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.

• Aminullah Mandokhail vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Quetta and others2018 PLD Balochistan 30, 2018 PLJ Quetta 118 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-29Read full judgment →
• Aminullah Mandokhail vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Department and 4 others2018 PLD Balochistan 30 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-09-29Read full judgment →
• Ameer Bakhsh vs Assa and 2 others2018 CLC 1004 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ali Bakhsh alias Ali Dost vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 866 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-30
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidenceinterested witnessesforensic reportFIR by strangeracquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt given the inconsistencies in ocular, medical, and forensic evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt, noting that the FIR was lodged by a stranger despite the presence of the victim and his father, and that prosecution witnesses provided contradictory accounts regarding the timeline and their presence at the scene. Furthermore, the forensic report contained significant discrepancies regarding the weapon and empties, rendering the supporting evidence unreliable. The court emphasized that when ocular testimony is not confidence-inspiring, supporting evidence cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant, affirming that the benefit of doubt is a fundamental right of the accused when reasonable doubt exists in a prudent mind.

  Questions settled

  • Can supporting evidence sustain a conviction if the ocular evidence is not confidence-inspiring?
  • Does the registration of an FIR by a stranger, when the victim and family are present, create doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a right for the accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a forensic report that contains discrepancies regarding the crime weapon and empties?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Jan vs Shah Murad through Levies Thana, Harnai and another2018 KLR Criminal Cases 149, 2018 YLR 1745 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-09
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencedelayed FIRdishonest improvementmurder trialappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a murder case. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misappreciation of evidence. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case due to several fatal flaws: an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions and dishonest improvements in the testimonies of eye-witnesses, and the absence of a post-mortem examination or inquest report to confirm the cause of death. Furthermore, the Court noted that recovery witnesses admitted the deceased's clothing lacked bullet marks. The Court reaffirmed the principle that in an appeal against acquittal, the accused enjoys a 'double presumption of innocence,' and an appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's judgment is perverse, capricious, or arbitrary, which was not the case here.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a presumption that the allegations are an afterthought?
  • Can the testimony of a witness who makes material improvements to their statement be relied upon without corroboration?
  • What is the legal standard for interfering with a trial court's order of acquittal in a criminal appeal?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to conduct a post-mortem or inquest report to establish the cause of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Jan vs Shah Murad and another2018 KLR Criminal Cases 149 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-09
  appeal against acquittaldelay in F.I.R.improvements in testimonydouble presumption of innocencemurderocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the respondent of murder charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the assessment of evidence in an appeal against acquittal, the effect of an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the reliability of eye-witness testimony containing material improvements and contradictions. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to a two-day unexplained delay in filing the F.I.R., major improvements and contradictions in the statements of ocular witnesses, lack of a post-mortem examination, and the absence of bullet marks on the deceased's clothes. Reaffirming that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and cannot be interfered with unless found to be capricious, perverse, or arbitrary, the Court dismissed the appeal in limine, upholding the respondent's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report renders the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Does the testimony of an eye-witness containing material improvements and contradictions remain reliable without corroboration?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • What is the evidentiary value of blood-stained clothes lacking bullet marks in the absence of a post-mortem examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Khan Floraid Company through owner vs Secretary Mines and Minerals Government of Balochistan and 2 others2018 YLR 718 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-02-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Khan Floraid Company through Owner vs Secretary Mines &2018 YLR 718, 2018 PLJ Quetta 136 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-02-16Read full judgment →
• Additional Chief Secretary (Development) and 2 others vs Messrs2018 MLD 1112 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar Siddique and another vs State and anotherPLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Quetta) 116 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-06-30
  circumstantial evidenceres gesteaextra-judicial confessionsudden provocationmurdersentence enhancementlast seen together
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 338 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of res gestea, and whether the sentence warranted enhancement to capital punishment. The Balochistan High Court held that the appellant's immediate disclosures to police and witnesses formed part of the same transaction under the doctrine of res gestea, and that the unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence—including the appellant's presence under the same roof, unexplained injuries on his own person, shifting defenses, and medical evidence—sufficiently established his guilt. However, noting extenuating circumstances regarding sudden provocation arising from a domestic altercation, the court held that capital punishment was not warranted. The appeal against conviction and the revision petition for enhancement of sentence were both dismissed, upholding the life imprisonment sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be legally sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone?
  • Under what circumstances is a statement made by an accused immediately after an occurrence admissible as res-gestea evidence?
  • Does the failure of an accused husband to explain the unnatural death of his wife under the same roof serve as strong corroborative evidence against him?
  • Whether sudden provocation arising from a domestic altercation constitutes a mitigating factor sufficient to preclude the imposition of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Baloch, J vs Raheem Khan and 12 others2018 YLR 1611 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-03-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad and 3 others vs The State and others2018 YLR 2053 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-01-31
  murderbenefit of doubteyewitness testimonycriminal appealmaterial contradictionsunnatural conductacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Quetta, which convicted the appellants under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance on eyewitness testimony. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, omissions, and improvements regarding weapon usage, the number of vehicles involved, and the timing of the incident. Furthermore, the court found the conduct of the eyewitnesses—who allegedly stood by while their brother was killed without intervening—to be unnatural. Emphasizing that the prosecution must establish a coherent chain of evidence, the court ruled that the defense had successfully created serious doubts. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, reiterating the established principle that if a single reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's case, the benefit must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of eyewitnesses to intervene when a close relative is being attacked render their testimony unreliable?
  • Are material contradictions and improvements in eyewitness statements sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the withholding of evidence by the prosecution attract the application of Article 29 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam and 3 others vs Ghulam Sarwar and another2018 KLR Civil Cases 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman alias Lalo and another vs Mst. Shani Qayyum and another2018 P Cr. L J 422 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-12
  criminal revisionjurisdictionAnti-Terrorism Courthonour killingtransfer of caseprivate motivesection 6 ATA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the order of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta, rejecting an application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for the transfer of a murder case involving honour killing to an ordinary criminal court. The core legal question was whether an offence of honour killing committed with a private motive falls within the definition of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 so as to be triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The Balochistan High Court allowed the petition, holding that a private offence such as honour killing committed in the privacy of a home, lacking any design, purpose, or effect of creating terror or insecurity in the public as contemplated under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, does not fall within the ambit of anti-terrorism legislation. The court laid down the principle that while determining jurisdiction, the motivation, object, design, and purpose behind the act must be examined, and relying on precedent, ruled that honour killing cases must be tried by ordinary courts of criminal jurisdiction rather than special anti-terrorism courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence of honour killing fall within the ambit of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What factors must be examined to determine whether a particular act constitutes terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a criminal case involving a private dispute or motive be tried by a Special Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • What is the proper forum for the trial of a murder committed in the name of honour without creating public terror or insecurity?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim and another vs Chief Secretary Balochistan and 2 others2018 PLJ Quetta 128 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I and another2018 MLD 706 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and others vs Ms. Mah Noor and others2018 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 69, 2018 PLD Balochistan 44 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-11-22
  guardianshipminor custodyvisitation rightswelfare of the minorfamily court jurisdictioninterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several constitutional petitions concerning the visitation and interim custody rights of a father regarding his minor daughter, following the dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in restricting the father's visitation rights to court premises and denying him overnight or extended interim custody. The High Court held that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in guardianship matters, necessitating a shift away from restrictive, court-based visitation. The Court emphasized that the father, as the natural guardian, has an inherent right to develop a bond with the child, which cannot be fostered in the sterile, non-conducive environment of a court office. Consequently, the Court set aside the restrictive orders of the lower courts and established a more flexible, home-based visitation schedule, allowing the father interim custody on specific days, including weekends and holidays, to ensure the minor's emotional and intellectual development. The principle laid down is that courts must exercise quasi-parental jurisdiction to facilitate a congenial, homely environment for parental visitation, prioritizing the minor's welfare over rigid procedural constraints.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right of a father to seek visitation with his minor child an inherent right under the law?
  • Should visitation between a minor and a parent be conducted within court premises?
  • What is the primary consideration for courts when determining interim custody and visitation schedules in guardianship matters?
  • Can a court exercise quasi-parental jurisdiction to modify visitation arrangements for the welfare of a minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq alias Abdullah vs Muhammad Naseem Achakzai2018 YLR 1157 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-21
  criminal acquittal appealcheatingdouble presumption of innocencebenefit of doubtmens reacivil liabilityappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Quetta, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of evidence or misapplied the law, thereby necessitating interference by the appellate court. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the four-year delay in lodging the FIR and the underlying civil nature of the transaction rendered the prosecution's case incredible. The judgment established that for the offence of cheating, dishonest intention (mens rea) must exist at the time of the initial inducement, which was not proven here. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that an acquittal creates a double presumption of innocence, and appellate courts should only interfere if the findings are perverse or arbitrary. The accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of four years in lodging an FIR regarding a transaction render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Is dishonest intention (mens rea) at the time of inducement a necessary ingredient for the offence of cheating?
  • Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does the benefit of doubt in a criminal case accrue to the accused as a matter of right or grace?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. 811, 2018 KLR Criminal Cases 105 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-12-22
  criminal breach of trustembezzlementutility storeaudit reportbenefit of doubtappellate reviewcorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for allegedly embezzling government money and utility store items while posted as Incharge of a Utility Store. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges of criminal breach of trust and corruption beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of contradictions in the audit reports and testimonies. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish criminal liability due to serious doubts arising from admissions made by prosecution witnesses during cross-examination and the proper reconciliation of stock positions. The court laid down the principle that when material admissions by prosecution witnesses contradict the allegation of shortage and render the case doubtful, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused and the conviction cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of embezzlement beyond a reasonable doubt when material contradictions exist in the testimony of prosecution witnesses?
  • Can a conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when the stock position and bank deposits are tallied and reconciled during cross-examination?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to properly inventory missing items during the breaking of store locks create a fatal doubt in the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hadi and 9 others vs Abdul Hanan and 17 others2018 CLC 263 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-08-31Read full judgment →
• Abbas Raza and others vs The State through Director General and others2019 KLR Criminal Cases 288, 2019 PLJ Quetta 11, 2018 MLD 2066 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-04-30Read full judgment →
• (Malik) Wali Muhammad, etc. vs Acisdm and Collector Saddar Sub-2018 [M] C.L.R.27, 2018 KLR Revenue Cases 28 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 222 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-21
  death sentenceanti-terrorismocular evidencedelayed statementdisclosure memomurder referencearson
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant against his conviction and death sentence passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Khuzdar, under Sections 302, 324, 436, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The prosecution case was that the appellant and his accomplices launched an armed attack, firing indiscriminately at a passenger wagon and shops, which resulted in a devastating fire that claimed seventeen lives. The High Court analyzed the ocular testimony of the driver and cleaner, who were natural and independent witnesses with no prior enmity or motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The Court also found that the delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was reasonably explained due to the witnesses being hospitalized or in shock. The Court held that a disclosure leading to the discovery of new facts, such as the identity of accomplices, is admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Finding no mitigating circumstances, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in recording a witness statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render the testimony inadmissible?
  • Is a disclosure made by an accused in police custody admissible if it leads to the discovery of new facts under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence justify the acquittal of an accused when the core ocular and circumstantial evidence is reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Zonal Manager, Canteen Store Department CSD, Quetta Cantt vs Abdul2017 [M] C.L.R. 1374 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zonal Manager Canteen Store Department, Quetta Cantt vs Abdul2017 CLC 1593 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-23Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs The Chairman Selection Committee/ Chairman2017 CLC 426 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-11-14Read full judgment →
• Yasin and 3 others vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1550 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-17
  criminal revisionocular evidencemedical evidenceconcurrent findingsrevisional jurisdictionappreciation of evidencehurt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts, which convicted the petitioners for causing injuries to two individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt, given the defense's claims of material contradictions and lack of corroboration. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent and forthright ocular testimony from the injured parties and eyewitnesses, which was corroborated by medical evidence. The Court affirmed the convictions, noting that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not undermine the credibility of the overall testimony. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under its limited revisional jurisdiction, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be patently illegal or based on a misreading of evidence. The principle laid down is that ocular testimony, when credible and supported by medical evidence, is sufficient to establish guilt, and minor contradictions in witness statements are insufficient to warrant setting aside concurrent findings of fact in revision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction if no patent illegality or misreading of evidence is demonstrated?
  • Is ocular testimony, when credible and supported by medical evidence, sufficient to establish guilt even if minor contradictions exist in witness statements?
  • Should medical evidence be prioritized over forthright and convincing ocular testimony when determining the guilt or innocence of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• World Trade Enterprises, Customs C&F Agents vs The Customs Appellate2017 PTD 1472, 2017 P.C.T.L.R. 627 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-04-29Read full judgment →
• World Trade Enterprises, Customs C&F Agents and others vs Customs2017 PTD 1472 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-04-29Read full judgment →
• Waqas Ali vs The State2017 YLR 878 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-11-28
  narcotics possessionchemical examiner reportprocedural lapsebenefit of doubtconscious possessionrepresentative sampleControl of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged transportation of narcotics. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt despite significant procedural lapses in the investigation and chemical analysis. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained, acquitting the appellant. The ratio dictates that where a harsher sentence is involved, stricter proof is required. The Court found that the prosecution failed to seal the contraband at the spot, delayed sending samples for analysis well beyond the 72-hour limit prescribed by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and submitted a defective chemical examiner's report lacking mandatory signatures and testing protocols. Additionally, the failure to draw representative samples from each individual packet, as required by established precedent, and the failure to prove the appellant's conscious possession of the contraband, created fatal doubts. Consequently, the benefit of the doubt was extended to the appellant, and the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to send narcotic samples to the chemical examiner within 72 hours, as required by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001, vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is a chemical examiner's report admissible as conclusive proof if it fails to mention the testing protocols and lacks the signatures of two authorized officers?
  • Must a representative sample be taken from each individual packet of recovered narcotics to sustain a conviction?
  • Does the mere presence of an individual in a vehicle containing concealed narcotics establish conscious possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Wall Muhammad vs Director General, National Accountability2017 YLR 1706 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-05-19Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta and another2017 PLD Balochistan 76 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-27Read full judgment →
• The State through Regional Director/Force Commander, Anti-Narcotic2017 P Cr. L J 1426 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-26
  narcotics traffickingacquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceconscious possessionbenefit of doubtburden of proofappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of two respondents by the Special Judge (CNS), Quetta, in a case involving the recovery of narcotics. The respondents were apprehended in a vehicle alongside the driver, who was convicted, while 102 packets of charas were recovered from secret cavities in the vehicle floor. The core legal question was whether the respondents, who claimed they were merely passengers given a lift, could be held criminally liable for the narcotics found in the vehicle, and whether the trial court's acquittal was justified. The High Court held that while the driver was rightly convicted as the custodian of the vehicle, the prosecution failed to prove that the respondents had conscious possession or control over the concealed narcotics. The court affirmed the acquittal, emphasizing that the presumption of possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the court reiterated that an acquittal order carries a double presumption of innocence, and appellate courts should not interfere unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or capricious.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory presumption of possession under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 absolve the prosecution of its duty to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Can a passenger in a vehicle be held liable for narcotics concealed in secret cavities without evidence of conscious possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain and others vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary Education Department and 2 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 1222 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-03
  leave encashmentaudit objectionservice mattersmaintainability of constitutional petitionalternate remedystatutory board employeesBalochistan Text Book Board Ordinance XI of 1977
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the Balochistan Text Book Board, challenged the recovery notices issued to them for refunding leave encashment amounts received for the calendar years 2012 to 2015 following an audit objection. The core legal question was whether the employees were legally entitled to leave encashment during active service under the applicable legal framework of the Board and whether the constitutional petition was maintainable in light of available departmental remedies. The Balochistan High Court held that in the absence of validly framed Board leave rules during the relevant period, the Revised Leave Rules for Civil Servants under Balochistan Government, 1978 applied, which permitted encashment only upon retirement. The Court further held that the impugned decisions of the Board's advisory body/directors granting the facility were without legal mandate and that the petitioners had an alternate remedy of departmental representation which they failed to exhaust. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as non-maintainable and devoid of merit. The key principle laid down is that statutory boards lacking specific internal leave rules must follow applicable government civil servant leave rules, and writ petitions in service matters are not maintainable when an adequate alternate departmental remedy exists.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of the Balochistan Text Book Board entitled to leave encashment during active service in the absence of specific board leave rules?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a service petition when an alternate departmental representation is available?
  • Whether the Board of Directors or Advisory Council possesses the power to frame rules without the authority and mandate prescribed under the Balochistan Text Book Board Ordinance XI of 1977?
  • Do the Revised Leave Rules for Civil Servants under Balochistan Government 1978 permit encashment of leave during service prior to superannuation?
  Read full judgment →
• Tania Naseer vs Muhammad Zubair and 2 others2017 YLR 1481 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-21Read full judgment →
• Tania Naseer vs Muhammad Zubair & others2017 YLR 1481, 2017 PLJ Quetta 50 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-21Read full judgment →
• State through Prosecutor General, Balochistan vs Abdul Nafay and another2017 PLJ Quetta 63 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Soba Khan and another vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 211 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-11-23
  life imprisonmentenhancement of sentenceinjured witness testimonyabscondencemitigating circumstancesubstitution theoryland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal filed by the convict challenging his conviction and life sentence under Section 302(b) PPC, alongside a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence to capital punishment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co-accused, attacked the deceased and an injured witness following an ongoing land dispute, causing fatal injuries. The Balochistan High Court evaluated the ocular evidence, injured witness testimony, medical reports, and the prolonged abscondence of the appellant for over three years. The Court held that the testimony of an injured eye-witness is reliable and carries strong evidentiary value. It further observed that close relatives would not normally substitute an innocent person for the real culprit, and abscondence without plausible explanation constitutes strong corroborative evidence of guilt. Finally, because multiple accused were involved and it could not be conclusively determined whose blow inflicted the fatal head injury, life imprisonment was deemed appropriate. Both the appeal and revision petition were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of an injured eye-witness can form the basis for conviction in a murder trial?
  • Whether prolonged abscondence by an accused soon after the crime serves as an incriminating piece of evidence?
  • Can the evidence of close relatives of the deceased be disregarded solely on the ground of their relationship?
  • Whether uncertainty as to which of multiple co-accused delivered the fatal blow constitutes a mitigating factor justifying life imprisonment instead of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed vs Abdul Jalil and others2017 CLC 347 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-11-08Read full judgment →
• Shakar Khan and 17 others vs The State2017 MLD 965 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-11-04
  pre-arrest bailad-interim bailbail cancellationprohibitory clauseulterior motivestentative assessmentmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 whereby the applicants sought pre-arrest bail in respect of a case registered under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicants had made out a case for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, considering the parameters and extraordinary nature of pre-arrest bail established by superior courts. The Balochistan High Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of mala fides or ulterior motives for arrest, particularly on the part of the police, and that reasonable grounds existed connecting the applicants to heinous offences falling within the prohibitory clause. The court recalled the ad-interim pre-arrest bail and dismissed the application, laying down that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a substitute for post-arrest bail and that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential conditions and parameters for the grant of pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the offence falls within the prohibitory clause and reasonable grounds connect the accused to the crime?
  • Is a detailed evaluation of evidence permissible at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • What is the effect of failing to allege specific mala fides or collusion on the part of the investigating agency in a pre-arrest bail petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Dada vs The State2017 MLD 288 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-09-08
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtrecovery proceedingsindependent witnesschemical examiner reportsampling procedurecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 3 kilograms of Charas. The core legal questions concerned the impact of failing to associate independent witnesses in a populated area, the consequences of inordinate delay in dispatching samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the validity of the sampling procedure employed by the police. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that while Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, excludes the mandatory application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the prosecution must still provide a plausible explanation for the absence of independent witnesses in populated areas. Furthermore, the Court established that an unexplained delay of over six months in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, violating the 72-hour requirement under Rule 4(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and the failure to draw separate samples from each packet, warrants acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 absolve the prosecution from explaining the absence of independent witnesses in populated areas?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained, inordinate delay in sending narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory?
  • Is it legally permissible to mix samples drawn from multiple packets of recovered narcotics into a single parcel for chemical analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Walt vs The State2017 YLR 428 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-09-28
  murder convictiondeath sentenceeyewitness testimonyinterested witnessabscondancecriminal appealappreciation of evidencechance witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Loralai, which convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced him to death. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony from related witnesses, the impact of alleged contradictions in evidence, the significance of the appellant's seven-month abscondance, and the effect of the prosecution's failure to establish a specific motive. The High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death sentence. The court held that the eyewitnesses, despite being related to the deceased, were natural witnesses whose presence was reasonably explained, thereby negating the 'chance witness' argument. It further established that minor contradictions do not invalidate credible testimony, that abscondance serves as a valid corroborative factor, and that the failure to prove motive is not fatal to the prosecution's case when other evidence is confidence-inspiring. The court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and no mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a lesser sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship between eyewitnesses and the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can the testimony of a 'chance witness' be accepted if their presence at the scene is reasonably explained?
  • Is the failure to prove a motive for murder fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused's abscondance be considered a corroborative factor in a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad and others vs The State and others2017 MLD 1407 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-21
  double murderocular evidenceinterested witnessesmitigating circumstancescapital punishmentcriminal appealextortion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dera Bugti, which convicted the appellants for double murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of ocular testimony provided by close relatives of the deceased, the impact of delayed FIR registration, and the effect of non-recovery of crime weapons on the prosecution's case. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal and the connected revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt through consistent and trustworthy evidence. It affirmed the principle that the testimony of close relatives is admissible and sufficient for conviction if it is straightforward, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that non-recovery of weapons does not exonerate an accused when other evidence is robust. Finally, the Court upheld the life imprisonment sentence, noting that the attribution of a collective role in the firing constituted a valid mitigating circumstance against imposing the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of close relatives of the deceased?
  • Does the non-recovery of the crime weapon automatically entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Is the attribution of a collective role in a firing incident a valid mitigating circumstance against the imposition of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Shadi Khan vs The State2017 YLR 983 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-11-23
  double murderretracted confessionpolice official witnessesconfessional statementanti-terrorismcriminal appealre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the double murder of his sister and her alleged paramour. The core legal questions involved the credibility of police official witnesses, the evidentiary value of a retracted confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a delay of twelve days, and the sufficiency of circumstantial and motive evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as the appellant was caught red-handed at the crime scene with the weapon, police officials are competent natural witnesses whose testimony requires no corroboration absent proof of ill-will, and a retracted confession remains admissible if proven voluntary and true. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can be discarded solely on the ground that no independent private witnesses were associated with the investigation?
  • Does the mere retraction of a confessional statement by an accused during trial destroy its evidentiary value?
  • Whether a delay in recording a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders it inadmissible per se?
  • Can a conviction be based solely on a retracted confessional statement if it is found to be voluntary and true?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 713 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-19
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencedying declarationinterested witnessesindependent corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when the ocular testimony of interested witnesses contradicts medical evidence and the alleged dying declaration. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to material contradictions: the medical evidence indicated the victim was unconscious upon hospital arrival, falsifying the alleged dying declaration, and the eye-witnesses' claims were inconsistent with the lack of injuries to them or damage to their vehicle despite close-range firing. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive or provide independent corroboration for the interested witnesses. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down is that when a motive is alleged by the prosecution, it must be proven; failure to do so, alongside significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, necessitates acquittal based on the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the victim's state of consciousness invalidate a dying declaration?
  • Must the prosecution prove an alleged motive for a crime if it has been explicitly stated in the FIR?
  • Is independent corroboration required for the testimony of interested witnesses in a murder case?
  • Does the failure to send crime empties to a firearm expert create a doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad and another vs The State and another2017 P Cr. L J 1391 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-02
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtocular testimonymedical evidenceinterested witnessesrecovery of weaponunnatural conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested on ocular testimony from three witnesses, all related to the deceased, and the recovery of a weapon. The Court found significant discrepancies between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence regarding the time of the incident and the number of bullet injuries sustained. Furthermore, the Court observed that the conduct of the witnesses—who allegedly stood by while an elderly man committed the murder—was unnatural and cast doubt on their presence at the scene. The Court also noted the lack of independent corroboration for the recovery of the weapon, citing non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries and time of occurrence create a reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration when their presence at the crime scene is doubtful?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of a crime weapon violate the requirements of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjid Ahmed and another vs National Accountability Bureau through itsK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 184 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-29Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Haider Tareen, PDSP, Quetta and 10 others vs The Provincial PoliceK.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 255 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-20Read full judgment →
• Sain Dad Khan vs General Manager HR and Admn. (NTDC) WAPDA, Lahore and 4 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 74 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-08-25
  service lawdate of birth correctionsuperannuationlachesfinality of service recordWAPDA employees
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns a dispute over the correction of a date of birth in the service record of an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The petitioner, having joined service in 1980, sought to alter his recorded date of birth from 1956 to 1961, relying on educational and other certificates, shortly before his superannuation. The core legal question was whether a civil servant could seek the alteration of their date of birth after decades of service, particularly when a previous departmental decision on the matter had attained finality. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the request was barred by laches and the principle of finality, as the petitioner had failed to challenge the 2009 departmental order declining the correction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that, under the relevant service rules, the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into service is final and cannot be altered after the prescribed time limits, discouraging attempts to prolong tenure near retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant seek alteration of their date of birth in the service record after decades of service?
  • Does a departmental order declining a request for date of birth correction attain finality if not challenged in a timely manner?
  • Is the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into government service considered final under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs Niamatullah and 2 others2017 PLJ Quetta 72 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-02-16Read full judgment →
• Saeedan Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 146 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-16
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlfurther inquiryrecovery of charascriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Saeedan Bibi, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after two kilograms of charas was allegedly recovered from her possession in a bus. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly given contentions of further inquiry arising from procedural lapses in the police investigation and the lack of physical custody requirement. The Balochistan High Court held that the case fell within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as a case of further inquiry, noting that the informant bus munshi was not cited as a witness, the bus ticket was not recovered, and the registration number was omitted from the FIR, alongside the finalized investigation and completed challan. The key principle laid down is that where material discrepancies and omissions exist in the prosecution's investigative steps regarding the recovery of narcotics, and investigation is complete, the case falls for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-inclusion of the bus munshi as a witness and omission of the bus registration number in the FIR makes a narcotics case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the completion of investigation and submission of challan justify the grant of post-arrest bail when the accused's physical custody is no longer required?
  • How does the quantity of contraband and expected quantum of punishment impact the consideration of bail in narcotics offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed and another vs Mst. Anwar Sultana and 4 others2017 MLD 1941 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sabir alias Sabir Hussain vs The State2017 YLR 1270 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-14
  rapecriminal appealmedical evidenceocular accountreasonable doubtpenetrationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the alleged rape of a minor. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the essential element of penetration. The trial court had convicted the appellant based on the victim's testimony. Upon review, the High Court found that the medical evidence, specifically the Lady Medical Officer's report, indicated the victim's hymen was intact and no signs of violence were present, directly contradicting the allegation of sexual intercourse. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential element of penetration, rendering the ocular testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the Court noted an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, which suggested deliberation and consultation. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that where medical evidence completely negates the ocular account in a rape case, the prosecution's case cannot be sustained beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is penetration an essential element to establish the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained when the medical evidence contradicts the ocular testimony of the victim?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR in a rape case create doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadullah vs The State2017 YLR 2434 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-05
  murder convictionlegal heircompromise deedoral marriageQisas and Diyatpolice witnessjudicial confessionSection 302 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the appellant’s sister. Following a Supreme Court remand, the trial court was tasked with determining whether the deceased’s alleged husband, Muhammad Fayyaz, was a legal heir, thereby affecting the validity of a compromise deed under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the deceased had contracted a valid oral marriage with Fayyaz, establishing him as a legal heir. Consequently, the compromise was deemed ineffective without his participation. On the merits, the Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution’s case was substantiated by consistent eyewitness testimony from police officials, the recovery of the crime weapon, and a voluntary judicial confession. The Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses and that their testimony, when corroborated, is sufficient for conviction. The principle established is that an oral marriage is valid under Islamic law, and a compromise in a murder case is incomplete without the participation of all legal heirs, including the spouse.

  Questions settled

  • Can an oral marriage be recognized as valid for the purpose of establishing legal heirship in a criminal compromise?
  • Is a compromise in a murder case effective if it excludes a legal heir such as a spouse?
  • Are police officials considered competent and natural witnesses in a murder case occurring in their presence?
  • Does the retraction of a judicial confession automatically render it inadmissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Rossmere International Ltd. through Authorized Representative vs Sea2017 PLD Balochistan 29 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• Regional Election Commissioner, Naseerabad at Dera Murad Jamali vs Tariq Magsi2017 P Cr. L J 1446 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-21
  acquittalforged degreenomination papersdouble presumption of innocenceelection complaintbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhal Magsi, which acquitted the respondent of charges under the Representation of the People Act, 1976, and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, concerning the submission of allegedly forged educational degrees with his nomination papers. The appellant, the Regional Election Commissioner, contended that there was sufficient evidence of forgery and that the trial court failed to consider the bogus nature of the certificates. The High Court observed that the complainant failed to specifically identify which degree was forged and failed to produce any witness or representative from the relevant educational boards or university to prove the forgery. The Court held that under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the prosecution is legally obligated to prove the genuineness or falsity of documents through proper legal procedures rather than mere allegations. Affirming the acquittal, the Court reiterated that an acquittal creates a double presumption of innocence which cannot be interfered with unless the trial court's findings are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted of submitting forged educational documents solely on the basis of a complaint without producing witnesses from the issuing educational institution?
  • What is the standard of review applied by an appellate court when considering an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does the double presumption of innocence prevent interference with an acquittal unless the trial court's judgment is proved to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajab Ali vs Hayatullah Khan and 6 others2017 PLD Balochistan 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-12-30Read full judgment →
• Rahim Muhammad alias Rohi Muhammad vs Syed Noor Sitar2017 PLJ Quetta 104 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
• Rahim Muhammad alias Rohi Muhammad vs Syed Noor Shah2017 MLD 2106 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and others vs Govt. of Balochistan through Chief Secretary2017 PLJ Quetta 87 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and 4 others vs Government of Balochistan through its Chief2017 [M] C.L.R. 603 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and 4 others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2017 PLJ Quetta 87, 2017 PLC (C.S.) 1273 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-13
  constitutional jurisdictionservice matterterms and conditions of servicewrit petitionregularizationcivil servantbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by 199 Assistant Lecturers seeking to challenge a government notification that regularized their services as Secondary School Teachers (SST) instead of Lecturers (B-17) and adjusted them in the school branch rather than the college branch. The petitioners argued that their initial induction under the Aghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan package entitled them to be accommodated as Lecturers in colleges. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, citing the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, arguing that the matter pertained to the terms and conditions of service. The Court held that the petitioners, being civil servants, had an alternate remedy available before the Service Tribunal. It determined that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, even where allegations of discrimination or hardship are raised. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction, emphasizing that policy decisions regarding the regularization and nomenclature of posts cannot be challenged via writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging the terms and conditions of service of civil servants in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a policy decision regarding the regularization and nomenclature of government posts be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the plea of hardship or discrimination?
  • Is the Service Tribunal the appropriate forum for a civil servant to challenge the regularization of their services and their subsequent posting?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali and anothers vs The State2017 MLD 737 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-14
  post-arrest bailcounterfeit currencyforged currency notesprohibitory clausetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 489-B, 489-C, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code relating to the alleged recovery of forged foreign currency. The core legal question was whether the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warranting the withholding of bail. The Balochistan High Court held that the case primarily involved possession of counterfeit currency attracting section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, the punishment for which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the completion of investigation rendered further incarceration unnecessary. The court laid down the principle that offenses under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code not falling within the prohibitory clause generally entitle the accused to post-arrest bail when further investigation is not required, with tentative observations not prejudicing the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether possession of forged currency notes prima facie falls under section 489-B or section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code for the purpose of bail?
  • Does an offense under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Principal, Bolan Medical College, Quetta vs Dr. Sharbat Khan and 42017 YLR 372 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-08-26Read full judgment →
• Pervez Zaki vs The State through National Accountability Bureau, Balochistan, Quetta2017 P Cr. L J 747 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-11-28
  pre-arrest bailpecuniary jurisdictionNational Accountability Bureaucorruption referencestandard operating procedureexpeditious trialconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought pre-arrest bail for the petitioner in a corruption reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The core legal questions concerned the scope of NAB’s pecuniary jurisdiction and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the completion of the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail, noting that the investigation was complete and the accused was no longer required for custodial purposes. The Court established that NAB’s power to initiate references is not absolute or arbitrary; it must focus on corruption of large magnitude. The Court emphasized that NAB should adhere to its Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), which generally limits its cognizance to cases involving amounts exceeding 100 million rupees. Petty corruption cases should be referred to appropriate agencies like the Federal Investigation Agency or Anti-Corruption Establishment. The Court further observed that the indiscriminate pursuit of minor cases by NAB undermines its primary objective of eradicating large-scale corruption and burdens the judicial system, violating principles of fair and expeditious trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Accountability Bureau have absolute discretion to initiate references regardless of the amount involved?
  • Are petty corruption cases involving amounts below the threshold set in the NAB Standard Operating Procedure triable by the National Accountability Bureau?
  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the investigation is complete and the reference has been filed?
  • Can the High Court review the legality of the Chairman NAB's decision to initiate a reference?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. through its2017 [M] C.L.R. 1367 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State2017 PLD Balochistan 52 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-15
  customs actliquor recoverychemical examiner reportrepresentative samplereduction of sentencecontraband analysiscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 156(1) and Section 156 clause 8 II(C) read with Section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969, arising from the recovery of a large quantity of foreign liquor and beer from a vessel. The core legal question was whether the conviction and sentence could be sustained for the entire bulk quantity of contraband when only a few representative samples were sent for and verified by chemical analysis, rather than testing every container. The Balochistan High Court held that in the absence of chemical examination reports for the entire recovered mass, conviction and sentence can only be legally based on the exact quantity of the substance that was chemically tested with a positive result. Relying on established precedent regarding representative sampling, the Court upheld the conviction on merits but substantially reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted for the entire bulk of recovered contraband when only a fraction of it was sent for chemical analysis?
  • Is it mandatory to take separate samples from every individual container or packet of recovered contraband for chemical examination?
  • Can a conviction under the Customs Act, 1969 be maintained while reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone based on unexamined bulk quantities?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Sajjad Akhtar and 3 others2017 PLD Balochistan 96 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-12Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and others vs The State and others2017 P Cr. L J 479 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-08
  benefit of doubtretracted confessionsupplementary statementforensic evidencecriminal appealwitness credibilityimprovement in testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by two convicts against their conviction and sentence for murder, alongside a criminal revision petition for sentence enhancement and an acquittal appeal against a co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons and the appellants were later nominated in a supplementary statement. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case, noting that the complainant’s supplementary statement constituted a dishonest improvement, rendering the testimony unreliable. Furthermore, the Court found the retracted judicial confessions lacked corroboration, and the forensic report contradicted the recovery of the alleged crime weapon, as the empties did not match the pistol. The Court established the principle that where a witness makes deliberate and dishonest improvements to their version of events, their credibility is destroyed. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of doubt, and dismissed the connected petitions for enhancement and acquittal appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on a retracted judicial confession that lacks independent corroboration?
  • Is a supplementary statement naming accused persons admissible when the original FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the complainant has taken a U-turn?
  • Does the recovery of a weapon at the instance of an accused hold evidentiary value if the forensic report confirms the weapon was not used in the commission of the crime?
  • What is the legal effect of a witness making deliberate and dishonest improvements to their statement during the course of an investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed and another-,---Petitioners vs Deputy Commissioner,K.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 277, 2017 MLD 1660 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed and another vs Deputy Commissioner, Kharan and 3 othersK.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 277 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali vs The State2017 YLR 1652 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-25
  criminal revisionattempted robberyappreciation of evidencesentence reductionconcurrent sentenceseyewitness testimonyrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against the concurrent judgments of the trial court and appellate court whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 392 read with Section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for attempting to commit robbery. The core legal question concerns the legality and propriety of the concurrent convictions based on eye-witness testimony and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent and confidence-inspiring testimonies of the victims and eyewitnesses, along with corroborating recovery evidence, proving the petitioner's apprehension at the spot beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence, reducing the term of rigorous imprisonment and the fine, while maintaining the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and ordering concurrent execution with another sentence. The key principle laid down is that where eyewitness testimony and recovery evidence remain unshaken through cross-examination and establish guilt, conviction is sustained, though appellate courts retain the discretion to mitigate sentences if deemed disproportionately harsh.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by the trial and appellate courts regarding guilt can be interfered with in criminal revision when supported by confidence-inspiring eyewitness testimony?
  • Does the apprehension of an accused at the spot by victims during an attempted robbery sufficiently establish the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence of imprisonment and fine while upholding the underlying conviction under Section 392 read with Section 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Khan vs Tariq Khan and 6 others2017 YLR 658 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-10-31
  cancellation of bailbailprohibitory clausemisuse of bailanti-terrorismdiscretionary powermiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to private respondents by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Loralai, in a case involving offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the bail order was patently illegal or erroneous, warranting cancellation under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the bail should not be cancelled. The court emphasized that the cancellation of bail is a distinct exercise from the grant of bail and is not punitive in nature. The court established that for bail to be cancelled, there must be strong and exceptional grounds, such as the misuse of the concession of bail, threats to the complainant, or a patently illegal order resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Since the trial was in progress and no such grounds were demonstrated, the court declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an offense falls within the prohibitory clause automatically necessitate the cancellation of bail?
  • What are the essential grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
  • Is the power to cancel bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 punitive in nature?
  • Should a High Court interfere with a bail order while the trial is in progress in the absence of evidence of misuse of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Ahmed vs Syed Israr Haider Rizvi and 2 others2017 YLR 589 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-08-26Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs Chairman Balochistan Public Service Commission Koyla2017 PLJ Quetta 114 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed vs Khair Bibi and 3 othersK.L.R. 2017 Criminal Cases 129 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-10Read full judgment →
• Naseebullah vs Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Quetta and another2017 PLD Balochistan 37 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Naseebullah Khan vs Abdus Samee Babar2017 [M] C.L.R. 1350 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-06-22Read full judgment →
• Naimatullah and anothers vs The State2017 MLD 1097 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-02-07
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsborderline casefurther inquirycharasheroinControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application was filed by two applicants charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of 1200 grams of charas, 100 grams of heroin, 30 grams of cocaine, and 10 grams of opium from their garage. The applicants contended that the case was one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., arguing that the recovery marginally exceeded the limit for Section 9(b) and fell into a 'borderline' category. The High Court observed that while deeper appreciation of evidence is not permitted at the bail stage, the total quantity of 1340 grams of narcotics placed the matter in the borderline between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9. Citing established judicial precedent, the Court held that where recoveries range between 900 to 1500 grams, the benefit of the borderline distinction is typically extended to the accused. Finding that investigation was complete and no further detention was required, the Court admitted the applicants to bail, emphasizing that such borderline cases warrant further inquiry into the ultimate sentence and guilt.

  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Sher Tareen vs Beenish Ali and others2017 PLJ Quetta 58 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-14Read full judgment →
• Naeem Sher Tareen vs Beenish Ali and 4 others2017 PLJ Quetta 58, 2017 CLC 1170 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-14Read full judgment →
• Nabi Dad and another vs The State2017 MLD 1204 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-04
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryalibitentative assessmentmalicious prosecutiontribal enmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition before the Balochistan High Court wherein the applicants sought confirmation of their pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the applicants had made out a case for pre-arrest bail, particularly in view of their plea of alibi supported by court security records showing their presence in the High Court premises far from the scene of the crime at the time of the alleged incident, coupled with previous tribal enmity and lack of specific attribution in the FIR. The court held that the applicants successfully established a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principles laid down include the criteria for granting pre-arrest bail as an extraordinary remedy, the evaluation of alibi and presence in court records during tentative assessment at the bail stage, and the principle that observations made in bail orders are strictly tentative and shall not influence the trial court's independent appraisal of evidence on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person can directly approach the High Court for pre-arrest bail without first approaching the Court of Session?
  • Does the presence of the accused in the High Court premises at the time of the alleged crime constitute a ground for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the framework and guidelines governing the exercise of jurisdiction by High Courts and Courts of Session in granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can observations made by a superior court while deciding a bail application influence the trial court during the subsequent trial?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sino Pak Minerals, Private Limited, Islamabad through Law2017 PLJ Quetta 12 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Najeebullah vs The State2017 MLD 1508 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-17
  drugs actplea of guiltquantum of sentencejuvenile offenderappeal against sentencemedical store without licensereduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Drugs Court Balochistan Quetta, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 23(1)(c) of the Drugs Act, 1976 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months with a fine. The core legal question concerned the quantum of sentence and whether leniency should be shown given the appellant's status as a juvenile and a student who had pleaded guilty. The High Court held that while an accused who pleads guilty has no right of appeal against conviction under Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 except as to the legality or severity of the sentence, the appellant's juvenile status, student background, voluntary confession, and the nature of the recovered medicines warranted a reduction in sentence. The court laid down the principle that courts should take a lenient view regarding the sentence of a juvenile offender who voluntarily confesses guilt and places himself at the mercy of the court, reducing the substantive imprisonment to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused who pleads guilty to a charge have the right to appeal against their conviction under Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an appellate court reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone in the case of a juvenile offender who pleaded guilty?
  • Whether running a medical store without a drug sale license attracts conviction under the Drugs Act 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hassan vs Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan and 3 othersK.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 321, 2017 PLC (C.S.) 81 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-08-25
  recruitment processadministrative discretionvested rightsconstitutional petitionmerit-based appointmentjudicial reviewpublic interestservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the proposed cancellation of a recruitment process for ministerial staff in Balochistan colleges. The petitioner sought the announcement of results for tests and interviews conducted by a legally constituted Recruitment Committee, which the Education Department intended to nullify due to administrative delays. The core legal question was whether the government could arbitrarily cancel a transparent, merit-based selection process after candidates had already incurred expenses and a vested right had accrued. The Court held that the recruitment process was valid, transparent, and free from irregularity. It ruled that the proposal to cancel the process was arbitrary, lacked plausible justification, and contradicted a prior Cabinet decision to proceed with the existing results. The Court emphasized that administrative discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and within the parameters of law. It held that public authorities cannot exercise discretion at their whim to the detriment of citizens' rights. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to finalize the appointments based on the existing merit list, underscoring the State's obligation to uphold fundamental rights and avoid unnecessary financial loss to the national exchequer.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department cancel a completed, transparent recruitment process merely due to administrative delays?
  • Does a candidate recommended for appointment by a legally constituted committee acquire a vested right that cannot be arbitrarily snatched away?
  • Is the exercise of administrative discretion in cancelling a recruitment process subject to judicial review?
  • Are government authorities bound to follow a Cabinet decision regarding the continuation of a recruitment process?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State2017 MLD 1471 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-04-25
  Control of Narcotic Substances ActGovernment Analyst reportChemical Examiner reportprotocols and testsadmissibility of evidencestrict proofacquittalSection 9(c)
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Balochistan High Court assailed the judgment dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Special Judge CNS, Quetta, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine for alleged possession of 90 kilograms of raw charas.

  The core legal question was whether chemical expert reports that fail to detail the necessary protocols and tests applied, and lack the mandatory signatures required under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, constitute valid and admissible evidence under Section 36 of the Act.

  The High Court held that strict compliance with procedural rules is mandatory due to the severe punishments provided under the Act. The Chemical Examiner's reports failed to mention the protocols or tests applied and lacked the prescribed dual signatures. Consequently, the reports could not serve as conclusive proof. The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Chemical Analyst report admissible as conclusive proof under Section 36 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, if it fails to specify the tests applied and protocols followed?
  • Can a party challenge the validity of a Chemical Examiner's report during appeal if it was not disputed during the trial?
  • Does Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, shift the burden of proof to the accused before the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar and others vs Hamid Hamza and 4 others2017 CLC 699 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-12-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar and another vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1009 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-03-13
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecommon intentiontentative assessmentmurderattempted murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, Muhammad Umar and Ghulam Siddique, who are accused in a criminal case involving charges of murder and attempted murder arising from a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail despite being implicated in a prompt FIR and by injured witnesses, where the alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. The Court held that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the record is permissible. It observed that the applicants were specifically implicated in the FIR and by injured witnesses, and that the collective nature of the attack, involving multiple armed participants, precluded isolating individual roles at this stage. Consequently, the Court found the applicants prima facie connected to the offence, which falls within the prohibitory clause of the law, and dismissed the bail application. The judgment reaffirms the principle that bail stage observations are tentative and must not influence the trial court's independent appraisal of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court can conduct a deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
  • Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, automatically disentitle an accused to bail?
  • Are observations made by the High Court in bail orders binding on the trial court during the final adjudication of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and others vs Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-II2017 PLJ Quetta 94 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and 3 others vs Chugair and 3 others2017 [M] C.L.R. 763 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others--Petitioners vs Chugair and others2017 PLD Balochistan 61, 2017 PLJ Quetta 110 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others vs Chugair and 3 others2017 PLD Balochistan 61 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Additional Sessions Judge, Chaman and 2 others2017 [M] C.L.R. 613 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and others vs Additional Sessions Judge, Chaman2017 PLJ Quetta 41, 2017 P Cr. L J 1155 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-04-17
  registration of FIRcognizable offenceJustice of Peacepreliminary inquirymandate of section 154 Cr.P.C.constitutional petitionmurder investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions assailing an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge acting as Justice of Peace, whereby an application under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the registration of an FIR regarding the alleged murder of the petitioners' relative was dismissed. The core legal question was whether a police officer or Levies official can conduct a preliminary inquiry to determine the truth or falsehood of a complaint before registering an FIR for a cognizable offence, and what the proper scope of powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is under section 22-A. The court held that upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, the officer in charge of a police station or Levies Thana is statutorily bound under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register an FIR immediately without holding any preliminary inquiry into its veracity. The Justice of Peace erred by refusing relief based on a preliminary police report. The petitions were accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the concerned authority was directed to register the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an officer in charge of a police station or Levies Thana is legally bound to register an FIR immediately upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence?
  • Can a police officer or Levies authority conduct a preliminary inquiry to assess the truth or falsity of an allegation before recording an FIR?
  • What is the extent and scope of jurisdiction that can be validly exercised by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have the authority to declare accusations false and refuse the registration of an FIR based on a police inquiry report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and another vs Additional Sessions Judge, Chaman2017 PLJ Quetta 41 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Jan and 3 others vs The Government of Balochistan through its Chief Secretary, Quetta2017 PLC (C.S.) 1471, 2018 PLJ Quetta 150, K.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 266 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-11
  regularization of servicescontract employeesfundamental rightsdiscriminationconstitutional petitionZakat and Ushr Departmentpublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the regularization of contract employees serving as Junior Auditors in the Zakat and Ushr Department, Balochistan. The petitioners, having served for over a decade, challenged the government's decision to re-advertise their positions for fresh recruitment despite the creation of additional posts specifically intended for their accommodation. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were appointed through a valid selection process and whose roles were permanent in nature, were entitled to regularization, particularly given the government's practice of regularizing similarly situated employees in other departments. The Court allowed the petition, holding that the nature of the petitioners' jobs was permanent and that their long-term service, coupled with the absence of misconduct, warranted regularization. The Court emphasized that discriminating against these employees while regularizing others violated Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The key principle laid down is that the state cannot arbitrarily deny regularization to long-term contract employees when their services are essential, they were initially appointed through proper codal formalities, and their exclusion constitutes discriminatory treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Can contract employees who have served for a long duration in posts of a permanent nature claim a right to regularization?
  • Does the failure of the government to regularize specific employees while regularizing employees in other departments constitute discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the re-advertisement of posts for fresh recruitment lawful when existing contract employees were appointed through a valid selection process and the posts are permanent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jan and 3 others vs The Government of BalochistanK.L.R. 2017 Civil Cases 266, 2018 PLJ Quetta 150, 2017 PLC (C.S.) 1471 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 832 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-01-02
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtineffective firingacquittalappreciation of evidenceFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an incident where he was accused of ineffective firing during a violent altercation. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in witness testimony, the lack of recovery of the weapon, and the delayed registration of the FIR. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charges, noting that the appellant was not attributed with causing any injury or death, and the allegations of ineffective firing lacked credibility. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the prosecution failed to recover the alleged weapon or connect the appellant to the motive. Consequently, the court set aside the trial court's judgment, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case to the hilt. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to provide consistent, corroborated evidence and leaves significant doubts regarding the accused's involvement, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, resulting in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to recover the alleged weapon of offense entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses provide inconsistent testimony regarding the specific role of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove the motive or premeditation attributed to them?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The Secretary, Government of Balochistan2017 PLC (C.S.) 275 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-10-25
  constitutional petitionlachesservice matterdecease quotaappointmentvested rightsdelay
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking appointment as a Levies Sepoy on the ground of his father's death during service in 1996, claiming a preferential right over the private respondent who was appointed in 1998. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 18 years could be entertained to dislodge an appointment that had long taken legal effect and created vested rights. The Balochistan High Court held that the petition suffered from gross laches, as no plausible explanation for the 18-year delay was provided, and the private respondent had served for nearly two decades, creating closed and protected legal rights in his favor. The court laid down the principle that the equitable bar of laches operates strictly in service matters where unexplained delays occur, and an order taking legal effect and creating rights in favor of an individual cannot be rescinded or undone to their detriment after a lapse of many years.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition filed after an inordinate delay of 18 years in a service matter is barred by laches?
  • Can an appointment order that has taken legal effect and created vested rights in favor of an individual be withdrawn after a lapse of many years?
  • Does the equitable bar of laches apply to constitutional petitions when no satisfactory explanation for delay is provided?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim and another vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 409 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-10-19
  narcotic possessionconscious possessionbenefit of doubtrecovery witnesschemical analysis reportcriminal appealindependent corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 40 kilograms of Charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established conscious and exclusive possession of the narcotics by the appellants, who were passengers on a bus, and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It found that the recovery was not established as being in the conscious possession of the appellants, noting the absence of independent witnesses, the failure to record statements of the driver or passengers, and the lack of documentary evidence linking the appellants to the bags. Furthermore, the Court highlighted a fatal discrepancy in the chemical analysis report, which indicated samples were sent for analysis prior to the date of recovery. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, affirming the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of any doubt arising from prosecution discrepancies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of a passenger in a vehicle constitute conscious possession of narcotics recovered from that vehicle?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained when the chemical analysis report indicates samples were sent for testing prior to the date of the alleged recovery?
  • Is it fatal to the prosecution's case if the investigating officer fails to associate independent witnesses, such as the driver or passengers, during a recovery from a public transport vehicle?
  • Does the failure of a recovery witness to identify the accused at trial create sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal?
  Read full judgment →