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.

• Haji Ashraf and 2 others vs Khan Muhammad and 3 others2020 PLJ Quetta 59, 2021 KLR Criminal Cases 338, 2020 YLR 44 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Sattar vs Mst. Mehnaz and 7 Others2020 MLD 896 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-20Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah Khan vs Pakistan Olympic Association through its General2020 CLC 1349, 2021 PLJ Quetta 140, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 167 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ur-Rehman vs The State2020 P Cr. L J.1688 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-23
  narcotics controlconscious knowledgesafe custody of samplesdelayed FSL reportvehicle searchcriminal 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, and sentencing him to life imprisonment following the alleged recovery of 250 kgs of raw charas from a vehicle. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's conscious possession and control over the contraband, the effect of non-sealing of samples at the spot, and the consequences of a delayed dispatch of samples to the forensic laboratory. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant was the driver or in charge of the vehicle, or that he had conscious knowledge of the narcotics, especially given that the actual driver had escaped and the appellant was merely sitting on the cleaner seat. Furthermore, the court held that the failure to seal samples immediately at the spot and a 45-day delay in sending them to the Forensic Science Laboratory without explanation vitiated the evidentiary value of the chemical report. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere presence of a person as a passenger in a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered is sufficient to establish conscious knowledge and possession?
  • Does the failure to seal narcotic samples immediately at the spot of recovery destroy the evidentiary value of the chemical examiner's report?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in dispatching seized narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Can a person sitting on the cleaner seat of a vehicle be held responsible for contraband when the actual driver manages to escape?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Adm Limited through General Manager vs Executive Engineer Canal2020 CLC 1848 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-22Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Khan vs Mst. Rahima and 3 others2020 CLC 1340 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan vs The State2020 YLR 1919 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirycriminal procedurebail applicationrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Gul Hassan, who is accused in FIR No. 61 of 2019 for offenses under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The applicant sought bail after his initial application was rejected by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail under the principle of 'further inquiry' as per Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given the allegations of murder and the evidence presented. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, noting that the FIR was lodged with promptitude, the applicant was specifically nominated, a weapon was recovered at his pointation, and eyewitnesses and medical evidence supported the prosecution's case. The Court affirmed the principle that the mere possibility of further inquiry, which exists in almost every criminal case, does not automatically entitle an accused to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly when prima facie evidence links the accused to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possibility of further inquiry in a criminal case automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail where there is prompt FIR registration, specific nomination, and supporting medical and eyewitness evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan through Collector Kachhi and another vs Hazar2020 CLC 1498 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State2020 YLR 985 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-15
  Qatl-i-Shibh-i-amdcriminal appealdelay in FIRocular testimonyblunt weapon injuryquasi-intentional homicideappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the death of his daughter. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to ten years' imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the appellant's actions—beating the deceased with shoes and fists—constituted Qatl-i-amd (intentional murder) or a lesser form of homicide, and whether the delay in lodging the FIR rendered the prosecution's case unreliable. The High Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's involvement through consistent ocular and medical evidence, the nature of the act did not satisfy the requirements for Qatl-i-amd. The court determined that the act, involving blunt force without a lethal weapon, fell under Qatl-i-Shibh-i-amd. Consequently, the court modified the conviction to Section 316, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while maintaining the original sentence of ten years' imprisonment. The judgment affirms that delay in FIR registration is not fatal if the prosecution's narrative remains consistent and credible, and emphasizes that the nature of the instrument used is critical in distinguishing between intentional murder and quasi-intentional homicide.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal distinction between Qatl-i-amd and Qatl-i-Shibh-i-amd regarding the nature of the weapon used?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the act committed was not inherently likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Saifullah and others2021 PLJ Quetta 144, 2020 CLC 1507 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Mir Muhammad Ali Rind2020 KLR Civil Cases 275, 2020 PLJ Quetta 53, 2020 YLR 172 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and another vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 619, 2020 P Cr. L J 264 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-20
  narcotic substanceschemical examiner reportfull protocolschain of custodysafe transmissionbenefit of doubtnarcotics appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the conviction of two appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal questions were whether the chemical examiner's report met the mandatory requirements of Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, regarding the inclusion of full testing protocols, and whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transmission of the seized contraband. The Court held that the chemical report was legally deficient because it failed to provide the full protocols of the tests applied, rendering it inconclusive and unreliable. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the safe transmission of the samples to the laboratory, as the official responsible for the delivery was not produced as a witness. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that the chain of custody was compromised and the chemical report lacked evidentiary value. The principle established is that strict compliance with Rule 6 is mandatory for a valid conviction, and a broken chain of custody invalidates the chemical report.

  Questions settled

  • Does a chemical examiner's report that fails to include the full protocols of the tests applied have evidentiary value under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to produce the official responsible for transmitting narcotic samples to the chemical laboratory?
  • Can a conviction for drug possession be sustained when the chain of custody of the seized contraband is compromised?
  Read full judgment →
• Feroz Shah vs The Secretary Education Department, Government of Balochistan Civil Secretariat Quetta and others2021 PLJ Quetta 130, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 109 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-23
  public appointmentrecruitment processadvertised vacancywrit jurisdictionfundamental rightsservice mattermerit list
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the non-appointment of the petitioner to a Class-IV post in the Education Department, Balochistan, despite his inclusion in an initial merit list. The petitioner contended that his exclusion from subsequent lists was based on political influence and nepotism, asserting a legal right to appointment based on his performance in the recruitment process. The core legal question was whether a candidate can claim a right to appointment for a post that was never advertised or sanctioned. The court observed that the advertisement published by the department did not include the post of 'Watchman' for which the petitioner had applied. Relying on the principle established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Director, Social Welfare, N.W.F.P. v. Sadullah Khan (1996 SCMR 1349), the court held that public appointments must be made against advertised, sanctioned vacancies to ensure transparency and compliance with fundamental rights. Since the post in question was not advertised, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that no direction for appointment could be issued in the absence of a properly advertised vacancy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate claim a right to appointment for a post that was not included in the official recruitment advertisement?
  • Is it permissible for public authorities to make appointments to posts without publicly and properly advertising the vacancies?
  • Does the court have the authority to direct the appointment of a candidate to a position that lacks a clear sanctioned vacancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ur Rehman vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Home2020 YLR 2232 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-19Read full judgment →
• Fazal Khan and 2 Others vs Additional Sessions Judge/Model Criminal Trial2020 P Cr. L J 442 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-22
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictionperjuryfalse evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibuscriminal trialwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of a trial court judgment that, while acquitting the accused in a murder case, simultaneously directed the initiation of proceedings against the prosecution witnesses under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for giving false evidence. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash the trial court's order directing perjury proceedings against the witnesses. The Court held that the trial court's direction was lawful and justified. Relying on the principle that courts must address the prevalence of false testimony, the Court affirmed the application of the rule 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' in criminal trials. It concluded that the trial court acted within its authority to initiate proceedings against witnesses who provided false evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, emphasizing that inherent powers cannot be used to override express statutory provisions or to shield witnesses from the consequences of perjury.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to override express statutory provisions?
  • Is the rule 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' applicable to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to direct proceedings under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against witnesses for giving false evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmed vs Rafaqat Ali and others2020 P Cr. L J 42 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28
  criminal acquittal appealrapetheftbenefit of doubtdouble presumption of innocenceappreciation of evidencedelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hub, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 376, 380, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding allegations of rape and theft. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of evidence, thereby necessitating interference by the appellate court. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the prosecution’s case was riddled with unexplained delays, contradictions between the complainant's and the victim's statements, and a lack of solid corroborative evidence. The court found that the medical evidence was inconclusive and the prosecution failed to establish a consistent narrative connecting the accused to the alleged offences. The key principle laid down is that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence; therefore, an appellate court should not interfere with such an order unless it is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, fanciful, or contrary to the record. The benefit of any doubt in the prosecution's case must accrue to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order of acquittal carry a double presumption of innocence?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR shake the foundation of the prosecution's case?
  • Is the benefit of doubt in a criminal case a matter of right for the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmed and 2 others vs Muhammad Azam2020 PLJ Quetta 93, 2020 YLR 1764 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-06Read full judgment →
• Faiq Ali and others vs The State and others2020 MLD 1557 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-23
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencecontradictory testimonymurder convictionacquittalforensic delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentences awarded by the trial court for double murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence. The Balochistan High Court found that the ocular accounts were riddled with material contradictions regarding the sequence of events, the distance from which shots were fired, and the timing of the FIR registration. Furthermore, the court noted that the recovery of the weapon was from an open, abandoned place, and the forensic evidence was compromised by significant delays in submission. Emphasizing that the prosecution's case suffered from multiple infirmities, the Court held that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that the 'golden rule' of criminal jurisprudence requires that if a single significant doubt exists regarding the prosecution's story, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt, as it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than to convict one innocent person.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of material contradictions in the testimony of ocular witnesses necessitate the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can an accused be convicted based on the recovery of a weapon from an open, abandoned place not in the accused's possession?
  • Is mere absconsion of an accused sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony in a murder case?
  • Does the 'golden rule' of criminal jurisprudence require acquittal when there are multiple, unresolvable doubts in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Erick (Arick) Feroze vs Pethres alias Mitho and another2020 PLD Balochistan 83 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Jamal and another vs Sultan Muhammad2020 CLC 1716 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28Read full judgment →
• Dr .M. Salah-Ud-Din Mengal and another vs Government Of Balochistan2020 CLC 1916 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-11Read full judgment →
• Director General, Pakistan Coast Guard head Quarter, Karachi through Deputy Attorney General vs SikandarPLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 458, 2020 YLR 731 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-30
  superdarioil tankerconfiscation of vehiclenarcoticsbona fide ownercriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the Director General, Pakistan Coast Guard against an order of the Special Judge CNS Gwadar, which had accepted the respondent's application under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for the superdari (temporary custody) of an oil tanker used in a narcotics smuggling offence. The prosecution contended that the vehicle, from which 900 kilograms of Charas were recovered, was liable to confiscation. The High Court observed that the trial court had already convicted the accused drivers, but no order was initially passed regarding the vehicle. The respondent produced valid ownership documents verified by the Excise and Taxation Department, and no rival claimant existed. Interpreting Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the Court held that a vehicle is not liable to confiscation unless the prosecution proves the owner had knowledge that the offence was being committed. Finding no evidence of the owner's involvement or knowledge, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the release of the vehicle to its bona fide owner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vehicle used in a narcotics offence can be confiscated under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 without proving the owner's knowledge of the crime?
  • Is a bona fide owner of a vehicle entitled to its custody on superdari if they had no nexus with the commission of the offence?
  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 place an absolute bar on releasing a vehicle on superdari to its lawful owner?
  Read full judgment →
• Deen Muhammad vs Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others2020 PLJ Quetta 49, 2020 PLC 72, 2022 KLR Labour & Service Cases 76 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-13
  labour lawgrievance noticeindustrial relationsdismissal from servicemisconductstatutory interpretationmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside a Labour Court’s order reinstating the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the grievance notice served by the petitioner satisfied the mandatory statutory requirements under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Labour Appellate Tribunal correctly determined the matter. The court established that under Section 41(2) of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, a grievance notice must be served by the workman "himself" and cannot be validly served through legal counsel. Furthermore, the court emphasized that a valid grievance notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite for invoking the Labour Court's authority; since the petitioner failed to serve a notice specifically against his dismissal order, the petition was non-maintainable. Additionally, the court ruled that where an employee has admitted to misconduct, a formal inquiry is not required. The impugned judgment was found to be legally sound and free from perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Must a grievance notice under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 be served by the worker personally rather than through legal counsel?
  • Is a formal inquiry required for dismissal from service if the employee has admitted to the misconduct?
  • Does the failure to serve a valid grievance notice against a dismissal order render a labour petition non-maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Secretary, Government Of Balochistan, through EDO (Revenue), Kalat2020 CLC 1561 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-09-17Read full judgment →
• Chief Executive Officer, QESCO, Quetta, etc vs Khuda Bakhsh, etc2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 27 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-14
  date of birth correctionservice recordlabour lawlimitationservice booksuperannuationgrievance petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had allowed a respondent employee's grievance petition seeking rectification of his date of birth in his service record. The core legal question was whether an employee is entitled to seek an alteration of their recorded date of birth after over thirty-three years of service, specifically near the verge of retirement. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower courts' orders. The Court held that the respondent's request was time-barred and legally impermissible, noting that the date of birth recorded at the time of joining service is final. The Court emphasized that an employee cannot be permitted to challenge the authenticity of their service record after an inordinate delay of decades, particularly when approaching retirement. The key principle laid down is that once an entry of date of birth is made in an official service book, no subsequent alteration is permissible, and such belated claims are void and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee seek alteration of their date of birth in the service book after decades of service?
  • Is a grievance petition for correction of date of birth maintainable when filed near the date of superannuation?
  • Does the date of birth recorded at the time of joining government service constitute a final entry?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Executive Officer QESCO and another vs Azizullah, Commercial2020 PLJ Quetta 29, 2020 PLC 96 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-06
  constitutional petitiontime scale up-gradationlabor disputepepco notificationburden of proofconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges concurrent judgments of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, whereby the grievance application of the respondent employees under Section 41 of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 was allowed and they were held entitled to two-step time scale up-gradation. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the respondents to time scale up-gradation based on official memoranda issued by PEPCO. The Balochistan High Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower forums were based on proper appreciation of record and that the petitioners failed to substantiate their objections or disprove the entitlement under the applicable notification. The High Court laid down the principle that mere assertion of documents in pleadings without producing evidence and proving them in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is insufficient to displace an employee's established claim for statutory or notified financial benefits. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee working in BPS-15 is entitled to two-step time scale up-gradation under the PEPCO Office Memorandum dated 22.04.2013?
  • Does mere mentioning of documents in pleadings suffice without proving them in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of the labour courts when no illegality or irregularity is pointed out?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Executive Officer and 2 others vs Khuda Bakhsh and 2 others2020 [M] C L R 1318, 2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 27, 2021 PLJ Quetta 31, · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-14
  service recorddate of birth correctionlabour lawservice bookbelated claimconstitutional petitionretirement age
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the judgments of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had allowed an employee’s grievance petition to rectify his date of birth in his service record. The respondent, employed since 1983, sought to change his recorded date of birth from 1958 to 1962 after thirty-three years of service, alleging tampering. The core legal question was whether an employee is entitled to seek the alteration of their date of birth in the service book at the verge of retirement after decades of service. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower courts' orders. The Court held that once a date of birth is recorded in the service book at the time of joining, it becomes final and cannot be altered subsequently. Emphasizing the principle of finality, the Court ruled that an employee cannot challenge the authenticity of their service record after an inordinate delay, particularly when approaching retirement, as such belated claims are not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee seek the alteration of their date of birth in the service book after an inordinate delay of several decades?
  • Is a date of birth recorded in an employee's service book at the time of joining considered final?
  • Are courts permitted to entertain a grievance petition for the correction of a date of birth filed at the verge of an employee's retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, NAB through Prosecutor General vs Munawar Masih and another2020 KLR Criminal Cases 80, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 688, PLD 2020 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General, NAB, Islamabad vs Abdul Hakeem, General Manager Export, PSO, Karachi and 3 others2020 KLR Criminal Cases 170, 2020 PLJ Quetta 43, 2020 PLD Balochistan 10 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Board Quetta through Cantonment Executive Officer vs Messrs Muhammad Rahim Khan & Co. through Managing Partner2020 CLC 1300 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-27Read full judgment →
• Bilal vs Abdul Karim and 6 others2020 P Cr. L J 843 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-06
  illegal dispossessioncriminal revisionland grabberscivil disputemaintainabilitydismissal of complaintqabza group
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition assailed the order of the trial court dismissing a complaint filed under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of a revision petition against the dismissal of a complaint under the Act, and whether a civil dispute could be converted into a criminal offence under the said special law. The Balochistan High Court held that a revision petition is maintainable against the dismissal of a complaint where no charge has been framed or acquittal recorded, but affirmed that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is a special law intended exclusively to curb land grabbers, property grabbers, and the qabza group. The court laid down the principle that civil disputes cannot be allowed to be converted into criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to proceedings under the Act where no specific procedure is provided.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal revision petition is maintainable against an order dismissing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the framing of a charge?
  • Do the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in the absence of specific procedural provisions?
  • Can a bona fide civil dispute regarding property boundaries and ownership be adjudicated through the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What are the essential ingredients and criteria required to attract the application of section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Zarghoona and another vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1562 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-31
  Diyatcompromiseminor legal heirsindigent convictsstate financial assistanceBait-ul-Maalconstitutional equality
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the trial court rejecting the petitioners' application to direct the State to pay the Diyat amount on their behalf. The petitioners, daughters of the deceased, were charged under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but subsequently entered into a compromise with the adult legal heirs. However, the trial court ordered them to deposit the Diyat share for a minor legal heir. Being impoverished women without an independent source of income, the petitioners sought state assistance. The core legal question was whether indigent convicts, particularly women released on bail who cannot afford to pay Diyat for minor heirs, are entitled to financial assistance from the State when rules restrict such funds to prisoners languishing in jail above a certain age. The Balochistan High Court held that denying relief based on age limits or the requirement of being incarcerated is discriminatory and violates Article 25 of the Constitution. The court laid down that where indigent convicts lack resources and property to pay Diyat, the State must step in as guardian to pay the amount from Bait-ul-Maal or government funds, remanding the matter to the trial court for a financial inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the State can be directed to pay the Diyat amount on behalf of indigent female convicts who have entered into a compromise but cannot pay the share of minor legal heirs?
  • Does the restriction in the Diyat, Arsh and Daman Fund Rules, 2007 requiring prisoners to be incarcerated and above a certain age violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is it mandatory for the trial court to conduct an inquiry into the financial status and property of convicts before deciding on state assistance for Diyat payment?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Moashara vs Sahib Jan and 10 others2021 PLJ Quetta 134, 2020 MLD 491 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-24Read full judgment →
• Bibi Maryam and 8 others vs Government Of Balochistan, through Secretary Education and 9 others2021 PLJ Quetta 156, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 548 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-13
  constitutional petitionpublic appointmentland donationvoid agreementpublic policyequality of citizensmerit-based recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court by nine petitioners seeking to declare the recommendations of the selection committee for Class-IV posts as void and illegal, and to enforce their claim for appointment based on an alleged agreement wherein they donated land for the construction of government schools. The core legal question was whether public office or government employment can be claimed or granted in consideration of land donation, and whether an agreement guaranteeing employment to land donors is legally enforceable. The court held that public appointments must be made strictly on merit and that any agreement promising government employment in exchange for land donation is illegal, against public policy, void under Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872, and violative of the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The court dismissed the petition, ruling that land donors have no vested right to claim public posts and preference can only be considered if the donor is otherwise equally eligible and fit on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether public employment can be claimed on the basis of an agreement to donate land for government schools?
  • Does an agreement to fill public posts on the recommendation of a land donor violate public policy and statutory provisions?
  • Can preferential treatment in public appointments be claimed as a matter of right by a land donor under the law?
  • Whether promising employment in consideration of donated land amounts to the unlawful sale of a public office?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Kalsoom vs The General Public and others2020 CLC 943 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
• Behram vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and another2020 YLR 1015, 2020 [M] C L R 1118, 2021 PLJ Quetta 151 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-25Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Director General, National Accountability Bureau2020 PLD Balochistan 15, 2022 KLR Civil Cases 207 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
• Bahlol Khan Kasi vs Azmatullah Kasi and another2020 P Cr. L J 1633 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-17
  appeal against acquittalaggrieved personhurt caselocus standidouble presumption of innocenceinterested witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against an acquittal order in a criminal case involving charges of firing and causing hurt. The primary legal question addressed is whether a complainant, who is not the injured party, qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' competent to file an appeal against an acquittal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases involving hurt. The Court held that in hurt cases, the right to appeal against acquittal is restricted to the victim themselves, or, if the victim is a minor or insane, to their legal guardians as defined under the law. The complainant, being neither the injured party nor a legal guardian of a minor or insane victim, lacks the standing to appeal. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting contradictions between ocular and medical evidence and the absence of independent corroboration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as incompetent, and the acquittal of the respondent was upheld based on the principle of double presumption of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Who qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' competent to file an appeal against an acquittal in a hurt case under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a complainant who is not the injured party file an appeal against an acquittal in a case involving hurt?
  • Does an accused person enjoy a double presumption of innocence after an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan vs The State2020 MLD 2006 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-30
  murderbenefit of doubtocular testimonyunnatural conduct of witnessdisclosure statementcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, along with a connected revision petition for enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the sole eye-witness whose presence at the crime scene was rendered doubtful by unnatural conduct, and the admissibility of disclosure statements under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Balochistan High Court held that where an eye-witness fails to accompany a deceased or injured victim to the hospital and instead proceeds to the police station, such unnatural conduct casts serious doubt on their presence, requiring strong independent corroboration which was lacking in this case. Furthermore, police disclosure statements reproducing previously known facts do not constitute discoveries under Article 40. The court laid down that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution fails to establish presence and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant and the dismissal of the enhancement petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the unnatural conduct of an eye-witness in failing to accompany the victim to the hospital casts doubt on their presence at the scene?
  • Can a police disclosure statement reproducing previously known facts be considered a discovery of a new fact under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a conviction sustainable on the sole testimony of an eye-witness whose presence is doubtful and lacks independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Azmatullah and another vs The University of Balochistan, through its2020 [M] C L R 677 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aziz-Ur-Rehman vs Mst. Bibi Jameela and 2 others2020 KLR Criminal Cases 317, 2021 PLJ Quetta 126, 2020 CLC 380 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-23Read full judgment →
• Attaullah vs The State2020 YLR 315 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-07
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsrecovery of narcoticsprivate witnessesprohibitory clausetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Attaullah, seeking post-arrest bail in a narcotics case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The accused was apprehended with five kilograms of narcotics during a search of a passenger coach. The core legal questions were whether the absence of private witnesses during the recovery of narcotics vitiates the prosecution's case, and whether the accused is entitled to bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the statutory prohibition against bail for such offenses. The Court held that the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is excluded in narcotics cases by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that law enforcement officials are competent witnesses. Finding that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that prima facie evidence connects the accused to the crime, the Court dismissed the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 render the recovery of narcotics valid without private witnesses?
  • Are members of law enforcement agencies competent witnesses in narcotics cases in the absence of evidence of mala fide?
  • Does the recovery of five kilograms of narcotics bring an offense under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Aurangzaib and 2 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 923 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-01
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencecommon intentionbenefit of doubtocular accountreappraisal of evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal acquittal appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was perverse, contrary to the material on record, or the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the common intention of the accused, that ocular witnesses attributed no injuries and admitted the respondents were empty-handed, and that the testimonies contained contradictions and lacked independent corroboration. The court reaffirmed the principle that double presumption of innocence is attached to an order of acquittal, which cannot be interfered with unless the reasons given by the trial court are arbitrary, fanciful, or capricious. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether double presumption of innocence attaches to an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  • Does mere presence of an accused at the spot of an unpremeditated crime by itself connect them to the crime?
  • Can an order of acquittal be interfered with when the prosecution evidence is contradictory, self-destructing, and fails to establish common intention?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to provide strong and cogent reasons to dislodge the presumption of innocence upon acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah vs The State and another2020 YLR 2336 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-23
  criminal appealabsconsionSection 512 CrPCright of cross-examinationocular evidenceconviction in absentiaQanun-e-Shahadatacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and attempted murder. The core legal question concerns whether a statement of an injured witness, recorded under Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the appellant's absconsion, can be utilized to convict the accused after his arrest, despite the absence of cross-examination. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It ruled that Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is intended solely for the preservation of evidence and does not confer jurisdiction to convict an accused in absentia. Furthermore, the Court determined that under Article 47, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, evidence from prior proceedings is only admissible if the adverse party had the right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness, which was absent here. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The Court affirmed that absconsion is merely a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot substitute for substantive proof when the ocular account is unreliable or inadmissible.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded under Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to convict an accused who was absent during the recording?
  • Does the absence of cross-examination render evidence recorded under Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 inadmissible against an accused in a subsequent trial?
  • Is absconsion sufficient evidence to sustain a criminal conviction when the primary ocular evidence is unreliable?
  • Does Article 47, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 permit the use of evidence from prior proceedings where the accused had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Arsala vs Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court and another2020 PLD Balochistan 100 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-14Read full judgment →
• Anwar vs The State2020 MLD 841 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidenceidentification paradeforensic reportdeath sentenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of alleged discrepancies in ocular testimony, identification procedures, and the recovery of the crime weapon. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence was shaky, untrustworthy, and failed to inspire confidence. Key discrepancies included contradictory statements regarding the visibility during the incident, the duration of firing, and the identification of the accused. Furthermore, the Court noted that the identification parade was procedurally flawed as it was supervised by a police officer rather than a judicial magistrate, and the delayed forensic analysis of the recovered weapon rendered it unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that in criminal cases, any doubt in the prosecution's evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade supervised by a police officer rather than a judicial magistrate lose its evidentiary value?
  • What is the effect of delayed forensic analysis of a crime weapon and empty shells on the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when ocular witnesses provide contradictory accounts regarding the visibility and duration of an incident?
  • Is the benefit of doubt in criminal cases a matter of right or grace for the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Bakhsh vs The State2020 MLD 783 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-20
  bail before arrestpre-arrest bailinstigationfurther inquirydirect approach to high courtcriminal proceduremurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal bail before arrest application filed by the applicant Ameer Bakhsh, seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No.61 of 2019 registered at City Police Station Dera Murad Jamali under sections 302, 109, and 37 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was not present at the scene of the crime and was only charged with instigation, was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail, and whether the High Court could directly entertain a bail application bypassing the trial court. The Balochistan High Court held that under exceptional circumstances, such as existing tribal enmity, an accused may directly approach the High Court instead of the Sessions Court. Furthermore, since the applicant was not present at the spot and the allegation of instigation required further inquiry, the court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principles laid down are that pre-arrest bail is designed to protect innocent persons from humiliation, that exceptional circumstances justify bypassing the trial court to approach the High Court directly for bail, and that a case of further inquiry is made out where an accused not present at the scene is charged solely with abetment or instigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused directly approach the High Court for pre-arrest bail instead of first approaching the trial court under exceptional circumstances?
  • Does an accused charged solely with instigation, and who was absent from the scene of the crime, make out a case for further inquiry justifying pre-arrest bail?
  • What are the foundational presumptions governing the concept of pre-arrest bail in criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan vs The State2020 MLD 1926 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-14
  white-collar crimemisappropriationextra-judicial confessionaccountability courtpension fraudburden of proofcorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court, which convicted the appellant, a bank officer, for misappropriating public funds through fraudulent pension bills. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of evidence—specifically the weight of extra-judicial confessions and documentary proof—to sustain a conviction for white-collar crime. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through corroborated documentary evidence and the appellant's own extra-judicial confession, which was found to be voluntary and true. The court affirmed that the appellant’s failure to provide a credible defense regarding the source of deposited funds further solidified the conviction. A key principle laid down is that the standard of 'benefit of doubt' applied in ordinary criminal cases is not strictly applicable to white-collar crimes involving corruption, where the court must adopt a reformation-oriented approach to suppress national evils while ensuring no miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized that public functionaries misusing their office for financial gain must be held strictly accountable to protect the public interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can an extra-judicial confession serve as the basis for a criminal conviction when corroborated by attending circumstances?
  • Does the principle of 'benefit of doubt' apply to white-collar corruption cases in the same manner as ordinary criminal cases?
  • Is a bank officer liable for misappropriation when pension funds are withdrawn using forged signatures and bogus vouchers?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dina and 21 others vs Ikhtiar Khan and another2021 KLR Revenue Cases 23, 2020 CLC 963 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz Shahwani and Brothers through Proprietor and another vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary C&W Department, Quetta and 2 others2020 [M] C L R 1589, 2021 PLJ Quetta 35, 2020 PLD Balochistan 21 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1104 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-01-03
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular accountcontradictionsweapon recoveryballistic expertacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to rigorous life imprisonment, along with other offences. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the ocular testimony, medical evidence, and weapon recovery in establishing the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution's case was replete with material contradictions regarding the presence of eyewitnesses, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and seeking medical treatment, and tainted recovery of the alleged weapon of offence. The court established that a single reasonable doubt regarding the presence of an eye-witness is sufficient to discard their testimony entirely, and that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a single doubt regarding the presence of an eye-witness at the crime scene sufficient to discard their testimony as a whole?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery and ballistic report when dispatched to the forensic expert with a considerable delay after the accused's arrest?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused attributed a similar role affect the conviction of the remaining appellant on the same set of evidence?
  • Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused as a matter of right when the prosecution's case contains material contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs Mst. Samina and another2021 PLJ Quetta 54, 2020 YLR 332 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1255 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-06
  criminal revisionProhibition Orderchain of custodychemical examiner reportcontradictory statementsrecovery of alcoholacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically concerning the safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory and material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The Balochistan High Court accepted the revision petition, holding that a broken chain of custody and unexplained delay in sending the sample to the chemical examiner, coupled with material discrepancies in the statements of ocular and recovery witnesses, render the prosecution's case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove safe custody and transmission of contraband through confidence-inspiring evidence and that a compromised chain of custody makes it unsafe to rely on a chemical examiner's report.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay and failure to prove safe transmission of a contraband sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiate the chemical examiner's report?
  • Whether material contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses regarding the time and place of occurrence are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 be sustained when the chain of custody of the recovered substance stands compromised?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamgir vs The State2020 MLD 68, 2020 KLR Criminal Cases 28 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-29
  Superdarinarcotics controlvehicle confiscationcustody of case propertycriminal appealownership rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances, Lasbela at Hub, which dismissed the appellant's application under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, seeking the release of a vehicle on Superdari. The vehicle had been seized following the recovery of narcotics from its tool-box during a search. The core legal question was whether a vehicle used in the transportation of narcotics should be released to its registered owner when the owner is not implicated in the crime and was unaware of the illicit activity. The Court held that the vehicle should be released, reasoning that the appellant was the undisputed owner and there was no evidence linking him to the drug trafficking or proving his knowledge of the crime. The Court established that a vehicle involved in narcotic trafficking should not be confiscated or denied to its owner when the owner is unconnected to the offense and was unaware of the vehicle's misuse, particularly when the vehicle is deteriorating in police custody.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle seized in a narcotics case be released on Superdari to an owner who is not accused of the crime?
  • Is an owner entitled to the custody of a vehicle used for drug trafficking if they were unaware of the vehicle's misuse?
  • Does the mere seizure of a vehicle as case property justify its continued detention if the owner is unconnected to the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Muhammad alias Ghani and others vs The State and others2020 KLR Criminal Cases 290, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 1466, 2020 P Cr. L J · Balochistan High Court
  circumstantial evidenceretracted judicial confessionblind murderbenefit of doubtforensic evidence delaycriminal appealvoluntariness of confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court for murder and related offenses, alongside a revision petition seeking sentence enhancement. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a blind murder case relying on circumstantial evidence, specifically the validity of a retracted judicial confession and delayed forensic analysis. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete, unbroken chain of evidence. It emphasized that retracted judicial confessions require independent, impeachable corroboration and must be tested for voluntariness, which was absent here due to procedural lapses, including the failure to grant sufficient time for reflection and unexplained delays. Furthermore, the Court found that significant delays in sending crime weapons for forensic examination and inconsistencies between medical evidence and the confession created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the revision petition, reiterating that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording a confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate its voluntariness?
  • Is the pointation of a place of occurrence already known to the police admissible as discovery of a new fact under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does a significant delay in sending a crime weapon for forensic analysis create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Shah and another vs The State2020 YLR 1715 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-04-03
  explosive substancesconscious possessioninvestigating officerindependent witnessessafe custodyacquittalprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the prosecution's case given that the complainant acted as the investigating officer, the lack of independent witnesses during the search, the investigation being conducted by an officer of incompetent rank, and the reliance on an expert report from a non-notified individual. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasized that conscious possession of explosive substances by a passenger must be established through independent evidence, and that the failure to produce the Moharrir to prove safe custody of case property created significant doubt. Furthermore, the Court deprecated the practice of the complainant acting as the investigating officer and noted that the investigation by an officer below the required rank violated the Anti-Terrorism Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, establishing that procedural lapses and lack of impartial investigation render a conviction unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of a passenger in a vehicle constitute conscious possession of explosive substances found therein?
  • Is an expert report admissible if the expert is not notified by the Provincial or Federal Government under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a search, as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiate the recovery?
  • Can a complainant who is also the investigating officer conduct a fair and impartial investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan vs Abdul Khaliq and another2020 P Cr. L J 124 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-24
  criminal acquittal appealright of self-defencedacoitydouble presumption of innocencehearsay evidencetrespasserprivate defence of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondent of charges under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the respondent's actions, resulting in the death of the deceased during an exchange of fire, constituted a valid exercise of the right of self-defence against an attempted dacoity. The Court found that the prosecution's evidence was entirely hearsay and failed to establish the charge. Conversely, the record indicated that the deceased had entered the respondent's jewelry shop armed with an unlicensed pistol, evidencing malicious intent. The Court held that the acquittal was justified, as the respondent acted in self-defence of his person and property against an intruder. The key principle laid down is that the law recognizes the right of an occupant of property to expel an intruder or trespasser, and this right of self-defence is fortified when the trespasser enters for illicit purposes, extending even to causing death if the danger is imminent and the intruder does not retreat.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of self-defence extend to causing the death of an intruder who enters a property for illicit purposes?
  • Is an acquittal order subject to interference if it is based on a proper appreciation of evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious?
  • Can a person be convicted when the prosecution's case rests entirely on hearsay evidence without direct or circumstantial support?
  • Does the presence of an unlicensed weapon on a deceased intruder support a plea of self-defence by the property owner?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Umar vs The State2020 PLD Balochistan 106 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-30
  anti-terrorismplea of guiltlimitation periodcondonation of delaycriminal appealrevision petitionproscribed organizationfundraising
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta, under Sections 11F(1), (2), (5), and (6) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, after the appellant pleaded guilty to collecting funds for a proscribed organization. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a revision petition against an Anti-Terrorism Court judgment, the scope of appeal upon a plea of guilt, and whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to appeals filed under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Balochistan High Court held that revisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are inconsistent with the special procedure of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, that an accused who pleads guilty can only challenge the legality of the sentence rather than the conviction itself, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to extend the strict limitation period prescribed under Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as both time-barred and devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal revision petition is maintainable against a judgment or order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can an accused person who has pleaded guilty to a charge maintain an appeal against their conviction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What is the extent of a convict's right of appeal when they have pleaded guilty before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wali and 2 others vs The State2020 PLJ Cr.C (Quetta) 953, 2020 YLR 256 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-18
  criminal revisiondacoitybenefit of the doubtidentification paradedelayed FIRcontradictory statementsflawed recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the judgments of the lower courts convicting and sentencing the petitioners under Section 392/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity. The core legal questions involved the credibility of ocular evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in witness statements, flawed identification parade procedures, and defective recovery proceedings. The Balochistan High Court held that unexplained delay in reporting, material improvements by the complainant, lack of jurisdiction of the police station, failure to prove exclusive possession of the premises from where the alleged recovery was made, and violation of established norms in holding an identification parade cast serious doubts on the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court established that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, granting the benefit of the doubt to the accused. The criminal revision petition was accepted, the lower courts' judgments were set aside, and the petitioners were acquitted of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast a sufficient doubt on the prosecution story to warrant an acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses make material improvements and contradictions regarding the place of occurrence and the identity of the accused?
  • What is the legal sanctity of an identification parade where the accused has remained exposed to police custody and view?
  • Whether the failure to associate private witnesses and prove exclusive possession during a recovery of case property vitiates the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq and another vs The State2020 MLD 1921 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-02
  foreign exchange regulationillegal raidsearch warrantmandatory procedurerecovery proceedingscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Foreign Exchange Tribunal/Sessions Judge, Quetta, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The core legal question revolves around the legality of a search and raid conducted by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) without complying with the mandatory statutory procedures, specifically the requirement of a written complaint supported by a statement on oath and a search warrant issued by a competent magistrate under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Balochistan High Court held that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be performed accordingly, and failure to obtain proper search warrants or associate independent witnesses renders the entire recovery proceedings doubtful and illegal. The court laid down the principle that mandatory pre-requisites under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 are fundamental, and non-compliance vitiates the trial and conviction ab initio, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a raid and search conducted by the FIA without a search warrant from a magistrate under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 is lawful?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses and local police during a recovery proceeding vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • What are the mandatory pre-requisites under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 before initiating search and seizure proceedings?
  • Does non-compliance with statutory procedural requirements render a trial and subsequent conviction under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 unsustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum and another vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2020 P Cr. L J 960 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-18
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderconstitutional petitionjudicial reviewliberty of a citizenobjective satisfaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenging the preventive detention of the petitioner under section 3(1) of the Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was whether the subjective satisfaction of the Government for ordering preventive detention based on general and unsubstantiated grounds meets the legal threshold required under the law. The Balochistan High Court held that the satisfaction of the Government under section 3(1) of the Ordinance must be objective in nature and supported by sufficient material, rather than being based on whims, caprices, or general allegations. The court laid down the principle that executive authorities cannot deprive a citizen of liberty without sufficient cause and robust material, and that preventive detention orders lacking such material are void and open to judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court examine the validity of a detention order passed under section 3(1) of the Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is the satisfaction of the Government for ordering preventive detention under section 3(1) of the Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 subjective or objective in nature?
  • Can general and unsubstantiated grounds justify the preventive detention of a citizen under the Balochistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qahar Khan Wadan vs Zamarak Khan Achakzai and 12 others2020 PLD Balochistan 47 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs Government Of Balochistan through Secretary Public2020 CLC 1942 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-06-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nafey vs The State2020 YLR 1311 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-11
  criminal appealmurdersolitary eye-witnessrelated witnessmedical corroborationmotiveappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the testimony of a solitary, related eye-witness, when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, affirming that a conviction can legally rest on the testimony of a solitary, related eye-witness if their evidence is confidence-inspiring, rings true, and is supported by medical and circumstantial evidence. The High Court laid down the principle that the mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not discredit their testimony in the absence of enmity, and that motive is not a necessary component of a crime when direct ocular evidence is strong and consistent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a solitary eye-witness who is a relative of the deceased?
  • Whether the absence or weakness of motive is sufficient to warrant an acquittal when direct ocular and medical evidence is available?
  • Does the relationship of an eye-witness to the victim render their testimony inadmissible or inherently untrustworthy?
  • Is medical evidence alone sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused in a murder trial without an ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nabi Sasoli vs Government Of Balochistan, through Secretary2020 PLC (C.S.) 759 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-17
  transfer and postingcivil servantconstitutional petitionjurisdiction of high courtterms and conditions of servicepolicy matterseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a notification regarding the premature transfer of the petitioner from the post of Controller, Balochistan Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BBISE), Quetta. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant has an enforceable right to hold a particular posting, whether an officer in BPS-17 is eligible to hold a higher post in BPS-19, and the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction regarding terms and conditions of service when the service tribunal is non-functional. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition, holding that transfer and posting are policy decisions within the domain of the executive government, a civil servant has no vested right to claim a posting against a particular post, and an officer in BPS-17 is ineligible to hold a post upgraded to BPS-19. The court laid down the principle that the executive remains the best judge in policy matters unless an action is arbitrary or an abuse of the process of law, and that relief not specifically prayed for cannot be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim posting against a particular post?
  • Whether the High Court can exercise constitutional jurisdiction in service matters when the service tribunal is not functioning?
  • Can an officer in BPS-17 claim eligibility to hold a higher post in BPS-19?
  • Are transfer and posting matters policy decisions exclusively within the domain of the executive government?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan and another vs The State2020 MLD 1477 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-30
  benefit of doubtmurder convictionappreciation of evidenceocular evidencemedical evidencecriminal appealreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the ocular evidence and the medical report. The Court observed that the complainant's claim of being an eyewitness was undermined by the fact that the appellant, rather than the complainant, transported the deceased to the hospital. Furthermore, the medical evidence suggested the deceased died from an accidental discharge of his own firearm during a vehicle collision, contradicting the prosecution's theory of a targeted attack. The Court found the prosecution's narrative unreliable, citing unexplained delays in recording witness statements and the absence of independent corroboration. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, not grace, even if only a single reasonable doubt exists regarding the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an accused transported the victim to the hospital undermine the credibility of an eyewitness who claims to be the victim's relative?
  • Is the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution's case contains a single reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's theory of the cause of death?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce independent witnesses or corroborate the ocular account with forensic evidence entitle the accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Additional District Judge-v, Quetta, and another2020 [M] C L R 766, 2020 MLD 1118, 2020 CLC 320 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Quetta and 22020 [M] C L R 1627 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and others vs Secretary Health Department Government Of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and others2020 PLJ Quetta 65 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and others vs Secretary Health Department Government Of Balochistan and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 927 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-05
  constitutional petitioncancellation of appointmentdue processnatural justiceshow-cause noticecontractual employmentback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the cancellation of appointments and the non-payment of salaries to employees recruited by the Health Department, Government of Balochistan, for the Vector Borne Disease (VBD) Control Program. The core legal question was whether the respondents could unilaterally cancel appointments and withhold salaries without providing a show-cause notice or assigning valid reasons, particularly after the petitioners had been duly selected through a competitive process. The Court held that the cancellation of appointments via the impugned letter was unlawful, arbitrary, and violated the principles of natural justice, as no show-cause notice was issued. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that employees cannot be penalized for administrative failures or the department's inability to allocate funds. The ratio established is that the state cannot take detrimental action against individuals without due process of law, and administrative authorities are duty-bound to honor employment contracts and ensure the payment of salaries for services rendered or available, upholding the constitutional rights to be treated in accordance with the law and the elimination of exploitation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department cancel appointments of duly selected employees without issuing a show-cause notice?
  • Is an employee entitled to salary if the department fails to post them or allocate funds despite a valid appointment letter?
  • Does the cancellation of an appointment without assigning reasons violate the constitutional right to be dealt with in accordance with law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kabeer vs The State2020 MLD 1267 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-11
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencedelayed FIRchance witnessesacquittalburden of proofprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in the ocular testimony, and procedural irregularities regarding the timing of the investigation. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with discrepancies, including evidence that the investigation commenced prior to the formal registration of the FIR, the presence of 'chance witnesses' whose testimony lacked credibility, and the failure to send forensic evidence for analysis. Emphasizing the established principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and that any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms that the 'golden rule' of the benefit of doubt is a fundamental principle of criminal justice that cannot be ignored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the investigation into a cognizable offense is initiated prior to the registration of the FIR?
  • Is it safe to rely on the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create sufficient suspicion to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • What is the legal consequence when the prosecution fails to prove its case with confidence-inspiring evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar etc. vs Sardar Khan Rind and anotherPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 521 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationsupplementary statementfurther inquiryanti-terrorismabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking to set aside an order passed by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta, which confirmed the pre-arrest bail of the private respondent, and to send the respondent behind bars. The core legal question was whether the trial court committed a wrong exercise of discretion in confirming the pre-arrest bail of an accused who was not nominated in the initial FIR but was subsequently implicated through a belated supplementary statement, and where the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The High Court dismissed the application in limine, holding that the respondent's implication via a supplementary statement without prior nomination in the FIR warranted confirmation of pre-arrest bail, as the trial court had provided valid reasons. The court laid down the principle that the scope of further inquiry, alongside facts and circumstances of each case, can form a valid basis for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an accused is not nominated in the initial FIR but is subsequently implicated through a supplementary statement?
  • Does the scope of further inquiry constitute a valid ground for the grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether the confirmation of pre-arrest bail by a trial court can be interfered with if it is based on valid reasons and sound exercise of discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and another vs Sardar Khan Rind and another2020 YLR 1077 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationsupplementary statementfurther inquiryanti-terrorismmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking to set aside an order dated 24.4.2019 passed by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I Quetta, whereby pre-arrest bail was confirmed in favour of the respondent-accused in a case registered under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion correctly in confirming pre-arrest bail where the accused was not nominated in the initial FIR but was subsequently implicated through a delayed supplementary statement. The High Court dismissed the application in limine, holding that since the accused was not named in the FIR and there was no record showing he was aware of his implication via the supplementary statement, the grant of pre-arrest bail based on further inquiry did not constitute a wrong exercise of discretion. The key principle laid down is that apart from mala fide and ulterior motives, the scope of further inquiry can validly serve as a basis for the grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the confirmation of pre-arrest bail is sustainable when the accused is not nominated in the initial FIR and is subsequently implicated through a supplementary statement?
  • Can the scope of further inquiry serve as a valid basis for the grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the mere delayed implication of an accused in a supplementary statement establish mala fide or justify setting aside a pre-arrest bail order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hadi vs The State2020 YLR 2161 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-18
  narcotics transportationcriminal appealpossession of narcoticsofficial witnessessafe custody of samplesquantum of sentenceControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the transportation of 10 kilograms of Charas. The appellant, apprehended while driving a vehicle containing the narcotics, contended that the recovery was illegal due to the absence of private witnesses, alleged delays in sending samples to the chemical examiner, and lack of safe custody. The core legal question was whether the appellant, as the driver, could be held liable for the narcotics found in the vehicle and whether the prosecution's case was sufficiently proved. The Court upheld the conviction, affirming the principle that a driver is in control of the vehicle and thus responsible for its contents, including narcotics. It further held that police officials are competent witnesses and that the mandatory requirement for private witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure is excluded in narcotics cases. While maintaining the conviction, the Court modified the sentence, reducing it from life imprisonment to twelve years and six months, as the quantity recovered did not exceed 10 kilograms.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle legally responsible for narcotics found within that vehicle?
  • Does the requirement for private witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be accepted as sufficient evidence in narcotics cases?
  • Does the recovery of exactly 10 kilograms of narcotics trigger the mandatory life imprisonment proviso under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and another vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1512 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-18
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitydriver liabilitycontraband recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from the arrest of two individuals, Abdul Ghafoor and Sher Ahmed, following the recovery of 2 kilograms of Charas and 100 grams of heroin from a vehicle they were occupying. The applicants sought post-arrest bail after the trial court refused their initial request. The core legal question was whether both the driver and the passenger could be held equally liable for the possession of narcotics found in the vehicle. The Court held that the driver, Abdul Ghafoor, could not be absolved of liability as he was in control of the vehicle transporting the contraband, establishing a prima facie case against him, thus denying his bail. Conversely, the Court granted bail to the co-accused, Sher Ahmed, noting that he was merely a passenger and no narcotics were recovered from his exclusive possession, rendering his case one of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that while a driver is generally liable for contraband found in their vehicle, a passenger without exclusive possession may be entitled to bail pending further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle liable for narcotics recovered from the vehicle during transit?
  • Can a passenger in a vehicle where narcotics are recovered be granted bail on the basis of further inquiry?
  • Does the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle create a prima facie case against the driver?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ellah Rehmani and 4 others vs Muhammad Khan and another2020 YLR 2382 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari vs Amir Muhammad and 3 others2020 MLD 1798 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-16
  Section 540 Cr.P.C.summoning of witnessesfair trialIllegal Dispossession Actjudicial discretionmaterial witnesscriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing an application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought to summon a police officer to produce a document in a case filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to summon a witness whose evidence was deemed necessary by the petitioner. The High Court held that the trial court erred by focusing on potential delays rather than the statutory criteria of Section 540, which mandates summoning any person if their evidence is essential for a just decision. The court clarified that the power to summon witnesses under Section 540 is broad, exercisable at any stage, and not limited to witnesses listed in the initial challan or investigation statements. The key principle laid down is that the trial court must prioritize the necessity of evidence for a just decision over procedural convenience or concerns about trial delays, ensuring that the truth is effectively brought before the court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court summon a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even if that witness was not included in the initial list of witnesses?
  • Does the power of the court to summon a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 depend on whether the witness's statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the potential for trial delay a valid ground for refusing an application to summon a material witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the two essential ingredients a court must consider when deciding an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and others vs Town Municipal Officer Hub through Administrator2020 CLC 1764 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and another vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 500, 2020 MLD 202, 2022 KLR Criminal Cases 139 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-02
  narcotics possessionchemical examiner reportchain of custodysafe transmission of samplescriminal appealacquittalreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal questions were whether the chemical examiner's report met the mandatory statutory requirements and whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that the chemical examiner’s report was deficient because it failed to include the necessary test protocols, analysis details, and results as mandated by Section 36(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce the officials responsible for the custody and transmission of the samples, thereby failing to prove the chain of custody. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, establishing that a chemical report lacking detailed protocols is insufficient for conviction and that the chain of custody must be strictly proven.

  Questions settled

  • Does a chemical examiner's report that fails to detail the specific test protocols and results satisfy the requirements of Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is the failure to produce the official responsible for the safe transmission of narcotic samples to the laboratory a ground for acquittal?
  • Must the prosecution prove the safe custody and transmission of recovered narcotics through independent evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• A.C/Sdm Saddar, Quetta and others vs Mehrullah Khan and others2021 KLR Revenue Cases 41, 2020 CLC 1680 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs The State2019 MLD 1562 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-13
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidenceunnatural conduct of witnessesrecovery of weaponacquittalappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the ocular evidence appeared unnatural and the recovery of the weapon was contested. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that the conduct of the eyewitnesses—who allegedly apprehended the armed appellant after he killed their relative yet left him unharmed—was highly unnatural. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the weapon from the appellant's conscious possession, and the lack of forensic analysis linking the weapon to the crime scene empties created significant doubt. The court reiterated the settled principle that the benefit of any doubt, however slight, must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, as the prosecution failed to substantiate the charge beyond a shadow of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to harm an assailant they have apprehended immediately after a murder render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove that the recovered weapon was in the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused?
  • Does medical evidence alone serve as sufficient corroboration to establish the identity of an accused in a criminal case?
  • Is the benefit of doubt required to be extended to an accused when the prosecution's narrative of events is inconsistent with prudent human conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Returning Officer and 18 others2019 PLD Balochistan 68, 2021 KLR Civil Cases 8 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-18Read full judgment →
• Vijay Pervaiz vs The State2019 YLR 2540 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-23
  acid attackanti-terrorismvictim testimonymedical evidencecriminal appealdisfigurementconfession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 336(B) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for throwing acid on the victims and sentencing him to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment with a fine and property confiscation. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt through direct, medical, and circumstantial evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimonies of the injured victims, corroborated by medical evidence, the shopkeeper's identification regarding the sale of acid, and the appellant's disclosure statement establishing motive, conclusively proved the guilt of the appellant. The court laid down the principle that the unimpeachable and confidence-inspiring testimonies of victim-eyewitnesses of an acid attack, resulting in permanent disfigurement, are sufficient to sustain a conviction without requiring further corroborative evidence, and that a simple denial by the accused carries no weight against solid prosecution proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sole testimony of injured victims in an acid attack case is sufficient to sustain a conviction without corroborative evidence?
  • Does a mere denial by the accused suffice to rebut reliable and consistent prosecution evidence in heinous crimes?
  • Whether the disclosure statement of an accused leading to the discovery of motive and purchase of the weapon of offense strengthens the circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Umer Din vs Mairaj-Ud-Din & others2019 CLC 1781, 2021 [M] C L R 172, 2019 PLJ Quetta 77 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• The State through Regional Director Anti-Narcotic Force Balochistan vs Abdul Wahab and 11 othersPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 495, 2019 MLD 2048 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-08-09
  Section 540 CrPCfilling lacunaefair trialsupply of documentsSection 265-C CrPCnarcotic substancesprosecution evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order of the Special Court (CNS) dismissing the prosecution's application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon witnesses and produce additional documents regarding chemical analysis protocols after the prosecution evidence had concluded and the case was fixed for final arguments. The core legal question was whether the prosecution could utilize Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to introduce new evidence at a belated stage to fill gaps in its case. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the powers under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are intended for the court to discover the truth and cannot be exercised to fill lacunae in the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the prosecution is mandatorily required under Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to supply all documents relied upon to the accused before the framing of the charge. Introducing new evidence at the final argument stage, which was not previously disclosed to the accused, violates the right to a fair trial and vitiates the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution invoke Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to fill gaps or lacunae in its case after the conclusion of evidence?
  • Does the failure to supply documents to the accused before the framing of the charge under Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Is the court permitted to allow the production of new evidence at the stage of final arguments under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Additional Prosecutor-General vs Faiz Muhammad alias2019 P Cr. L J 297 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-06-13
  criminal acquittal appealabductionextra-judicial confessionDNA evidencepresumption of double innocenceAnti-Terrorism Actburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges related to the abduction and subsequent death of the victim. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had produced sufficient, confidence-inspiring evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on extra-judicial confessions and DNA evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that the eyewitnesses did not identify the accused, and the DNA analysis report from the Punjab Forensic Science Agency explicitly contradicted the prosecution's claim that the exhumed remains belonged to the abductee. Consequently, the court ruled that the extra-judicial confessions lacked evidentiary value due to the negative forensic results. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal order earns the accused a presumption of double innocence and should not be interfered with unless found to be perverse, fanciful, or contrary to the record. Finding the trial court's judgment sound, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal order grant the accused a presumption of double innocence that limits appellate interference?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on extra-judicial confessions when subsequent forensic evidence contradicts the facts asserted in those confessions?
  • Is an appellate court justified in overturning an acquittal if the prosecution fails to produce direct evidence linking the accused to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Quetta vs Messra Al-Habib Enterprises and Engineering and others2020 P C T L R 324, 2019 PTCL CL. 604, 2019 PTD 1712 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Tareen alias Bado and another vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 832 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-09-11
  criminal appealmurder referencecapital punishmentinjured witnesspolice witnessmitigation of sentenceforensic evidencered-handed arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and causing hurt. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular and forensic evidence, and whether the death penalty was appropriate. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charge, relying on the testimony of police officials who apprehended the appellant red-handed, and the testimony of an injured witness. The Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses and that the testimony of an injured witness is inherently credible, requiring little corroboration. Furthermore, forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime scene confirmed the appellant's involvement. However, the Court modified the sentence, converting the death penalty to life imprisonment. The ratio established that while the conviction was sound, the failure of the prosecution to establish a clear motive, coupled with the appellant's advanced age of 72 years, constituted sufficient grounds to mitigate the capital punishment. The appeal was dismissed regarding the conviction, but the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Are police officials considered competent witnesses in criminal trials?
  • Is the solitary statement of an injured witness sufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • Can advanced age and lack of established motive be grounds for mitigating a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad vs The State2019 YLR 337 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-07-16
  criminal appealcircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtburden of proofmurderacquittalmedical evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellant for the murder of his wife under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, specifically the discovery of the body in the appellant's house and the alleged recovery of the weapon. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the appellant's presence, the timing of his arrest, and the recovery of the weapon. Furthermore, the medical evidence was inconclusive regarding whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, and the mere fact that a death occurred in the accused's house does not shift the burden of proof to the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, and ordered his immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that a death occurred in the accused's house shift the burden of proof to the accused to explain the circumstances of the death?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when there are material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence is inconclusive between homicide and suicide and the prosecution fails to produce direct evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Aminullah vs The StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 87, 2019 YLR 230 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-03-26
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayexpeditious trialrule of consistencyDrugs Actprolonged incarceration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Syed Aminullah, who has been in custody for approximately 18 months in connection with a case involving the sale and stocking of unregistered and expired drugs. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to bail on statutory grounds due to the inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial, particularly given that the trial court has been without a presiding officer and the prosecution has failed to expedite proceedings despite previous judicial directions. The Court held that the applicant cannot be incarcerated indefinitely due to the prosecution's inability to conclude the trial, especially when co-accused persons have already been granted bail. The Court emphasized the principle that an accused person cannot be left at the mercy of the prosecution to languish in jail for an indefinite period, and that inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial, not attributable to the accused, constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted bail on statutory grounds if the trial is delayed due to the absence of a presiding officer in the trial court?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused when co-accused persons facing similar charges have already been released?
  • Is it permissible to keep an accused in custody for an indefinite period when the prosecution fails to conclude the trial within a reasonable time?
  • Does inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial, not caused by the accused, constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Nabi vs Baz Muhammad and 4 others2019 KLR Criminal Cases 186, 2019 MLD 836 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-10-29
  criminal acquittal appealcircumstantial evidencedouble presumption of innocenceextra-judicial confessionmedical evidencedisclosure memocorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Pishin, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in an unseen occurrence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to connect the respondents to the crime. The Court reaffirmed that disclosure memos obtained during police custody are inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that extra-judicial confessions require strong, independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court held that medical evidence and the recovery of crime empties are merely corroborative and cannot independently identify assailants or establish guilt in the absence of direct evidence. Emphasizing that an acquittal judgment carries a double presumption of innocence, the Court ruled that such findings cannot be reversed unless they are perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, which was not established in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of disclosure memos obtained while an accused is in police custody?
  • Does medical evidence or the recovery of crime empties serve to identify the assailants in an unseen murder case?
  • Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Is extra-judicial confession considered a weak piece of evidence requiring independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad alias Shero vs The State2019 MLD 1250 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-04-24
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurdercommon intentioncriminal conspiracyBalochistan High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the accused, Sher Muhammad alias Shero, seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 05 of 2018 registered at Police Station 298 RD, District Sohbat Pur, under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail where he is nominated in the FIR and was allegedly present with the main assailant, but no active role of firing or direct causation of death is attributed to him, and whether his case falls within the scope of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The Balochistan High Court held that since the role attributed to the applicant was merely taking the deceased to the place of occurrence, and it remained to be ascertained whether the murder was pre-planned or occurred at the spur of the moment, the case warranted further inquiry. The court consequently allowed the bail application, granting post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds, establishing the principle that tentative assessment of record pointing toward further inquiry entitles an accused to bail where specific overt acts of the fatal assault are absent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused nominated in the FIR without any specific role of firing or fatal assault is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Does accompanying the main perpetrator to the place of occurrence constitute sufficient ground to deny bail when the question of pre-planning requires evidence at trial?
  • When can a criminal case be considered one of further inquiry under bail jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nazar and another vs The State2019 PLD Balochistan 34 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-03-04
  narcotics transportationpossession and control of vehiclejoint possessioncredibility of official witnessesdiscovery of factburden of proof in narcotics casescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court CNS Balochistan convicting the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life for the transportation of 80 kilograms of Charas concealed in a vehicle. The core legal questions involved whether the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle driven and occupied by the appellants constituted joint possession, whether the testimony of official witnesses requires independent corroboration, and the admissibility of information leading to discovery under the law of evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the driver of a vehicle is in control and possession of its contents, attributing knowledge of the transported narcotics to both the driver and the front-seat passenger who failed to offer an explanation. The court affirmed that official witnesses are as good as private witnesses and that information leading to the discovery of facts from an accused in custody is admissible. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person on the driving seat of a vehicle held responsible for the transportation of narcotics found concealed therein?
  • Does the testimony of Anti-Narcotics Force officials require mandatory independent corroboration by private witnesses?
  • Under what circumstances is information received from an accused in police custody regarding the discovery of a fact admissible under the law of evidence?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act once the prosecution establishes the initial recovery of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Bakhsh and others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2019 KLR Civil Cases 347, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 797 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-11-26
  time scale policygroup insurancesubstantive pay scaleestoppelapprobate and reprobateservice lawfinancial benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, government teachers in Balochistan, challenged a government notification restricting Group Insurance benefits to their substantive pay scale rather than the higher time scale grade they were granted. The core legal question was whether a time scale grant, intended as a financial incentive to alleviate stagnation, constitutes a promotion entitling an employee to higher insurance benefits based on that scale. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a clear distinction exists between a time scale grant and a promotion; the former is merely a financial benefit without advancement in rank or position. Consequently, the Court ruled that Group Insurance benefits must be calculated based on the substantive pay scale of the original designation. Furthermore, the Court applied the doctrine of estoppel, noting that the petitioners, having accepted the financial benefits of the time scale policy—which explicitly stipulated that insurance benefits would be based on substantive pay—could not approbate and reprobate by challenging the notification that implemented those specific terms.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of a higher grade under a time scale policy constitute a promotion to a higher rank or position?
  • Are employees entitled to Group Insurance benefits based on their time scale grade or their substantive pay scale?
  • Can a petitioner challenge a government notification after having accepted the financial benefits of the policy that the notification implements?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah and others vs The StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Quetta) 265, 2019 MLD 1377 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-03-16
  narcoticschain of custodyforensic science laboratory reportsafe transmissionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealprocedural lapse
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the recovery of 40 kilograms of Charas. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and safe transmission of the narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and whether the conviction could be sustained given the procedural lapses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody and transmission, noting a 20-day delay in sending samples for analysis—violating the 72-hour requirement under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001—and the failure to produce the official responsible for transmitting the samples. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' ownership or possession of the vehicle used. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that any procedural deviation in mandatory legal acts creates doubt, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory beyond the 72-hour limit prescribed by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, render the analysis report doubtful?
  • Is the failure to produce the official who transmitted narcotic samples to the laboratory fatal to the prosecution's case regarding the proof of safe custody?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the accused's ownership or possession of the vehicle from which the contraband was recovered?
  • Does a deviation from the mandatory procedure prescribed by law for handling evidence entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed and others vs The State and others2019 P Cr. L J 118 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-03-12
  murdersole eye-witnessrelated witnessmedical corroborationmotivenon-recovery of weaponcriminal appealsentence enhancementproclaimed offenderattachment of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of criminal appeals against a trial court's judgment convicting the appellants under section 302(b) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a revision petition for the enhancement of sentences. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a sole, related eye-witness testimony, the impact of unestablished motive, and the legal effect of non-recovery of the crime weapon. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimony of a single eye-witness, even if related to the deceased, is sufficient to maintain a conviction if it is unimpeachable, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by medical evidence. Furthermore, the court held that proved motive is not essential when direct ocular testimony is reliable, and the non-recovery of the crime weapon does not invalidate the prosecution case if independent evidence establishes guilt. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals, upheld the convictions, and declined to enhance the sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be based solely on the testimony of a single eye-witness who is a blood relative of the deceased?
  • Is proof of motive essential for securing a murder conviction when there is direct and reliable ocular testimony?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to recover the crime weapon prove fatal to an otherwise well-supported criminal case?
  • Whether the sentence of imprisonment for a term of years can be enhanced in the absence of strong and exceptional grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bakhsh vs The State2021 KLR Criminal Cases 238, 2019 PLD Balochistan 63 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28
  NAB Ordinancetrial in absentiaabscondingproclamation and attachmentservice of warrantscriminal appealAccountability Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, passed in absentia by the Accountability Court-1, Balochistan. The core legal question was whether the trial court could lawfully convict the appellant under Section 31-A for absconding without properly following the mandatory procedures for service of warrants under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and without recording evidence in accordance with the law to prove the essential ingredients of abscondence. The High Court held that the trial court failed to fulfill the statutory requirements for service, did not examine the process server, and erroneously convicted the appellant without recording legal evidence or affording an opportunity of defense, violating fundamental rights to liberty. The appeal was accepted, and the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted under Section 31-A of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 without proof of intentional abscondence?
  • Does a trial in absentia violate the fundamental right to liberty under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when mandatory procedures for serving warrants under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are not followed?
  • Can unserved warrants alone be treated as evidence to convict an accused without examining the process server and following the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • From what date does the period of limitation run for filing an appeal against a judgment of conviction passed in absentia?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Khan and 8 others vs Station Commander, Station Headquarter, Zhob Cantt. and another2019 [M] C.L.R. 917, 2019 CLC 114 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →
• Obaidullah Jan Babat, Member of Provincial Assembly Balochistan, Quetta and 2 others vs Speaker, Balochistan Assembly, Quetta and 2 others2019 PLJ Quetta 46 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-12Read full judgment →
• Nasibullah vs The State2019 MLD 1962 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-07-22
  illegal armsrecoverybenefit of doubtnon-production of witnesscriminal appealArms Ordinancepolice witnessesforensic delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 13-e of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence regarding recovery, the non-production of material private witnesses, the failure to comply with mandatory provisions regarding independent witnesses, and the unexplained delay in sending the recovered weapon for forensic analysis. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the non-production of the available private witness, the lack of compliance with search and seizure provisions, and a 27-day unexplained delay in forensic dispatch. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-production of an available private recovery witness creates a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending a recovered weapon to the forensic science laboratory create a serious doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Whether failure to comply with the provisions regarding independent mashirs from the public makes the recovery doubtful?
  • What is the effect of withholding the best piece of evidence on the prosecution's case under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →