khan and 7 others2020 [M] C L R 1436, 2021 PLJ Quetta 1, 2020 YLR 602 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raheem vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 192 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-30
  trial in absentiafair trialabsconderAnti-Terrorism Actdue processcriminal appealconstitutional right
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction recorded in absentia under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism. The core legal question is whether a conviction in absentia is sustainable when the trial court fails to conduct the mandatory inquiry regarding the accused's deliberate absence and fails to prove willful absconsion, and whether such procedure violates the constitutional right to a fair trial. The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the trial court failed to adhere to the procedural safeguards mandated by Section 19(10) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court ruled that the conviction was recorded in a cursory manner without evidence of willful obstruction of justice. The judgment reaffirms that trials in absentia, when conducted without strict compliance with statutory requirements and the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, are unconstitutional and unsustainable. The matter was remanded for a proper trial in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, be sustained without evidence of willful absconsion?
  • Does a trial in absentia conducted without fulfilling the mandatory inquiry requirements of Section 19(10) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, violate the right to a fair trial?
  • Is a trial in absentia that fails to comply with the constitutional guarantees of Articles 9, 10, and 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 704, 2020 P Cr. L J 688 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-23
  rash and negligent drivingcriminal appealbenefit of the doubtappreciation of evidencedishonest improvementburden of proofacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for rash and negligent driving resulting in a fatal vehicle collision. The trial court had convicted the appellant under sections 302, 337-G, 279, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relying on the testimony of a sole eye-witness. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the elements of rash and negligent driving beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence of rashness or negligence, noting that the sole eye-witness made dishonest improvements in his testimony and that the investigation was procedurally flawed, having commenced prior to the registration of the FIR. Furthermore, the court emphasized that mere high speed does not constitute an offense without proof of negligence, and mechanical failure was not ruled out by expert inspection. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof, and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for rash and negligent driving be sustained solely on the testimony of a witness who has made dishonest improvements to their statement?
  • Does the act of driving a vehicle at high speed, in the absence of evidence of negligence, constitute a criminal offense?
  • Is an investigation conducted prior to the formal registration of an FIR legally permissible?
  • Can a statement of an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted in part while rejecting the rest?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem and others vs Anjuman-E-Nasir-Ul-Aza through General Secretary2020 KLR Criminal Cases 306, 2021 PLJ Quetta 108, 2020 CLC 526 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohid-Din vs Director General, NAB (Balochistan) and another2020 MLD 1917 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan Kurd vs Arbab Muhammad Hashim2021 PLJ Quetta 116, 2020 PLD Balochistan 38 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan Durrani through Attorney vs Abdul Ali Durrani and 42020 MLD 426 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and others vs Qalandar Khan and others2020 [M] C L R 769 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamshed Khan vs Alamgeer and another2020 MLD 1857 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-29
  criminal appealacquittalco-accusedfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusindependent corroborationabscondancedouble presumption of innocencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting respondent No. 1 of murder charges under Sections 302, 447, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence warrants the acquittal of the remaining respondent, and whether the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies to discredit the prosecution witnesses. The Balochistan High Court held that since co-accused facing identical allegations and roles had already been acquitted and the prosecution's ocular account lacked independent corroboration, the respondent was rightly acquitted by the trial court. The court upheld the double presumption of innocence attached to an acquittal, noting that abscondance alone cannot sustain a conviction without supporting evidence. The key principle laid down is that witness testimony disbelieved regarding some co-accused cannot be relied upon against remaining accused without strong independent corroboration, and abscondance is merely supplementary and insufficient by itself to prove guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted on the same set of evidence when co-accused with identical roles have already been acquitted?
  • Is abscondance alone sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused without supporting evidence?
  • What is the scope of interfering with an acquittal judgment that carries a double presumption of innocence?
  • How does the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to witness testimony in criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaffar vs The State2020 MLD 967 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21
  rapemurdercapital punishmentjudicial confessioncommutation of sentenceQanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984circumstantial evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the rape and murder of two women. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence—specifically medical reports, judicial confessions, and circumstantial evidence—to sustain a capital conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through corroborated evidence, including a voluntary confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and incriminating disclosures admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. While the conviction was upheld, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that while a conviction may be sustained on the basis of corroborated confessional and medical evidence, the imposition of capital punishment may be mitigated where the victims had prior consensual illicit relations with the accused and other co-accused remain at large, rendering the extreme penalty unwarranted in the specific circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible if the court is satisfied it was made voluntarily?
  • Does information provided by an accused in custody leading to the discovery of incriminating facts become admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can the existence of prior consensual illicit relations between the victim and the accused serve as a mitigating factor for commuting a death sentence?
  • Is medical evidence confirming sexual assault and strangulation sufficient to corroborate a confession in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Haji Ghulam Hussain and others2020 CLC 2052 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim and others vs Syed Kalimullah and others2020 YLR 2498 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Essa vs Mudasir Ahmed and 3 others2020 MLD 1969 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Essa and another vs The State and another2020 MLD 1636 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-17
  judicial confessionoath administrationbenefit of doubtretracted confessioncriminal appealmurder referenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Essa, for the murder of his wife, Mst. Gul Ghutai. The core legal questions concern the admissibility of a judicial confession recorded under oath and the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction in the absence of eye-witnesses. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, primarily because the judicial confession was recorded on oath, rendering it inadmissible under the law and the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration for the retracted confession and that the medical evidence was inconclusive regarding the cause of death. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a conviction cannot be based on mere presumptions arising from the location of an incident. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt, and declined to confirm the death sentence, noting that the acquittal of a co-accused without independent corroboration further weakened the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judicial confession recorded on oath admissible in evidence against an accused?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroboration?
  • Does the occurrence of a murder inside a matrimonial home shift the burden of proof to the husband to explain the death?
  • What is the effect of administering an oath to an accused during the recording of a confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Deedar vs The State2020 MLD 930 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-26
  narcotics controlchain of custodysafe transmission of samplescriminal appealacquittalburden of proofrecovery of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Model Criminal Trial Court/Special Judge Narcotics, Pishin, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 100 kilograms of charas. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence regarding the recovery, the establishment of the chain of custody for the contraband, and the proof of the appellant's nexus with the vehicle used in the alleged offense. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in witness testimony regarding the sealing of the contraband at the spot, the lack of proof regarding the appellant's ownership or connection to the vehicle, and an unexplained six-day delay in transmitting samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principles laid down are that the prosecution must strictly prove the chain of custody and safe transmission of narcotics, and that mere oral allegations are insufficient to establish a nexus between an accused and a vehicle used in drug trafficking.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to a forensic laboratory create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is oral testimony sufficient to establish an accused's nexus with a vehicle used for transporting narcotics?
  • Does a contradiction regarding the sealing of contraband at the recovery site undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Deedar vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 693 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-26
  narcotics possessionchain of custodycriminal appealsafe transmissionbenefit of doubtcontraband recoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 100 kilograms of charas. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence, specifically regarding the chain of custody of the seized contraband and the establishment of a nexus between the accused and the vehicle used. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court identified significant contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the sealing of the contraband at the site of recovery. Furthermore, the Court noted an unexplained six-day delay in transmitting samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which compromised the chain of custody and safe transmission protocols. Additionally, the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's ownership or connection to the vehicle. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the failure to maintain safe custody and transmission of narcotics creates fatal doubts in the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotics samples to a forensic laboratory break the chain of custody?
  • Is the mere possession of a vehicle sufficient to prove an accused's nexus with contraband recovered from it without proof of ownership?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence regarding the sealing of contraband at the recovery site?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1236 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-11
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtinterested witnessesocular testimonymedical evidencepolice disclosureacquittal
  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 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular accounts, medical evidence, and recoveries. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from major discrepancies, unnatural witness conduct, omissions in the site plan, withholding of independent witnesses, and inadmissible police disclosures. Setting aside the conviction, the court established that tainted ocular testimony from related and interested witnesses lacking independent corroboration cannot sustain a capital conviction, and that the benefit of any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on the basis of tainted and contradictory ocular testimony from related witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Does the omission of material witnesses from the initial FIR render their subsequent presence and testimony doubtful?
  • Whether a disclosure statement made to the police during investigation is admissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What is the legal effect of withholding an independent and available witness during a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alim vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 270 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-03-12
  criminal revisionbenefit of doubtwithholding of witnessadverse presumptionocular evidenceQisas and Diyatacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the conviction of the petitioner under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the petitioner's presence and participation in the occurrence despite significant contradictions in the ocular evidence and the deliberate withholding of a crucial independent witness. The High Court held that the prosecution's failure to examine the Levies employee, whose presence at the scene was admitted by the complainant and the Investigating Officer, created a fatal gap in the evidence. Consequently, the Court applied an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, determining that the witness would not have supported the prosecution's case. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, and that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind necessitates acquittal. Accordingly, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and acquitted the petitioner of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution's failure to produce a central independent witness warrant an adverse presumption against the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular evidence is contradictory and the complainant's statement is based on hearsay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alamgir vs Bahauddin and another2020 YLR 1451 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-07
  cancellation of baildacoitymisuse of bailtentative assessmentcriminal procedurejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchlak, in a case involving allegations of dacoity under Sections 395 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the complainant established sufficient grounds to justify the cancellation of the bail already granted to the accused. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the accused had misused the concession of bail or that there were any exceptional circumstances warranting such cancellation. The court reaffirmed the established legal principle that considerations for the grant of bail are distinct from those for its cancellation. Once bail is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, it cannot be recalled or cancelled unless strong, exceptional grounds are established, and the mere existence of differing opinions based on a tentative assessment of evidence is insufficient to justify such a drastic measure.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal threshold for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does the mere existence of two conflicting opinions based on a tentative assessment of evidence constitute sufficient grounds for the cancellation of bail?
  • Is the misuse of the concession of bail a necessary requirement for the cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Muhammad Khalid2021 [M] C L R 1016, 2020 CLC 1542 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nuzhat Gulzar and 10 others vs Shamim Gul Durrani and 2 others2020 CLC 1334 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Kakar vs Mst. Surriya Nasreen and 4 others2020 CLC 1895 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anita Anam and others vs General Public and others2021 KLR Civil Cases 115, 2020 CLC 1053 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mor Khan and another vs The State2020 YLR 942 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-11
  murder convictionocular testimonyinterested witnessrelated witnessfirearm recoveryforensic evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the murder of the deceased, Imam Din, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with pistols, intercepted the complainant and witnesses, killing the deceased due to old enmity. The trial court convicted the appellants based on ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the recovery of crime weapons matched by forensic reports. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained despite defense arguments regarding the witnesses' relationship to the deceased and alleged contradictions in evidence. The Court held that the conviction was sound, affirming that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The key principles laid down are that the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased does not render them an 'interested witness' or invalidate their testimony if it is otherwise truthful and consistent, and that related witnesses are often more reliable in murder cases as they are unlikely to falsely implicate innocent persons while the real culprit escapes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or classify them as an interested witness?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence despite defense claims of enmity?
  • Is the testimony of related witnesses in a murder case inherently untrustworthy?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohibullah vs The State2020 YLR 1241 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-18
  murderanti-terrorismprivate enmitymitigation of sentencedeath sentence commutationforensic ballistic matchcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sentencing him to death. The prosecution case was that the appellant fatally shot a Levies official who attempted to apprehend him during a street quarrel. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of ocular and medical evidence, the sustainability of terrorism charges for a private crime, and the presence of mitigating circumstances for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Balochistan High Court held that while the ocular account, medical evidence, and forensic reports firmly established the appellant's guilt for the murder, the invocation of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was unwarranted since the incident stemmed from private enmity and lacked the requisite design or intent to constitute terrorism under Section 6 of the Act. Consequently, the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was set aside. Furthermore, considering that the attack was unpremeditated and the deceased was not in uniform, the High Court held that mitigating circumstances existed, altering the death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence committed in furtherance of a private vendetta or personal enmity can be tried and punished under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Does a single unpremeditated firearm injury inflicted during a chance encounter warrant the mitigation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimonies of official witnesses are sufficient to sustain a murder conviction when supported by prompt lodging of the FIR and positive forensic ballistic reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohibullah and another vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 1039 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-18
  criminal appealcommon intentionvicarious liabilityeyewitness testimonyFIR omissionmedical evidencemurderhurtbail and sentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision petition arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pishin, convicting the appellant Mohibullah under section 302(b), 337-A(iii), and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment and terms of rigorous imprisonment with compensation and fine. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony when the eyewitness was not initially named in the FIR, the explanation of discrepancies in medical timing, and the application of vicarious liability through common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Balochistan High Court held that the omission of an eyewitness name in the FIR does not vitiate the prosecution case if the witness is natural, independent, and consistent, and that acting in concert with deadly weapons demonstrates a shared common intention to commit the crime. The court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the revision petition for enhancement of sentence, maintaining the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of an eyewitness's name in the First Information Report render their subsequent testimony untrustworthy?
  • Can common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 develop on the spur of the moment during the commission of an offense?
  • Whether minor discrepancies in the timing recorded on a medical certificate are fatal to the prosecution's case when explained by the medical officer?
  • Is the presence of an injured eyewitness sufficient to establish the presence of the accused and rule out substitution of culprits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Hassan vs The State2020 YLR 2514 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-28
  criminal appealmurderocular evidenceinterested witnessesdelayed FIRacquittalsafe administration of justiceabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on closely related eye-witnesses, a significant delay in FIR registration, and the absence of independent corroboration. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution's case was inherently unreliable. The Court found the ocular evidence contradictory, noting that the witnesses' presence was doubtful and their account of the incident defied natural human conduct. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 undermined the prosecution's credibility. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that conviction must rest on unimpeachable evidence, and where the substantive ocular account is discarded, secondary factors like abscondence cannot sustain a guilty verdict.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of abscondence if the substantive ocular evidence is found unreliable?
  • Is the evidence of closely related witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to put a specific incriminating circumstance to an accused during a Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 examination preclude the court from using that circumstance against the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shaban Steel Industry through Authorized Attorney and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Federal Board of Revenue and others2020 P C T L R 984, 2021 PLJ Quetta 95, PTCL 2021 CL. 522, 2020 PTD 594 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Riegn Nutro Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 671, 2020 MLD 324 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21
  quashment petitionfood supplementsdrug registrationDRAP ActjurisdictionnutraceuticalsDrugs Act 1976
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal quashment petition challenged the trial court's order rejecting an acquittal application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the prosecution of the petitioners under the Drugs Act 1976 for the alleged non-registration of a 'Zinc Supplement' was maintainable following the enactment of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act 2012 and the subsequent Alternative Medicines and Health Products (Enlistment) Rules 2014. The High Court held that the proceedings were not maintainable. It determined that after the promulgation of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act 2012 and the 2014 Rules, the regulation and enlistment of 'food supplements' and 'nutraceuticals' fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Provincial Quality Control Board under the Drugs Act 1976. The court established that once a specific regulatory framework for health products is enacted, the general provisions of the Drugs Act 1976 regarding drug registration cannot be invoked for products classified as food or dietary supplements under the new statutory regime.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act 2012 oust the jurisdiction of the Provincial Quality Control Board to prosecute food supplements under the Drugs Act 1976?
  • Are food and dietary supplements subject to the registration requirements of the Drugs Act 1976 after the enactment of the Alternative Medicines and Health Products (Enlistment) Rules 2014?
  • Can proceedings be quashed under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecuting authority lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghazi Rice Mills, Sole Proprietorship Ghazi Khan Lashari vs National2020 CLD 574 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-01-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs City Marketing Services and 2 others vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 508, 2020 P Cr. L J 402 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21
  quashment of proceedingssubstandard drugsDrugs Actwarranty defensemanufacturer liabilitybail and quashment
  Summary & questions settled

  This quashment petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the dismissal of an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. by the Drug Court of Balochistan, where the petitioners were facing trial under sections 23(1)(i), 23(1)(a)(v), and 34 of the Drugs Act, 1976 for the recovery of substandard XAMOL Syrup. The core legal question was whether persons who are neither manufacturers, distributors, nor agents of the seized drug, but hold a valid written warranty from the manufacturer, can be prosecuted in the absence of prosecution against the actual manufacturing company. The Balochistan High Court held that since the petitioners were not the manufacturers or their distribution agents and held a valid warranty, and because no proceedings were initiated against the manufacturing company itself, the petitioners could not be held liable under section 23 in view of the statutory protections. The court laid down the principle that intermediaries possessing a valid manufacturer's warranty and who did not alter the drug are shielded from liability unless the manufacturer or its distribution agent is prosecuted and liability is duly established.

  Questions settled

  • Can an intermediary possessing a valid manufacturer's warranty be prosecuted for selling a substandard drug when the manufacturing company has not been prosecuted?
  • Whether the trial court is justified in rejecting an application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. when there is no probability of the accused person's conviction?
  • What is the extent of statutory protection afforded under section 32(3) of the Drugs Act, 1976 to a person who acquires a drug under a written warranty?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed vs The Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and another2020 [M] C L R 776 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed and others vs Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Balochistan and others2020 CLC 1151 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-28Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed Akhter vs The State2021 KLR Criminal Cases 82, 2020 MLD 233 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-09
  forgery of judicial recordcriminal appealpublic servant corruptionmisuse of public officeconviction and sentencingfraudulent reinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of a government teacher for forgery and corruption, specifically regarding the submission of a fake High Court acquittal order to secure reinstatement and salary arrears. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s actions constituted the offenses of forgery and corruption under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established that the appellant had knowingly used a forged judicial document to derive illicit financial gain. While the Court found that the trial court’s application of Sections 409, 420, and 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not strictly applicable, it maintained the conviction by invoking Section 466 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside Sections 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The principle laid down is that a public servant who utilizes fabricated judicial records to obtain employment benefits commits a serious offense against public justice, warranting conviction for forgery of public records.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court modify the sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 under which an accused is convicted if the evidence supports a different offense?
  • Does the production of a forged High Court order to obtain salary arrears constitute an offense under Section 466 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a public servant liable for criminal prosecution when they secure employment benefits through the submission of fabricated judicial documents?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Khalid Aziz vs The State through Director General NAB, Balochistan2020 P Cr. L J 1291 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-01-06
  limitation periodcondonation of delayvoluntary returnNational Accountability Ordinancecriminal Ehtesab appealtime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal Ehtesab appeal challenged an accountability court's judgment arising from a reference under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, given that the special law prescribes a different period of limitation and excludes section 5 by operation of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Balochistan High Court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is not applicable to appeals filed under section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 because section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 excludes its application where a special law provides a distinct limitation period. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was thrown out as time-barred without entering into the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to an appeal filed under section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908 exclude the application of section 5 of the said Act when a special law prescribes a different period of limitation?
  • Can the question of limitation be dismissed as a mere technicality when considering a time-barred appeal under special legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Jan vs Kamalhan and others2020 CLC 1090, 2021 [M] C L R 160 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Alam and others vs Aneel Masih and 10 others2020 CLC 1142 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21Read full judgment →
• Khaeri Khan and 5 others vs Muhammad Siddiqui alias Siddiqo and 82020 CLC 1458 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-25Read full judgment →
• Kamran Murtaza and 6 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 6 others2020 PLD Balochistan 89 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-23Read full judgment →
• Kamal-Ud-Din vs The State2020 MLD 2059 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-30
  murderocular testimonyabscondencedeath sentence commutationinterested witnessescriminal appealalibisudden occurrence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions concerned whether the ocular testimony of related witnesses was reliable despite delays in recording statements, whether the acquittal of co-accused mandated the appellant's acquittal, and whether the sentence was proportionate given the circumstances. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony consistent and the appellant's abscondence as corroborative evidence. However, the court altered the sentence from death to life imprisonment, noting the sudden nature of the occurrence and the absence of a proven motive. The judgment affirms that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not invalidate their testimony if they are natural witnesses, that minor delays in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not fatal, and that a sudden, unprovoked incident without established motive may warrant mitigating a death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused in a criminal case automatically entitle the remaining accused to acquittal based on the same evidence?
  • Is the testimony of related witnesses inadmissible in a murder trial if they are the only ocular witnesses?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment if the prosecution fails to establish a motive for the crime?
  • Does a delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the prosecution's case fatal?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Gul vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1350 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-05
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtinterested witnessocular evidenceforensic analysiscapital punishmentacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite significant contradictions in the ocular evidence and the absence of independent corroboration. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting material discrepancies between the ocular testimony, the site plan, and the medical evidence. Specifically, the court observed that the witnesses were interested and inimical, the medical report contradicted the claim of close-range firing, and the failure to send the alleged crime weapon for forensic analysis rendered the recovery inconsequential. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution, and any doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to send a recovered crime weapon to a forensic laboratory render the recovery inconsequential?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the ocular evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence and the site plan?
  • Must the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses be supported by independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
  • Does the benefit of doubt in criminal cases constitute a right of the accused or a discretionary grace?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawahir Lal vs Muhammad Zahid2021 PLJ Quetta 57, 2020 CLC 717 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-27Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmed Dashti vs Abdul Rasheed and 13 others2021 PLJ Quetta 68, 2020 MLD 120 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-22Read full judgment →
• Jaman alias Janak vs The State2020 MLD 1040 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-11
  murder convictionocular testimonyappreciation of evidencemotive in criminal lawsentencing discretionlife imprisonmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a conviction for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the charge of murder through ocular and medical evidence, and whether the trial court's sentencing discretion was exercised correctly. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent, independent, and credible ocular testimony from two eyewitnesses, which was corroborated by medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries. The Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the absence of a proven motive does not negate the charge when direct evidence is sufficient. Regarding the revision petition, the Court upheld the trial court's discretion in awarding life imprisonment rather than the death penalty, finding no grounds to interfere with the sentencing. The judgment reaffirms the principle that motive is not a necessary component of a crime and is immaterial when strong ocular evidence exists.

  Questions settled

  • Is the absence of a proven motive a sufficient ground for acquittal when strong ocular and medical evidence is present?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony if the recovery of the weapon is found to be defective?
  • Does an appellate court have the authority to interfere with the sentencing discretion of a trial court where the sentence awarded is within the legal parameters?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalat Khan alias Jalo vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 503 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-28
  murder appealbenefit of doubtrelated witnessesunnatural conductdelayed FIRdelayed Section 161 CrPC statementsFSL report delayweapon recoveryadverse inference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) PPC by the Sessions Judge, Killa Saifullah. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot and killed the deceased in his field. The High Court evaluated the evidence and found the ocular account untrustworthy due to unnatural conduct of related eye-witnesses, unexplained delays in FIR registration and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, and material contradictions. Furthermore, independent local witnesses were withheld, raising an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, and the alleged recovery of the crime weapon was unreliable as private witnesses were excluded. Additionally, sending the crime weapon and empties together to the Forensic Science Laboratory after an unexplained eight-month delay rendered the FSL report legally inconsequential. Applying the principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a witness's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded with delay without a plausible explanation?
  • Does sending a crime weapon and empties together to the Forensic Science Laboratory after a long, unexplained delay render the FSL report legally inconsequential?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of related eye-witnesses whose conduct at the scene was unnatural and contradicted medical evidence?
  • Does withholding key independent neighborhood witnesses attract an adverse inference against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Iltaf Qadir vs Mst. Mehar Nigar and another2020 MLD 1626 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-18Read full judgment →
• Hassan Khan vs Abdul Nabi and 5 others2020 PLC 255 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-06
  labour court jurisdictioncivil servantworkman definitionconstitutional petitiongovernment employeeindustrial relationsservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition challenged the judgments of the Labour Court and the Balochistan Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had adjudicated a grievance application filed by an employee of the Communication and Works (C&W) Department of the Government of Balochistan. The core legal question was whether a government employee of the C&W Department falls within the definition of 'worker' or 'workman' under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The Court held that employees serving in connection with the affairs of the Province are civil servants as defined under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, and do not fall within the ambit of 'worker' or 'workman' under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The Court further clarified that the definition of 'establishment' under the 2010 Act does not extend to government departments running the affairs of the Province. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the grievance application, declaring the impugned judgments void and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee of the Communication and Works Department of the Government of Balochistan qualify as a 'worker' or 'workman' under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
  • Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate grievance applications filed by government servants?
  • Does the definition of 'establishment' under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, include government departments running the affairs of the Province?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Shakeel Sabir and others vs Federation Of Pakistan, through Secretary, Establishment Division and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 800 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-17
  Police Service of Pakistanpromotion eligibilitylength of serviceEstacodeencadrementcivil servant promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by police officers originally appointed in the Provincial Police Balochistan and subsequently inducted into the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) in grade B-18, challenging the refusal of the Departmental Selection Board to consider them for promotion to grade B-19 on the ground of insufficient length of service. The core legal question is whether provincial police officers inducted into the PSP are entitled to count their past service from grade B-17 onwards toward the minimum length of service required for promotion to grade B-19 under Serial No. 157 of the Estacode. The Balochistan High Court held that encadrement in the PSP does not constitute initial appointment and that the petitioners, having completed over 12 years of service in grade B-17 and above, possess the requisite length of service for promotion consideration. The court laid down the principle that past government service in grade B-17 and above prior to PSP induction must be counted for computing eligibility regarding promotion length of service, distinguishing such promotion eligibility determinations from rules governing inter se seniority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether provincial police officers inducted into the Police Service of Pakistan can count their past service in grade B-17 and above for promotion eligibility?
  • Does the encadrement of a provincial police officer into the Police Service of Pakistan amount to initial appointment for the purpose of calculating length of service for promotion?
  • What is the minimum length of service required in grade B-17 and above for promotion to grade B-19 under Serial No. 157 of the Estacode?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamayoun Saeed vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 527, 2020 YLR 404 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-06
  abductionillicit intercoursebenefit of doubtcriminal appealappreciation of evidenceSection 365-B PPCacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Zhob, which convicted the appellant under Section 365(B) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction and illicit intercourse with a minor. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the elements of abduction and forced intercourse beyond reasonable doubt. Upon review, the High Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions. The alleged abductee’s testimony revealed she moved freely, did not raise an alarm despite residing in a populated building, and was taken to public areas without attempting escape. Furthermore, the medical evidence failed to link the appellant to the alleged intercourse. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of abduction, specifically the use of force or deceitful means. Emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused when reasonable doubt exists in a prudent mind, the Court set aside the conviction, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant, citing the trial court’s failure to properly appreciate the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an alleged abductee to raise an alarm or attempt escape during a prolonged period of detention create reasonable doubt regarding the charge of abduction?
  • Is the benefit of doubt to an accused a matter of grace or a matter of right when reasonable doubt exists in a prudent mind?
  • What are the essential elements required to establish the offence of abduction under Section 365(B) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →