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.

• Rukhsana and 8 others vs Asmatullah and 3 others2018 YLR 454 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
• Regional Election Commission, Naseerabad vs Abdul Ghafoor2018 YLR 1917 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-23
  criminal acquittal appealnomination papersfalse declarationeducational qualificationArticle 62(1)(f)remandelection disqualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of charges concerning the submission of false educational documents and affidavits during his nomination for the 2013 General Elections. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in its assessment of evidence and failure to consider Supreme Court observations regarding the respondent’s disqualification for lack of honesty and integrity under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution. The High Court held that the trial court’s judgment was perverse and non-speaking, as it failed to properly evaluate the documentary evidence and the binding observations of the Supreme Court regarding the respondent's submission of fake credentials. The Court emphasized that making false declarations in nomination papers exposes a candidate to criminal liability under the Pakistan Penal Code. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal, remanding the case to the trial court with directions to provide both parties full opportunities to lead evidence and to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law and Supreme Court precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the submission of false educational documents in nomination papers constitute grounds for criminal proceedings under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Is a trial court required to consider Supreme Court observations regarding a candidate's lack of 'Ameen' status under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution when deciding a criminal complaint?
  • Can a trial court acquit an accused in an election-related criminal complaint without providing the complainant full opportunity to produce documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh and another vs The State2018 PLD Balochistan 8 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-13
  attachment of propertyproclaimed offenderabscondingproclamationrestoration of propertylimitation periodcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the restoration of immovable properties attached by the trial court under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellants, having been acquitted of charges under Sections 302, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought the release of their attached properties. The trial court dismissed their application, citing the two-year limitation period prescribed by Section 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the attachment proceedings were lawful given the trial court's failure to adhere to the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the trial court acted without jurisdiction by simultaneously issuing proclamation and attachment orders without ensuring the mandatory thirty-day notice period for the accused to appear. The Court established that where the statutory requirements for a valid proclamation under Section 87 are not met—specifically the absence of a proper thirty-day notice and the lack of a written statement confirming publication—the subsequent attachment under Section 88 is void. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the properties were ordered to be restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court simultaneously issue a proclamation and an order for the attachment of property under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an attachment order valid if the court fails to provide the mandatory thirty-day notice period for the accused to appear as required by Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the limitation period under Section 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to attachment proceedings that were initiated without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheem Bakhsh and another vs Bashir Ahmed and 4 others2018 CLC 967 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.2018 PLJ Quetta 122 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-22Read full judgment →
• Obaidullah Jan Babat and 2 others vs Speaker, Balochistan Assembly2019 [M] C.L.R. 1166, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1232, 2019 KLR Civil Cases 422, 2018 CLC · Balochistan High Court · 2018-05-21Read full judgment →
• Noor-Ud-Din and others vs National Database and Registration2018 PLC (C.S.) 68 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-29
  date of birthCNIC correctioncivil servantconstitutional jurisdictionService Tribunalwithdrawal of petitionterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of a series of constitutional petitions filed by employees of Frontier Corps Balochistan and Pakistan Army seeking correction of their dates of birth in their Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) issued by NADRA. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court can correct dates of birth in CNICs through constitutional petitions, whether matters concerning dates of birth of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, and the effect of unconditional withdrawal of previous petitions under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that the determination of a civil servant's date of birth relates to the terms and conditions of service, barring the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212 of the Constitution in favor of the Federal Service Tribunal. Furthermore, the court held that the petitions were not maintainable due to the unconditional withdrawal of prior constitutional petitions without permission to file afresh. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court correct the date of birth of a civil servant in a Computerized National Identity Card through a constitutional petition?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction regarding matters relating to the date of birth of a civil servant under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What is the effect of unconditional withdrawal of a constitutional petition without permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether a civil servant can bypass the Federal Service Tribunal to approach the High Court for the alteration of a date of birth affecting superannuation.
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Khuzdar and 5 others2018 MLD 1529 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-02-27
  hostile witnesscross-examinationresiled statementsummoning of witnessesdouble murdercriminal revisionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition and criminal revision challenge orders passed by the trial court refusing to declare prosecution witnesses hostile and dismissing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution should be permitted to cross-examine witnesses who resile from their previous statements and whether the court is bound to summon material witnesses for a just decision of the case. The Balochistan High Court held that witnesses who resile from their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be properly dealt with by allowing cross-examination if declared hostile, and that applications under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be decided with reasoned orders. The court laid down the principle that denying the prosecution an opportunity to cross-examine resiled witnesses or declining to summon essential witnesses without proper reasons causes serious prejudice to the case, warranting the setting aside of such orders and remand for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution is entitled to cross-examine prosecution witnesses who resile from their earlier statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court decline an application filed under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording proper reasons?
  • Does the refusal to declare resiled witnesses hostile and to deny an opportunity of cross-examination cause prejudice to the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Sajjad Akhtar and 3 others2018 PLJ Quetta 39 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-12Read full judgment →
• Noor Bibi and 13 others vs Meer Muhammad alias Meer Jan and 4 others2018 CLC 87 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-08-18Read full judgment →
• Noor Ali vs Assistant Collector (Afu) and another2018 PTD 816 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-18Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed and another vs Deputy Commissioner, Kharan and 3 others2018 PLJ Quetta 133 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs Chairman Balochsitan Public Service Commission, Quetta and 4 others2018 CL.R. 1111 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs Chairman Balochistan Public Service Commission and 42018 CLR 1111, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 174 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-28
  Public Prosecutorrecruitment criteriajudicial reviewconstitutional petitionPolice Rules 1934service matterallegation of bias
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the recruitment process conducted by the Balochistan Public Service Commission for the posts of District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney. The petitioner contended that the selected respondents were ineligible as their experience as Prosecuting Inspectors did not satisfy the "Public Prosecutor" qualification requirement. Additionally, the petitioner alleged bias against the Commission's Chairman, claiming he was failed due to remarks made during his interview. The Court examined the definition of "Public Prosecutor" under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the Police Rules, 1934, concluding that Prosecuting Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors perform functions analogous to Public Prosecutors and thus satisfy the requisite experience criteria. Regarding the allegations of bias, the Court found them to be unsubstantiated, frivolous, and a result of the petitioner's failure to secure a merit-based position. The Court emphasized that professional ethics require candidates to avoid making baseless allegations against selection bodies. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the selected candidates were duly qualified and the selection process was lawful.

  Questions settled

  • Do Prosecuting Inspectors and Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors qualify as "Public Prosecutors" for the purpose of meeting experience requirements for the posts of District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney?
  • Can a candidate challenge the selection process on the grounds of bias without providing cogent evidence?
  • Does the experience gained by a police officer as a Prosecuting Inspector satisfy the statutory definition of a Public Prosecutor under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseebullah Khan vs Abdus Samee Babar2018 PLJ Quetta 109 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-22Read full judgment →
• Naseebullah Khan Bazai vs Dr. Ummar Khan Babar and 2 others2018 [M] C.L.R. 267, 2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 119, 2018 CLC 841 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-23
  review applicationcivil service promotionconcealment of factsconstitutional jurisdictionclean hands doctrineNAB referencediscretionary reliefeligibility criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application challenged a previous judgment that directed the promotion of respondent No.1, arguing that the respondent had concealed pending criminal proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which disqualified him under the criteria of the Services of Pakistan (Redressal of Un-representation) Ordinance, 2012. The core legal question was whether a judgment obtained through the suppression of material facts, which would have otherwise rendered the petitioner ineligible for the relief granted, warrants review and recall. The Court held that the respondent had deliberately concealed his involvement in ongoing NAB criminal proceedings, a fact that directly contravened the eligibility criteria for promotion. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous judgment and dismissed the original petition. The principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and requires the petitioner to approach the court with clean hands. A judgment obtained through the concealment of material facts is liable to be reviewed and recalled, as the court has the inherent power to correct orders obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, regardless of the standing of the applicant seeking the review.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court review its own order passed in constitutional jurisdiction if it was obtained through the concealment of material facts?
  • Does the pendency of criminal proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 disqualify a civil servant from promotion under the Services of Pakistan (Redressal of Un-representation) Ordinance 2012?
  • Is a petitioner who conceals material facts regarding their eligibility entitled to discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseebullah Khan Bazai BCS-20 Osd, Government of Balochistan, Quetta2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 119 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-23
  review applicationcivil service promotionconcealment of factsconstitutional jurisdictionclean hands doctrineNAB referenceeligibility criteriafraud on court
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application challenged a previous judgment directing the promotion of respondent No. 1 to BS-21 for transfer to the Federal Government. The applicant, a senior officer, contended that the respondent had obtained the judgment by concealing material facts, specifically the pendency of a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference against him, which disqualified him under the criteria established by the Services of Pakistan (Redressal of Under-representation) Ordinance, 2012. The core legal question was whether a judgment obtained through the suppression of material facts and disqualifying criteria could be reviewed and recalled, particularly when the petitioner invoked the court's discretionary constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the respondent had deliberately concealed his ongoing criminal trial, which violated the eligibility criteria set forth in the Ordinance. Emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and requires the petitioner to approach the court with clean hands, the Court ruled that a judgment obtained through fraud or concealment of material facts must be recalled. Consequently, the Court exercised its review powers to set aside the previous judgment and dismissed the original constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court review its own judgment passed in constitutional jurisdiction if it was obtained through the concealment of material facts?
  • Does the pendency of a criminal case under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 disqualify a civil servant from promotion under the Services of Pakistan (Redressal of Under-representation) Ordinance, 2012?
  • Is a petitioner required to disclose pending criminal proceedings when seeking discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a court recall a judgment obtained through fraud even if the applicant for review was not a party to the original proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseebullah Khan Bazai BCS-20 Osd, Government of Balochistan Quetta2018 [M] C.L.R. 267 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-23
  review applicationconcealment of factsconstitutional jurisdictionclean hands doctrineeligibility criteriacivil service promotionfraud on courtNational Accountability Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application challenged a previous judgment that directed the promotion of the respondent, Dr. Umar Khan Babar, to BS-21 for transfer to the Federal Government. The applicant, a senior officer, contended that the respondent had concealed the pendency of a criminal case under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which disqualified him under the criteria of Ordinance VII of 2012. The core legal question was whether a judgment obtained through the suppression of material facts could be reviewed and recalled, particularly when the petitioner in the original matter failed to disclose his ineligibility. The Court held that the respondent had deliberately concealed his ongoing criminal trial, violating the eligibility criteria. Consequently, the Court recalled the previous judgment and dismissed the original Constitution Petition. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and requires the petitioner to approach the court with clean hands. It further established that the High Court possesses inherent power, alongside provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to review or recall orders obtained through fraud or the concealment of material facts, regardless of the applicant's status as a party to the original proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court review a judgment obtained through the concealment of material facts in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the pendency of a criminal case under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, disqualify a civil servant from promotion under Ordinance VII of 2012?
  • Is a party who conceals material facts from the Court entitled to relief under the discretionary constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the High Court have the inherent power to recall an order obtained through fraud or misrepresentation?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Saindak Metals Limited through its Managing Director vs The2018 P.C.T.L.R. 157 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mujeeb Ur Rehman vs The. State2018 YLR 389 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-20
  blasphemydesecration of Holy Quranmens reabenefit of doubtwithholding evidencecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kharan, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly defiling and desecrating the Holy Quran. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and standard of proof required in religious desecration cases, the withholding of the star witness (the cart man), and the presence of mala fides and previous enmity. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredient of willful intent (mens rea) and withheld its best evidence by not producing the star witness, drawing an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court laid down the principle that charges of religious contempt demand stringent scrutiny of evidence from unimpeachable sources, that a believer's verbal denial must be preferred over bald verbal accusations, and that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right where reasonable doubts exist.

  Questions settled

  • Whether willful intent is a necessary ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the effect of withholding the star witness by the prosecution in a criminal trial?
  • How should courts scrutinize evidence in cases involving religious desecration and blasphemy?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Quetta) 107 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-04-25
  narcotics smugglingchemical expert reportprocedural complianceControl of Narcotics Substances Actadmissibility of evidencecriminal appealstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, by the trial court, which sentenced him to life imprisonment for the possession of 90 kilograms of charas. The core legal question concerns whether a conviction under this Act is sustainable when the Chemical Expert Report was not prepared in quadruplicate on the prescribed form, as mandated by Section 36 of the Act and the Control of Narcotics Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001. The court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The ratio decidendi is that the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, is a special enactment providing stringent punishments, necessitating strict compliance with its procedural mandates. Because the prosecution failed to adhere to the mandatory requirement of preparing the Chemical Expert Report in quadruplicate on the prescribed form (Form-II), the report was rendered inadmissible. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing the principle that procedural non-compliance in special narcotics legislation vitiates the evidentiary value of forensic reports.

  Questions settled

  • Is a chemical expert report admissible in evidence if it is not prepared in quadruplicate on the prescribed form as required by the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the failure to follow the prescribed procedural rules for chemical analysis under the Control of Narcotics Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, vitiate a conviction?
  • Is strict compliance with procedural requirements mandatory under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, due to the stringent nature of the punishments provided?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Khan vs Haji Barat and another2018 MLD 904 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs The State2018 MLD 106 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-05
  plea of guiltydrugs actdrug sale licensecriminal appealbar on appealquantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Drug Court of Balochistan, Quetta, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 23(1)(c) of the Drugs Act, 1976 and sentenced to five months rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question concerns the legality of the conviction and sentence following the appellant's plea of guilty before the trial court, and whether an appeal against conviction is maintainable after such a confession. The Balochistan High Court held that having pleaded guilty before the trial court and failing to challenge the legality or extent of the sentence properly, the appellant was barred under Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from challenging his conviction. The court established that a voluntary plea of guilty in drug-related offenses precludes an appeal on merits against the conviction, and the appellate court will not interfere with a sentence founded on a clear confession where the trial court has already taken a lenient view.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who pleads guilty before the trial court can subsequently challenge his conviction by filing an appeal?
  • Does a voluntary confession of selling drugs without a license preclude interference by the appellate court with the sentence?
  • Is an appeal maintainable against a conviction and sentence resulting from the accused's own plea of guilty under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and others vs Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Quetta and another2018 YLR 1782 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Noor vs Government of Balochistan, S&Gad through Secretary and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 797 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-19
  quo warrantoreinstatement in servicepolitical influencemisconductcivil servantstatutory procedurelocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the reinstatement of a government employee (Respondent No. 3) who had been previously removed from service for absenteeism under the Balochistan Province Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the appointment and whether the Chief Minister’s order of reinstatement, issued based on political recommendations rather than statutory review procedures, was lawful. The Court held that the petition was maintainable as a writ of quo warranto, which does not require the petitioner to be an 'aggrieved person' in the strict sense. On the merits, the Court found the reinstatement order illegal, as it bypassed the mandatory review and appeal mechanisms prescribed under the Ordinance of 2000 and the Balochistan Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Act, 2011. The Court emphasized that civil servants are bound by the Constitution and the law, not unthinking obedience to political directives. Consequently, the reinstatement order was set aside, and the Court affirmed that seeking political influence in service matters constitutes misconduct under the Balochistan Civil Servants (Conduct Rules), 1979.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petitioner need to be an 'aggrieved person' to file a writ of quo warranto?
  • Can a government employee be reinstated in service through political recommendations bypassing statutory appeal procedures?
  • Is a subordinate civil servant legally bound to implement an order from the political executive that is manifestly illegal?
  • Does approaching political representatives to intervene in service matters constitute misconduct for a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem and others vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 26 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-02
  Tazir murdercompromiseDiyatminor legal heirsacquittalcriminal appealcompoundable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment as Tazir. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants reached a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal question was whether this compromise could be accepted in a Tazir murder case and how the court should address the rights of minor legal heirs regarding the Diyat amount. The Court held that the compromise was genuine and legally permissible. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, subject to the payment of Diyat to the minor heirs. The Court established the principle that in Tazir murder cases, compromises are governed by Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 338-E of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, where minor heirs are involved, the court must ensure the Diyat amount is deposited in a financial institution, such as National Savings, in the minors' names until they attain majority to protect their interests.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise be accepted in a murder case involving Tazir?
  • How should the court handle the Diyat amount for minor legal heirs in a compromise agreement?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 subject to compromise under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State2018 PLD Balochistan 80 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-09
  criminal jail appealmurder trialconfessional statementchild witnessburden of proofcircumstantial evidenceunnatural deathmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal is filed by the appellant, Muhammad Naeem, against his conviction and sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife, resulting in imprisonment for life as Tazeer with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the charge through circumstantial evidence, a child witness, a judicial confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the application of the burden of proof under Articles 117, 121, and 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when a murder occurs inside the accused person's house. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular, circumstantial, and voluntary confessional evidence, coupled with the appellant's failure to discharge his burden of explaining an unnatural death occurring within his residence. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, establishing that medical evidence is corroborative rather than substitutive when direct and confessional evidence are otherwise conclusive, and that a minor witness's testimony, when found intelligent and credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a minor child witness can be relied upon to sustain a murder conviction without corroboration?
  • Does the absence of medical evidence regarding the cause of death prove fatal to a murder prosecution when direct and confessional evidence are available?
  • What is the extent of the burden of proof placed upon an accused under Articles 121 and 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when a murder takes place inside his own house?
  • Whether a voluntary and duly recorded confessional statement made shortly after arrest is sufficient by itself to establish the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed and others vs Zameer Haider and 2 others2018 YLR 1021 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-25
  circumstantial evidenceretracted confessionjudicial confessionblind murdercall data recordenhancement of sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment of the Balochistan High Court addresses criminal appeals against conviction and a criminal revision for the enhancement of a sentence arising from a murder case registered initially against unknown culprits. The core legal question involved the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of retracted judicial confessions, and the sustainability of convictions based thereupon in a blind murder case. The court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence—including hotel records, call data records, medical evidence, and voluntary judicial confessions—proving the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that a retracted judicial confession, if found upon inquiry to be entirely voluntary and true, can legally be taken into consideration against the maker and can even form the basis of a conviction when corroborated by surrounding circumstances and other independent pieces of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the basis of a conviction in a criminal trial?
  • Whether minor discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Is the non-recovery of the crime weapon fatal to the case of the prosecution when supported by other circumstantial evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can circumstantial evidence constitute an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jan vs Additional Session Judge II, Quetta and another2018 PLD Balochistan 102 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-03-19
  criminal acquittal appealmurderadministering poisoncircumstantial evidencemedical evidencepresumption of innocenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of his wife by administering poison. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court's acquittal order was perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to the material on record, and whether a conviction could be sustained on circumstantial presumptions and past conduct alone without corroborative medical or ocular evidence. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the ocular testimony was merely based on assumptions of past mistreatment, none of the witnesses directly witnessed the crime, the chemical examiner report was negative for poison, and no external injuries were found on the deceased. The court reaffirmed the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that a double presumption of innocence is attached to an acquittal order, which warrants no interference unless found arbitrary or capricious.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted solely on the basis of presumptions and past conduct regarding the murder of his wife?
  • Does the burden of proof shift entirely to the accused when a murder takes place inside a residential house?
  • What evidentiary standards are required to interfere with an order of acquittal attached with a double presumption of innocence?
  • Is a negative chemical examiner report regarding poison sufficient to discredit allegations of unnatural death?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Humayun vs The Station House Officer (SHO) Police2018 P Cr. L J 450 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-22
  constitutional petitionregistration of FIREx-Officio Justice of the Peacestatutory dutypolice torturehierarchical remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenges the order of the Sessions Judge acting as Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, which dismissed the petitioner's application under section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking registration of a criminal case against an investigating officer for alleged torture and abuse. The core legal question was whether the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace erred in dismissing the application where the petitioner failed to first approach the concerned Station House Officer and higher police authorities as mandated by law. The Balochistan High Court held that an aggrieved person must first approach the concerned Station House Officer and exhaust hierarchical police remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace under section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that failure to approach the Station House Officer at the first instance disentitles a petitioner from seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR from the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, and findings of the Justice of the Peace will not be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction if based on proper appreciation of record and sound reasoning.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an aggrieved person can directly approach the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first approaching the concerned Station House Officer for registration of an FIR?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is it mandatory to exhaust police hierarchy remedies before filing an application under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Seraj Ahmed and 2 others2018 MLD 1333 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Shah and another vs The State through National2018 P Cr. L J 403 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-25
  post-arrest bailassets beyond known sources of incomebenamidarcorruption and corrupt practicesfurther inquiryNational Accountability Ordinancevicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two petitioners, a public servant and his son, accused of corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the allegations of accumulating assets disproportionate to known sources of income and the use of benamidars. The Court held that while the primary accused, a public servant, failed to justify the accumulation of assets and was prima facie connected to the offences, the second petitioner, his son, stood on a different footing. The Court determined that the second petitioner's involvement required further inquiry, as his liability was vicarious and dependent on evidence to be recorded at trial. The key principle laid down is that while offences under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 are generally non-bailable, the High Court retains discretionary power under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 to grant bail in appropriate circumstances, particularly where a case for further inquiry is established under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the power to grant bail in cases under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 despite the offences being non-bailable?
  • What are the essential ingredients the prosecution must establish to prove a case of assets beyond known sources of income under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is a person accused of holding property as a benamidar for a public servant entitled to bail if their direct involvement is not established?
  • When does a case fall within the purview of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem Kakar vs Sessions Judge, Zhob and another2018 PLJ Quetta 12 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad alias Khuda Bakhsh vs Atc Makran at Turbat and 2 others2018 P Cr. L J 148 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-12
  constitutional petitionanti-terrorism actremissionsequality of citizensfundamental rightsultra viresunder-trial periodprison rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the inclusion of the under-trial period under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. and the grant of special and ordinary remissions denied by jail authorities. The petitioner was convicted under section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and his conviction was upheld up to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether convicts under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 can lawfully be denied ordinary and special remissions under section 21-F of the said Act. The Balochistan High Court held that denying remissions to Anti-Terrorism Act convicts while granting them to other convicts is discriminatory and violates Articles 8, 9, and 25 of the Constitution. Following precedent, the Court declared section 21-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ultra vires the Constitution and directed jail authorities to extend all special and ordinary remissions along with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the denial of special and ordinary remissions to convicts under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 is discriminatory and violates Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Is section 21-F of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the refusal of remissions to a convict amount to an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether a convict granted the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is also entitled to jail remissions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 837 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-13
  post-arrest bailjurisdictionpredicate offencemoney launderingnarcoticsspecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose from a case where the applicant was charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (CNS Act) and the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 (AML Act). The trial court (Special Court, CNS) had granted bail to the applicant for the narcotic offences but refused to entertain the bail application regarding the money laundering offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the AML Act, 2010, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The High Court of Balochistan examined the core legal question of whether a Special CNS Court has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate offences under the AML Act, 2010 when the predicate offence is a narcotic offence. The Court held that under Section 20(1)(a) of the AML Act, 2010, where a predicate offence is triable by a court other than the Court of Session, the money laundering offence must be tried by that same court. Since the CNS Act, 1997 is listed as a predicate offence in the schedule of the AML Act, 2010, the Special CNS Court has exclusive jurisdiction to try the connected money laundering offences. Consequently, the High Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court established under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 have jurisdiction to try offences under the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 if the predicate offence is a narcotic offence?
  • How is the trial forum determined under the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 when the predicate offence is triable by a court other than the Court of Session?
  • Are the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010 overriding or in addition to the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs Nazish Qazi and 2 others2018 YLR 1771 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-07-17
  child custodyhizanatmother's remarriagewelfare of minorconstitutional petitionfamily lawguardianship
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from concurrent judgments of family courts regarding the custody of a minor female child and the dissolution of marriage. The core legal question concerns whether a mother loses her right of hizanat (custody) upon contracting a second marriage with a stranger not within the prohibited degrees of the minor. The Balochistan High Court held that under Muhammadan Law, a mother generally loses her right to custody of a female child upon marrying a stranger to the minor, unless exceptional circumstances warrant a departure in the interest of the minor's welfare. The court set aside the appellate judgment granting custody to the mother and restored the trial court's order granting custody to the natural father, while maintaining the visitation schedule. The key principle laid down is that while the welfare of the minor is paramount, a mother's remarriage to a non-prohibited stranger disqualifies her from hizanat in the absence of compelling exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mother lose her right of hizanat over a minor female child upon contracting a second marriage with a person who is not within the prohibited degrees?
  • Can the custody of a minor be awarded to the mother despite her remarriage to a stranger if exceptional circumstances exist?
  • What is the effect of a mother's remarriage to a stranger on her right to custody under Muhammadan Law?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in determining the custody of a child between parents?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akber vs The Secretary, Education Government of Balochistan and 5 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 29 · Balochistan High Court
  Constitutional petitioneducational qualificationmerit listpolicy matterfactual controversywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of respondents Nos. 5 and 6 to the posts of Junior Arabic Teacher and Mo'alam-ul-Quran, despite the petitioner securing the highest marks and standing at serial number one on the merit lists. The official respondents declined to appoint the petitioner on the ground that his educational degrees were invalid for the subject posts, a decision subsequently upheld by the Complaint Redressal Committee. The High Court examined whether it could interfere with the department's policy decision regarding the validity of educational qualifications under its constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the determination of the validity of educational degrees is a policy matter applicable to all candidates without discrimination. It further ruled that the High Court, while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, cannot enter into factual controversies that require a thorough probe and the recording of evidence. Finding no violation of any fundamental rights, the Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 resolve factual controversies requiring a thorough probe and recording of evidence?
  • Whether a policy decision regarding the validity of educational qualifications, applied uniformly without discrimination, can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the non-appointment of a candidate based on an invalid degree, as determined by a competent authority, constitute a violation of fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar alias Akbar Ali vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 778 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-18
  dual murderchild witnessrelated witnessessubstitution of culpritmedical evidencecriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the dual murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved the credibility of child and related eye-witnesses, the necessity of independent corroboration, and the appreciation of circumstantial and medical evidence in a murder trial. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimonies of related and child witnesses, when found confidence-inspiring and corroborated by medical evidence and motive, are sufficient to sustain a conviction, and that substitution of real culprits is a rare phenomenon. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court, laying down principles regarding the evaluation of child witness testimonies and related witnesses in criminal cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a child witness can be relied upon without corroboration in a murder trial?
  • Does the relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased render their testimony untrustworthy without independent corroboration?
  • Is substitution of real culprits considered a common or rare phenomenon in criminal justice?
  • What is the evidentiary value of minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Qadir vs Provincial Election Commissioner, Balochistan and 2 others2018 PLD Balochistan 59 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Mehmood and another vs Home and Tribal Affairs through Secretary Civil Secretariat and others2018 PLD Balochistan 49 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida vs Mst. Zeenat and 4 others2018 PLD Balochistan 34 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Popalzai and others vs Muhammad Asif Khan and 33 others2018 [M] C.L.R. 1484, 2018 CLC 1399 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Marryam Bibi vs Mst. Murad Bibi and 7 others2018 MLD 984 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-31
  fraud vitiates proceedingsapplication under section 12(2) CPCcollusive decreeforged power of attorneylimitation periodconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition called in question the legality of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a decree obtained through a fraudulent and collusive suit, utilizing forged power of attorneys and affidavits without procuring the attendance of defendants or filing a written statement, is sustainable, and whether limitation runs against such a void decree. The Balochistan High Court held that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings, and a decree obtained through misrepresentation and fraud is ab initio void, meaning no limitation runs against it. The court set aside the impugned judgments, decrees, and the original fraudulent decree, remanding the matter back to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that fraudulent transactions have no legal foundation, vitiate all subsequent proceedings, and allow for the condonation of delay when challenged immediately upon discovery.

  Questions settled

  • Does fraud vitiate judicial proceedings and render a decree obtained through misrepresentation ab initio void?
  • Does limitation run against a decree or order that has been procured through fraud?
  • Is a trial court bound to procure the attendance of defendants or require a written statement before decreeing a suit based on purported affidavits of renunciation?
  • Can lower courts ignore the admissions and rejoinders of original plaintiffs acknowledging that they never filed the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fahmida Bibi vs Abdul Bari and another2018 MLD 591 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Tahira Parveen Baloch, Ex.-District & Session Judge vs Hon'ble2018 PLJ Quetta 143 · Balochistan High Court
  service appealcompulsory retirementjudicial serviceservice tribunaltermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service appeal filed by the appellant, a former District and Sessions Judge, challenging a notification dated 23rd December 2014 issued by the respondent. The core of the dispute involves the appellant's compulsory retirement from judicial service. The appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the court to contest the legality and validity of this retirement order. As the provided text is limited to the introductory paragraph of the judgment, it does not disclose the court's final holding, the specific legal reasoning applied, or the ultimate decision regarding the merits of the compulsory retirement. Consequently, the judgment's ratio decidendi and the specific legal principles established in this case cannot be determined from the available excerpt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Judicial Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a notification of compulsory retirement?
  • What are the grounds upon which a District and Sessions Judge can be compulsorily retired?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Tahira Parveen Baloch, Ex-District & Sessions Judge, Killa Saifullah vs The Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Balochistan, Quetta through its Registrar High Court of Balochistan, Quetta2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 26 · Balochistan High Court
  compulsory retirementjudicial servicemisconductcorruptionservice appealjudicial integrityefficiency and discipline rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant service appeal under Section 5 of the Judicial Service Tribunal Act, 1989 was filed by the appellant, an ex-District and Sessions Judge, challenging the notification whereby she was compulsorily retired from service following a departmental inquiry that found her guilty of misconduct under the Balochistan Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1992. The core legal question revolved around whether the major penalty of compulsory retirement was lawfully imposed based on established charges of corruption and misconduct, and whether her service record justified such action. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the inquiry was conducted fairly by a High Court Judge, the evidence sufficiently established financial irregularities and misconduct, and her overall service record justified the penalty. The court laid down the principle that judicial officers must maintain integrity beyond doubt, and while compulsory retirement does not entail forfeiture of pensionary benefits, an officer with doubtful integrity and average performance who has lost utility cannot be retained in judicial service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the major penalty of compulsory retirement can be sustained against a judicial officer found guilty of financial irregularities and corruption during departmental proceedings?
  • Does the law require the competent authority to consider the entire service record of a judicial employee when assessing the propriety of compulsory retirement?
  • Whether the standard of integrity and reputation expected of a judicial officer differs from that of ordinary civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Tahira Parveen Baloch vs Chief Justice, High Court of Balochistan, Quetta through Registrar2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 26, 2018 PLJ Quetta 143, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 15 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-02
  compulsory retirementjudicial misconductservice appealembezzlementintegrity of judicial officersdepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal was filed by Mrs. Tahira Parveen Baloch, an ex-District and Sessions Judge, against a notification issued by the respondent compulsorily retiring her from service after a departmental inquiry found her guilty of misconduct involving corruption and embezzlement. The core legal question was whether the imposition of the major penalty of compulsory retirement and the findings of the departmental inquiry were justified based on the appellant's service record and evidence of misconduct. The Balochistan High Court held that the departmental proceedings, inquiry conducted by a High Court Judge, and subsequent decision by the Competent Authority were lawful and supported by sufficient evidence, and that judicial officers must maintain unblemished integrity and reputation. The court laid down the principle that the entire service record of a judicial officer must be considered in cases of compulsory retirement, and that judicial service cannot tolerate officers with doubtful integrity or those who have lost their utility, as maintaining a clean stream of justice is paramount.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the entire service record of a judicial officer must be considered by the authority while assessing compulsory retirement?
  • Can a judicial officer found to have doubtful integrity or poor reputation be compulsorily retired from service?
  • Whether compulsory retirement as a major penalty under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules differs from dismissal and removal regarding retiral benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohibullah and others vs The State2018 KLR Criminal Cases 82 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-05
  seized propertyacquittalbenefit of doubtcriminal revisionproperty disposalfunctus officioSection 517 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the release of a motorcycle confiscated by the trial court following the applicant's conviction, which was subsequently set aside in criminal revision. The core legal questions were whether the court, having already acquitted the applicant, remained functus officio regarding the disposal of seized property, and whether an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt entitled the applicant to the return of property seized from their possession. The Court held that an acquittal constitutes a formal exoneration, entitling the accused to the restoration of property seized from them, provided it was not the subject matter of the offense. Furthermore, the Court determined that it possesses independent, substantive jurisdiction under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to correct errors regarding property disposal even after a final judgment, and that such applications are not subject to a limitation period. The principle established is that property seized from an accused must be restored upon acquittal, and the court retains the power to rectify property disposal orders independently of the main case's conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt entitle an accused to the return of property seized from their possession?
  • Can a court exercise jurisdiction under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to return seized property after the final judgment has been delivered?
  • Is there a prescribed limitation period for filing an application for the release of seized property under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohibullah and another vs The State2018 KLR Criminal Cases 82, 2018 P Cr. L J 954 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-05
  return of case propertyseized motorcyclebenefit of doubtacquittalfunctus officiosupervisory powerslimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application was filed under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the release of a seized motorcycle following the applicant's acquittal. The core legal questions involved whether an accused acquitted on the benefit of doubt is entitled to the return of property seized at the time of arrest, and whether the High Court retains jurisdiction under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to dispose of case property after the main criminal revision has been decided without altering a final judgment. The Balochistan High Court held that an unconditional acquittal, even if based on the benefit of doubt, constitutes an exoneration entitling the accused to the logical consequence of the return of seized property not proven to be the subject matter of an offence or stolen. The Court laid down that proceedings under Sections 517 and 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are independent substantive remedies carrying no prescribed period of limitation, and that an acquittal by extending the benefit of doubt operates as a formal certification of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person acquitted of a criminal charge by the extension of benefit of doubt is entitled to the return of property seized at the time of arrest?
  • Does a High Court retain jurisdiction under Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to pass orders regarding case property after the main criminal revision has been decided?
  • Are proceedings under Sections 517 and 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to any period of limitation?
  • Does an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt amount to an honourable acquittal for the purpose of restoring seized property to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khan Gul Government Contractor vs Federation of Pakistan2018 PTD 415 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ilyas Nagi and others vs Governor, State Bank of Pakistan and others2018 PLC (C.S.) 99 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-11
  disciplinary proceedingsback benefitsaudi alteram partemdiscrimination in serviceconstitutional petitionState Bank of Pakistanservice lawmajor penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two connected Constitutional Petitions filed by an employee of the State Bank of Pakistan challenging disciplinary orders that imposed a permanent salary reduction and denied back benefits following a departmental inquiry. The core legal questions were whether the disciplinary proceedings were lawful, specifically regarding the denial of an opportunity to lead defense evidence, the absence of findings on financial loss, and the discriminatory treatment of the petitioner compared to similarly situated co-accused employees who were exonerated. The Court held that the penalty was void ab initio because the inquiry process violated the principle of audi alteram partem by denying the petitioner the right to present a defense. Furthermore, the Court found the treatment discriminatory, as similarly placed employees facing identical charges were exonerated and granted full benefits. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, directed the refund of deducted salary amounts, and ordered the payment of back benefits for the suspension period. The judgment reaffirms the necessity of fair procedure and equal treatment in disciplinary matters for public sector employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained for the enforcement of fundamental rights against a statutory body when similarly placed employees are treated discriminately?
  • Is a disciplinary penalty imposed without allowing the accused to lead defense evidence and without specific findings of financial loss sustainable in law?
  • Does the principle of equality of treatment apply to employees facing identical disciplinary charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Wali Muhammad, etc. vs Ac/SDM and Collector Saddar Sub-Division,2018 [M] C.L.R. 27 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Sher Muhammad and another vs Malik Khair Muhammad and 42018 YLR 110 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-01-02
  criminal appealacquittaldouble presumption of innocencebenefit of doubtappraisal of evidencedishonest improvementsealing of weaponmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of private respondents by a Judicial Magistrate regarding charges under Section 337-AD/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The central legal question was whether the trial court erred in its assessment of evidence, thereby warranting interference by the High Court. Upon review, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding the prosecution's case riddled with contradictions and dishonest improvements by witnesses. Specifically, the Court noted that the recovery of the alleged weapon was inadmissible due to failure to seal it at the crime scene, and the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that an acquittal order carries a double presumption of innocence, and appellate courts must not interfere unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a gross misreading of evidence. It reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies strictly with the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order of acquittal carry a double presumption of innocence that limits the scope of appellate interference?
  • Is the failure to seal a recovered weapon at the place of incident fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • What is the standard of proof required to overturn an acquittal in a criminal appeal?
  • Does the benefit of doubt in a criminal case accrue to the accused as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and 2 others vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1351 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-02-21
  benefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalforensic delayocular evidencemedical evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaffarabad, for offences involving theft and causing injuries. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged inconsistencies in the evidence and procedural lapses. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with significant doubts, including unexplained delays in sending crime weapons and empty shells to the forensic laboratory, material contradictions in witness statements, and the failure to produce key injured witnesses. Furthermore, the Court noted that medical evidence, while confirming injuries, does not inherently connect specific accused persons to the commission of a crime. Emphasizing that the prosecution must prove its case without a shadow of reasonable doubt, the Court ruled that any single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the delay in sending crime weapons and empty shells to a forensic expert destroy the evidentiary value of the recovery?
  • Can medical evidence alone be used to connect an accused to the commission of a crime?
  • Is the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • What is the legal consequence of withholding material evidence by the prosecution under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Bakhsh and another., the State. vs The State., Lal Bakhsh and others2018 PLD Balochistan 97 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-10
  honour killingAnti-Terrorism Court jurisdictionprivate offencecriminal appealterrorism definitionmens rearemand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for the double murder of two individuals, which the prosecution characterized as honour killings. The core legal question was whether honour killings, regardless of their brutal execution, fall within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court or constitute private offences triable by an ordinary court. Relying on the Supreme Court’s dictum in Khuda-e-Noor v. The State, the High Court held that the Anti-Terrorism Court lacked jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that honour killings, being private offences committed with private motives, do not satisfy the statutory requirements of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, which necessitates a specific design or purpose to create public alarm or insecurity. The Court affirmed that the gruesome nature of a crime does not, by itself, convert a private offence into a terrorist act. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Sessions Court for a fresh trial in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an honour killing constitute an act of terrorism triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Is the brutal or gruesome nature of a crime sufficient to bring it within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Must an act be accompanied by a specific design or purpose to fall under the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Bakhsh aka Lal Muhammad vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 117 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-07-31
  murderocular evidenceinterested witnessdisclosure memorecovery of weaponballistic reportabsconsion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sibi Division, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Sabzal Khan. The prosecution's case rested on ocular evidence from the deceased's relatives, medical evidence, and the recovery of the murder weapon (a T.T. pistol) on the appellant's pointation, which matched the crime empties recovered from the crime scene. The appellant contended that the ocular witnesses were related and interested, and challenged the admissibility of the disclosure memo and delayed recovery. The High Court held that mere relationship does not render witnesses 'interested' unless prior enmity is proved. It further held that information leading to the discovery of a fact under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 is admissible even if obtained after a period of absconsion. Finding the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to a deceased render them 'interested witnesses' in the absence of proven prior animosity?
  • Is information provided by an accused in custody that leads to the discovery of a weapon admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 despite a delay caused by the accused's absconsion?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained where ocular accounts are fully corroborated by medical evidence, recovery of the crime weapon, and matching ballistic reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ashraf through Attorney and 3 others vs Aftab Ashraf and another2018 PLJ Quetta 23, 2018 MLD 65 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-06Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ashraf and 3 others vs Aftab Ashraf and another2018 PLJ Quetta 23 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-06Read full judgment →
• Khudai Noor vs District Judge Pishin and 2 others2018 PLJ Quetta 43 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-11Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad Shah vs The State2018 KLR Criminal Cases 47 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-25
  rash and negligent drivingqatl-e-khatabenefit of the doubthearsay evidencevehicular accidentcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Lasbela at Hub, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the death of a motorcyclist through a vehicular accident while driving an oil tanker. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established that the appellant was driving in a rash and negligent manner and whether the accident was a direct result thereof. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt, noting that the complainant was not an eyewitness, his testimony regarding negligence was inadmissible hearsay, and the site plan was vague. The Court emphasized that negligence cannot be presumed merely from the occurrence of an accident or the payment of burial expenses by the accused, and that the benefit of any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the basis of hearsay evidence regarding rash and negligent driving?
  • Whether an accused's financial assistance to a victim's family or payment of burial expenditures amounts to an admission of guilt in a criminal trial?
  • Is a presumption of negligence raised merely because a person has died in a vehicular accident?
  • What is the duty of the prosecution when two possibilities or interpretations are open on the evidence presented in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad alias Khario vs The State2018 KLR Criminal Cases 116 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-12
  Qatl-e-Amddeath sentenceocular evidencedying declarationinterested witnessdeterrencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Killa Abdullah, which convicted the appellant of Qatl-e-Amd and sentenced him to death with compensation. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, despite alleged contradictions and the absence of a working weapon, and whether the death sentence was appropriate. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular testimony from the deceased's sons and the dying declaration (Fard-e-Bayan), which corroborated medical evidence. The Court affirmed that minor contradictions in witness statements do not invalidate the prosecution's case and that relationship to the deceased does not render a witness 'interested' or unreliable. The Court laid down the principle that in murder cases, the normal penalty is death, and courts should not hesitate to impose it absent mitigating circumstances. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the purpose of sentencing includes deterrence, retribution, and reformation, and that the judiciary owes a duty to society and victims' heirs to ensure sentences are commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable or 'interested'?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon of offence a mandatory requirement for proving a murder case?
  • What is the standard for awarding the death penalty in a murder case where no mitigating circumstances exist?
  • Does the absence of motive invalidate a prosecution case supported by unimpeachable ocular evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Government of Balochistan Education2018 PLC (C.S.) 417 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-04-21
  contract employeeregularization of servicevested rightservice disputeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that his removal from service as Principal (B-20) of Balochistan Residential College Turbat was illegal, alongside prayers for regularization of his services, posting, and release of withheld salary. The core legal question was whether a contract employee possesses a vested right to claim extension of contract or regularization of service. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a contract employee has no vested right to claim extension or regularization of services, particularly when initial appointment and regularization did not comply with prescribed legal formalities and procedures. The court established that contractual employment terminates upon the expiry of its term and does not confer any right to continuous employment or permanent absorption.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract employee have a vested right to claim extension or regularization of their services?
  • Whether the continuance of employment of a temporary employee for two years or more converts the appointment into a permanent one?
  • Does an ad hoc or contract appointment confer any right or interest to continuous appointment, seniority, or promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs Ayub and 8 others2018 PLJ AJ&K 134, 2018 PLD Balochistan 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-08-07Read full judgment →
• Juma Gul vs Government of Pakistan Model Customs Collectorate2018 YLR 75 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ramzan Dehwar, Advocate, Supreme Court at Quetta vs Sadiq2019 [M] C.L.R. 1160, 2018 PLD Balochistan 67 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ramzan Dehwar, Advocate Supreme Court vs Sadiq Sanjrani and 32019 KLR Civil Cases 403, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1227, 2018 PLD Balochistan 67 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Khan vs Syed Moead Ahmed2018 MLD 355 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-30Read full judgment →
• Islam Hussain vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary2019 PLJ Quetta 83, 2018 CLC 820 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-02-26Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Pervaiz vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Social2020 [M] C L R 49, 2019 PLJ Quetta 1, 2018 PLD Balochistan 107 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-04-19Read full judgment →
• Inna Yatullah vs The State2018 PLD Balochistan 11 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-07-20
  compromisemurderfasad fil ardcoercionremandappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected acquittal appeal arise from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kharan, convicting the accused under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for fasad-fil-ard and sentencing him to fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment after recording an acquittal under Section 302/324/34 based on a compromise, while the complainant sought full trial on merits alleging the compromise was procured through duress. The core legal questions revolved around the validity of a compromise in a murder case tainted by coercion, and the propriety of convicting the accused under Section 311 P.P.C. while ignoring allegations of pressure. The Balochistan High Court held that a compromise in criminal matters must be entirely voluntary, genuine, and free from coercion, pressure, or threats, and any doubt regarding free will must be resolved against its acceptance. The Court laid down that trial courts must scrupulously examine the voluntariness of a compromise and the demeanor of parties before acting upon it, setting aside the flawed judgment and remanding the matter for a de novo decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a compromise in a murder case entered into under pressure, coercion, or threats is legally valid?
  • Can a trial court accept a compromise without verifying the free consent and demeanor of the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • What is the effect of a tainted compromise on the acquittal of an accused under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When is an appellate court justified in setting aside a conviction under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and remanding the case for trial on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Shah vs Pervez Rana2018 PLJ Quetta 19 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-30Read full judgment →
• Hassan Gul vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1032 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-15
  murderinjured witnessinterested witnessweapon recoverysentence mitigationlife imprisonmentland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the Sessions Judge Musakhail Loralai, which convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced him to death, alongside convictions under Sections 324 and 337-ADF of the same Code. The prosecution's case was that the appellant and his co-accused launched a firearm attack on a vehicle, killing one passenger and injuring another. The appellant challenged his conviction on the grounds of interested witnesses, lack of independent corroboration, and non-recovery of the crime weapon. The High Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the testimony of an injured eyewitness is highly credible and natural, and cannot be discarded merely due to relationship with the deceased. Furthermore, the Court ruled that non-recovery of the crime weapon is not fatal when direct, credible ocular evidence establishes the guilt. However, noting the mitigating circumstance of an ongoing land dispute between the parties, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an eyewitness be discarded solely on the ground of relationship with the deceased?
  • Is the non-recovery of the crime weapon fatal to the prosecution's case when direct ocular evidence is available?
  • Does the presence of a land dispute between parties constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamidullah vs The State2018 PLD Balochistan 71 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-27
  sodomyunnatural offencesolitary statement of victimdelay in FIRmedical evidencedisclosure statementquantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing an unnatural offence. The core legal questions involved whether the sole testimony of the victim, coupled with medical evidence and disclosure statements, was sufficient to sustain a conviction despite a delay in lodging the First Information Report and the hostility of certain prosecution witnesses. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through confidence-inspiring ocular testimony of the victim corroborated by medical evidence and admissible disclosure statements under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that delay in reporting such sensitive crimes involving family honor is natural. The court dismissed the appeals on merits while modifying the quantum of sentence from seven years to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The key principles laid down include that the solitary statement of a victim in sodomy or rape cases is sufficient to convict if it inspires confidence, and that natural delays caused by considerations of family honor do not vitiate a criminal case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for sodomy be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim?
  • Does a delay in lodging the FIR vitiate the prosecution case in offences involving family honor and prestige?
  • Is a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of facts admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What is the effect of hostility of witnesses who are not direct observers of the crime on the broader prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Naeem vs Siraj-Ud-Din and 6 others2018 PLJ Quetta 49 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-04-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Musa vs Major (Retd.) Nadir Ali2018 [M] C.L.R. 295 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Wahid vs Abdullah and 5 others2018 CLC 459 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
• Habib Qadir vs Station House Officer, Sadar Khuzdar and 2 others2018 PLD Balochistan 17 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-14Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited through Manager vs Haji Karim Dad and another2018 PLJ Quetta 7 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-19Read full judgment →
• Gulzar vs The State2018 MLD 1567 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-19
  criminal appealhostile witnessrash and negligent drivingDiyatmurder by negligencespot arrestappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the death of the complainant's father by a rash and negligent driving of a Datsun vehicle, sentencing him to pay Diyat and rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question revolves around whether the conviction can be sustained when the star witnesses and the complainant resile from their earlier statements and are declared hostile. The Balochistan High Court held that mere hostility or resiling of star witnesses does not automatically invalidate a conviction or absolve the accused where other corroborative evidence, prompt FIR nomination, spot arrest, and the accused's admission of owning and possessing the vehicle at the scene sufficiently establish guilt. The court ruled that such retraction often stems from out-of-court compromises designed to evade Diyat obligations, laying down the principle that courts must look to the totality of circumstantial and material evidence rather than relying solely on hostile witness turnarounds in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for unintentional murder through rash driving can be sustained when the complainant and star eyewitnesses are declared hostile?
  • Does the resiling of star witnesses alone provide sufficient ground to acquit an accused in a criminal case?
  • Can an accused's admission of vehicle ownership during examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to corroborate guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Sher Khan vs The State2018 MLD 1354 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-25
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcontradictory evidenceweapon recoveryocular testimonytribal enmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 396 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question involved the reliability of ocular testimony marred by contradictions, dishonest improvements, and the evidentiary value of corroborative pieces like weapon recovery in the absence of dependable direct evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions between eye-witnesses, doubtful identification, unexplained delay in sending the weapon to the ballistic expert, and failure to account for tribal enmity. The court laid down the principle that where ocular testimony is untrustworthy and uncorroborated, mere recovery of a crime weapon cannot form the basis for a conviction, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder and dacoity can be sustained solely on the basis of a recovered crime weapon when the direct ocular testimony is contradictory and unreliable?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending a recovered weapon to the ballistic expert create sufficient doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of interested or related witnesses be relied upon without independent circumstantial support?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt should be extended to an accused when material improvements and contradictions riddle the first information report and subsequent depositions?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan, Industries Department vs Muhammad2018 CLC 396 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan Industries Department through Managing2018 [M] C.L.R. 288 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir etc. vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Quetta) 509 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-07-17
  murderbenefit of doubtocular evidenceidentification paraderecovery of weaponsforensic delaycriminal appealcircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance on ocular evidence, recovery of weapons, and disclosure statements. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It observed that the appellants were not named in the FIR, and no identification parade was conducted, rendering the in-court identification unreliable. Furthermore, the Court determined that medical evidence only proves the cause of death, not the identity of the assailants. Regarding recoveries, the Court held that they are merely corroborative and cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of substantive evidence. Additionally, the unexplained delay in sending crime empties and weapons to the forensic laboratory undermined the expert report. Emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right, not a concession, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, establishing that recoveries and disclosure statements made in police custody cannot substitute for direct, reliable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is an identification parade mandatory when the accused are not named in the FIR?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of recovery of weapons if the ocular evidence is disbelieved?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime empties and weapons to a forensic laboratory undermine the evidentiary value of the expert report?
  • Are disclosure statements made while in police custody sufficient to prove guilt without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir and 2 others vs The StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Quetta) 509, 2018 P Cr. L J 570 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-07-17
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidenceidentification paraderecovery of crime weapondelay in forensic analysis
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of criminal appeals filed by convicted appellants against their conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302(b) of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, uncorroborated dock identification, recoveries, police disclosures while in custody, and delayed forensic analysis of crime empties and weapons. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, as the ocular testimony was uncorroborated, identification parades were not held, disclosures leading to recoveries were legally flawed, and a prolonged, unexplained delay in sending crime empties and weapons to the forensic laboratory compromised the evidentiary value of the firearms report. The court laid down the principle that corroborative pieces of evidence like recoveries and medical reports cannot substitute for direct substantive evidence, and any reasonable doubt arising from the prosecution's failure to maintain safe custody or explain delays must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeals were accepted, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an uncorroborated dock identification of an accused for the first time during trial is sufficient to sustain a conviction when no identification parade was held?
  • Can a conviction for murder be recorded solely on the basis of recoveries and medical evidence in the absence of reliable direct or substantive ocular evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending crime empties and recovered firearms to the forensic science laboratory?
  • Does a disclosure statement made by an accused while in police custody have evidentiary value if the alleged recovery was effected prior in time to the disclosure?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sabir vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary and 22018 CLC 213, 2018 PLJ Quetta 86 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sabir through Special Power of Attorney vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Mines and Minerals Development and 2 others2018 CLC 213 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Additional District & Sessions Judge and others2018 PLJ Quetta 79 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs Muhammad Azam and another2018 P Cr. L J 1484 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-27
  criminal transfer applicationtransfer of casewitness securityconvenience of witnessesSection 526 CrPCadministration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Criminal Transfer Application filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the transfer of a murder trial from the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sibi, to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Dera Murad Jamali or Dera Allah Yar. The applicant, the complainant in FIR No. 08/2016, alleged that he and the prosecution witnesses, who are residents of Dera Murad Jamali, faced serious security threats from the influential accused party, rendering it unsafe and inconvenient for them to appear at Sibi. The Court observed that the witnesses had submitted affidavits detailing these threats, which remained unrebutted by the respondents. Emphasizing that the High Court may order a transfer to ensure the general convenience of parties and witnesses, and to secure the administration of justice, the Court held that the apprehension of danger to the lives of the witnesses justified the transfer. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, directing the case to be transferred to the Sessions Judge, Dera Allah Yar, with instructions for the police to provide necessary security to the witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be transferred between sessions courts due to security threats faced by prosecution witnesses?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to transfer a case for the convenience of witnesses?
  • Is a transfer application supported by unrebutted affidavits of witnesses sufficient grounds for moving a trial to another jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghous-Ud-Din vs Abdul Manan alias Mano and another2018 YLR 304 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-02
  criminal acquittal appealmurdercross-version FIRaggressorocular testimonymedical evidencemisreading of evidencevicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused-respondent of charges relating to murder and murderous assault. The core legal questions involve determining whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence, and whether the trial court erred in treating the complainant party as the primary aggressor based on a cross-version FIR without supporting defence evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court's judgment suffered from serious misreading and non-reading of material evidence, as the eyewitness testimonies remained unshaken, corroborated by medical evidence and weapon recoveries, and the defence failed to substantiate its counter-version at trial. The High Court consequently set aside the acquittal, convicting the respondent under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, among other provisions. The key principles laid down are that an appellate court may reverse an acquittal when the trial court's conclusions are based on arbitrary or imaginary findings, and that when an accused raises a defence or cross-version, the burden to prove it must be evaluated alongside the prosecution evidence rather than accepted on mere presumption.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can set aside an acquittal when the trial court's findings suffer from material misreading and non-reading of evidence?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the accused to substantiate a defence plea or cross-version case raised during trial?
  • Can a trial court combine two cross-version cases into a single trial and acquit an accused based on unproved counter-allegations?
  • Whether ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and weapon recoveries is sufficient to establish guilt in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Fatima vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/O Commerce2018 PLJ Quetta 59 · Balochistan High Court
  constitutional petitionlegitimate expectationpublic employmentlocus poenitentiaewrit of mandamusvested rightrecruitment policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the refusal of the State Life Insurance Corporation to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner, who was selected as Manager (Legal) under the 'Aghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan' package. The core legal question was whether the petitioner acquired a vested right to appointment upon the finalization of the merit list, and whether a subsequent government ban on recruitment could retrospectively invalidate this selection. The Court held that the recruitment process was completed in all material respects, creating a vested right in favor of the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents could not arbitrarily withhold the appointment or apply a subsequent recruitment ban retrospectively to nullify the selection. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the principle of locus poenitentiae prevented the authorities from retracting their steps once a decisive stage had been reached. The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to issue the appointment letter, as the denial of employment without valid justification violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate acquire a vested right to appointment once the selection process is completed and a merit list is published?
  • Can a government ban on recruitment be applied retrospectively to nullify a selection process that was already finalized?
  • Is the doctrine of legitimate expectation applicable to a candidate who has been selected for a public post but not yet issued an appointment letter?
  • Can a public authority withhold an appointment letter after a selection process is complete without providing a valid, non-arbitrary reason?
  Read full judgment →
• Fatima vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 292 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-28
  legitimate expectationvested rightlocus poenitentiaeconstitutional petitionpublic sector recruitmentAghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistanpromissory estoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from the refusal of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner, who secured the highest marks (position S.No. 1) on the merit list for the post of Manager (Legal) advertised under the Aghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan package. The core legal questions involved whether a completed selection process creates a vested right and legitimate expectation for appointment, and whether subsequent government bans on recruitment or administrative delays can retroactively divest such rights once decisive steps have been taken. The Balochistan High Court held that upon finalization of the selection and display of the merit list, a valid vested right and a substantive legitimate expectation accrued to the petitioner, precluding the authorities from rescinding the process under the principle of locus poenitentiae or a subsequently imposed recruitment ban. The Court laid down that executive policies on recruitment operate prospectively and cannot nullify completed selection processes, and that public authorities are bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppels and fairness to issue appointment orders without arbitrary delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does the finalization of a selection process and display of a merit list create a vested right and legitimate expectation for appointment?
  • Can a subsequent governmental ban on fresh recruitment be applied retrospectively to invalidate a selection process already completed?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae empower an executive authority to withhold an appointment order after decisive steps in the selection process have been taken?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 is maintainable to enforce the appointment of a candidate unlawfully denied a position after succeeding on merit?
  Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad vs The State2018 MLD 1246 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-24
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdying declarationocular testimonyacquittalcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the presence of material contradictions in the ocular testimony and the failure to prove a motive. The court found that the prosecution's witnesses provided conflicting accounts, with the primary witness exonerating the appellant in court, and that the prosecution failed to establish any motive for the crime. Furthermore, the court noted the implausibility of the appellant sparing the primary witness while killing others. Applying the principle that the benefit of any doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution witnesses contradict each other on material counts?
  • Is a conviction reliable when the primary prosecution witness exonerates the accused during trial?
  • Does the failure to establish a motive for a crime create sufficient doubt to warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  • Should the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused when the prosecution's evidence is riddled with discrepancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Additional Session Judge Barkhan at Rakhni and another2018 PLJ Quetta 36 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Director-General, Mines and Minerals Balochistan and another vs Secretary Mines and Minerals Development Department, Government of Balochistan and others2018 PLD Balochistan 20 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-12Read full judgment →
• Director General, Mines & Minerals Balochistan and others vs Secretary Mines & Minerals Development Department Govt. of Balochistan and others2018 PLJ Quetta 94 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Director General NADRA through Deputy Manager (Legal) vs Popalzai2018 CLC 581 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-18Read full judgment →
• Deen Muhammad vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 61 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-07-31
  narcotic substancesrepresentative samplechemical examinationsentencing modificationcriminal appealrecovery of contrabandControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for the recovery of 80 kg of Charas, 40 kg of Opium, and 2 kg of Crystal Heroin. The core legal question was whether the conviction for the entire quantity was valid given that the prosecution failed to take representative samples from each individual packet for chemical analysis. The Court held that the conviction was sustainable only regarding the quantity of the substance actually tested. Relying on the precedent in Ameer Zeb v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), the Court affirmed that where narcotics are recovered in separate packets, a separate sample must be taken from every packet for chemical analysis. Failure to comply with this procedure restricts the conviction to the quantity of the substance from which a sample was taken and tested with a positive result. Consequently, the Court modified the appellant's sentence, reducing it to reflect only the quantity of the tested contraband, while maintaining the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to take a separate representative sample from each packet of recovered narcotics invalidate the conviction for the entire quantity?
  • Is a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 sustainable for the total quantity of contraband if samples were not individually tested?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to take a representative sample from every individual packet of recovered narcotic substances?
  Read full judgment →
• Baz Muhammad and others vs The State and others2018 MLD 603 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-15
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcontradictory statementsocular evidenceacquittalappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment resolves Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2016 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 14 of 2016 arising from a trial court judgment convicting the appellants under sections 302(b) and 143 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and rioting. The prosecution alleged that the appellants and their co-accused attacked the victims following a dispute over laying stones in a passage, resulting in fatal injuries. The core legal question before the Balochistan High Court was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent and reliable ocular and medical evidence. The Court held that the ocular testimony was riddled with material contradictions, dishonest improvements, and doubtful presence of witnesses, failing to establish the charge beyond doubt. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the revision petition for enhancement of sentence, reiterating the cardinal principle of extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions and dishonest improvements in the statements of eye-witnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of the accused?
  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to justify their presence at the crime scene render their testimony unreliable?
  • Whether an interested and related witness's testimony can be relied upon without independent corroboration when the ocular account is fraught with confusions?
  Read full judgment →
• Azeem Khan vs The State2018 PCRLJ 726, 2018 KLR Criminal Cases 88 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-20
  common intentionvicarious liabilitydeath sentence commutationproof of motiveocular evidenceinterested witnessescriminal appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentences of two appellants for murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellants ambushed the deceased, with one appellant firing the fatal shot while the other participated in the attack. The Trial Court convicted both, sentencing one to death and the other to life imprisonment. The High Court addressed whether the evidence sufficiently established common intention for the non-firing appellant and whether the death sentence for the principal offender was justified given the failure to prove motive. The Court held that mere presence at the scene without an overt act or weapon is insufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, leading to the acquittal of the non-firing appellant. Regarding the principal offender, the Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, establishing that while motive is not a condition precedent for guilt, its failure to be proven by the prosecution serves as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The Court also affirmed that witness testimony is not invalidated by familial relationships if consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an unarmed accused at the scene of a crime establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a mitigating factor for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is the testimony of prosecution witnesses rendered inadmissible solely because they are related to the deceased?
  • Does a delay in sending incriminating articles to a forensic laboratory automatically render the forensic report inadmissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Azeem Khan and 2 others vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 726 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-20
  Qatl-i-amdcommon intentiondeath sentence conversionmitigating circumstancesforensic evidencecriminal appealmurder referencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction of two appellants for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction, the applicability of common intention under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the appropriateness of the death sentence given the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive. The Court held that while the ocular evidence was reliable and corroborated by medical and forensic reports regarding the principal accused, the prosecution failed to establish common intention for the co-accused, who was empty-handed and performed no overt act. Consequently, the co-accused was acquitted. Regarding the principal accused, the Court maintained the conviction but converted the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the failure to prove motive as a mitigating circumstance. The judgment reaffirms that mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient to establish common intention and that while motive is not a condition precedent for guilt, its absence is a relevant factor for sentencing in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without an overt act, satisfy the requirements for common intention under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a death sentence be converted to life imprisonment solely due to the prosecution's failure to prove the alleged motive?
  • Is a delay in sending incriminating articles for forensic analysis fatal to the prosecution's case if no tampering is alleged?
  • Can the testimony of related witnesses be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship to the deceased?
  Read full judgment →