Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 4,353 judgments in total from the Balochistan High Court.

• Muhammad Aalam vs Mehmood Khan and another2016 P Cr. L J 1877 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-27
  Illegal Dispossession ActLandlord and tenantCoram non judiceCivil litigationAgricultural landSpecific performanceRevenue court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an interim order passed by the Sessions Judge, Usta Muhammad, under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which restrained the petitioner from cultivating disputed agricultural land. The core legal question was whether a dispute between a landlord and a tenant, where civil litigation regarding title is already pending, falls within the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Court held that the proceedings were coram non judice. It ruled that the Act is designed to protect lawful owners from professional land grabbers and is not a substitute for civil or revenue litigation between landlords and tenants. Since the complainant admitted the petitioner was a tenant, the petitioner was a lawful occupant, not a land grabber. Furthermore, the existence of pending civil litigation regarding the land's title precluded the invocation of the Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and quashed the proceedings initiated under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, emphasizing that such disputes must be resolved by courts of competent jurisdiction, such as revenue or civil courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be invoked when civil litigation regarding the title of the property is already pending?
  • Does a dispute between a landlord and a tenant regarding the possession of agricultural land fall within the purview of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Is the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 applicable to a person who entered into possession of land lawfully as a tenant or lessee?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhabbatullah vs The State2016 PLD Balochistan 97 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-04-20
  concurrent jurisdictiontransfer of casetrial by magistratecourt of sessionmisappropriationquashing of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate forwarding a case file to the District and Sessions Judge for announcement of judgment after concluding a trial under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate, having concurrent jurisdiction and having conducted a trial by recording evidence, is competent to forward the case file to the Court of Session prior to pronouncing judgment, and whether the Magistrate can conclusively determine the guilt and propose a sentence. The court held that while a Magistrate is fully empowered under Section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to transmit a case to the Court of Session at any stage before signing the judgment if it ought to be tried there, the Magistrate cannot dictate findings of guilt or propose a specific quantum of sentence to the Sessions Judge. The petition was dismissed with directions that the Sessions Judge must form an independent opinion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate send a case to the Court of Session after recording evidence during a trial where the Magistrate has concurrent jurisdiction?
  • Is a Magistrate competent to propose a quantum of sentence or conclusively determine the guilt of an accused when transferring a case file to the Court of Session?
  • What are the powers of a Magistrate under Section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the commencement of a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shagufta vs The Chairman Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad, Etc2016 NLR Service 14 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Agro Chemicals through authorized dealer and another vs Government of Pakistan through Collector Customs House and 2 others2016 PTD 582 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-10-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Best Oasis Ltd. vs Messrs S.Q. Corporation through Proprietor2016 PLD Balochistan 26 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-12-18Read full judgment →
• Juma Gul vs Gul Bibi and others2016 C.L.R. 134 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-07-06Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah and 2 others vs Government of Balochistan through Senior2016 YLR 1385 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-01-25Read full judgment →
• Ikhtiar Khan vs Muhammad Hassan and 3 others-2016 YLR 2691 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24
  acquittalforged power of attorneyprivate complaintbar of cognizancemanipulation of documentscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal order passed by the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in a private complaint involving forgery and cheating offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether a private litigant could independently file a criminal complaint regarding forged documents that were produced or relied upon in pending judicial proceedings, in view of the bar contained in Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 imposes a clear statutory impediment, prohibiting courts from taking cognizance of specified offences relating to documents given in evidence in court proceedings except upon a written complaint by the concerned court or public servant. The High Court affirmed that a private complaint is not maintainable when the alleged forged documents form part of judicial proceedings, thereby upholding the acquittal and dismissing the appeal in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a private litigant file a criminal complaint for forgery of documents that were produced or relied upon in judicial proceedings without a written complaint from the concerned court?
  • Does Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 bar a court from taking cognizance of offences relating to documents given in evidence except upon a complaint by the court itself?
  • What are the mandatory conditions for the applicability of Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding offences committed in respect of a document produced in court proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Bakhsh and 2 others vs Mir Nasrullah Khan2016 CLC 1936 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-25
  defamationdamagesmalicious prosecutionjurisdiction of civil courtlaw of tortspress conferencemental agony
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Dera Allah Yar, dismissing the appellants' suit for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 10,000,000 for alleged defamation, malicious prosecution, and mental torture caused by a press conference and a fake application. The core legal questions involved whether the ordinary civil court retains jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages for defamation under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 despite the enactment of the Defamation Ordinance 2002, and whether the appellants successfully proved their claims of defamation, malicious prosecution, and holding of a press conference. The Balochistan High Court held that the Defamation Ordinance 2002 does not contain an express or implied ouster clause barring the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts, thereby allowing a litigant to choose between statutory remedies under the Ordinance or ordinary civil jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. However, the court upheld the dismissal of the suit on merits, ruling that the appellants failed to establish that the respondent moved the fake application, held the alleged press conference, or suffered proven injury to reputation and mental agony.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Defamation Ordinance 2002 bar the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts to entertain suits for damages for defamation under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a plaintiff opt to file a suit for general damages under the law of torts and Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 instead of invoking the Defamation Ordinance 2002?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to be established by a plaintiff for a claim of damages based on malicious prosecution?
  • Does hearsay evidence regarding the holding of a press conference suffice to prove defamation in a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited through President and 2 others vs Aziz Ullah Laghari2016 PLC 237 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-01-19
  departmental inquirycriminal acquittalmisconductlabour court jurisdictionreinstatementindependent proceedingsmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which reinstated a bank employee following his acquittal in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether an acquittal in criminal proceedings automatically exonerates an employee from departmental misconduct charges arising from the same transaction. The High Court held that criminal and departmental proceedings are distinct and independent, governed by different standards of evidence and procedures. Consequently, an acquittal in a criminal court does not ipso facto extinguish charges of misconduct in departmental proceedings, nor does it grant a clean certificate to the employee. The court ruled that the lower forums erred by relying solely on the criminal acquittal to set aside the departmental punishment without evaluating the validity of the inquiry proceedings themselves. The High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case to the Labour Court with directions to determine the validity of the departmental inquiry and the resulting punishment on their own merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically exonerate an employee from departmental misconduct charges?
  • Can departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution for the same act proceed simultaneously?
  • Is a Labour Court required to independently assess the validity of a departmental inquiry despite a criminal acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Baran vs Umer Khan and another2016 P Cr. L J 1454 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-05-31
  criminal acquittal appealcommon intentionSection 34 PPCmere presenceovert actmurderbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the trial court's judgment which acquitted the respondent, Umer Khan, of charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while convicting a co-accused for the murder of Sher Zaman. The appellant contended that the trial court misread the evidence and misinterpreted the application of common intention under Section 34, arguing that the respondent's presence with the main accused established his participation. The core legal question was whether the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without evidence of an overt act or prior planning, is sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court correctly acquitted the respondent. The Court affirmed the principle that mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient to attract Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. To establish common intention, there must be proof of a prior meeting of minds, premeditation, or an overt act by the accused in furtherance of the crime, none of which were present in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the absence of an overt act or motive preclude the application of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an acquittal be set aside where there is no evidence of premeditation or planning between the accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa, Etc. vs Evacuee Trust Property Board, Etc.2016 NLR Service 152 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-08-13
  constitutional petitionservice tribunal jurisdictiondeputationterms and conditions of servicerepatriationillegal appointmentdisciplinary action
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, regular employees in the Revenue Department, challenged the transfer and posting of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as Tehsildars, arguing their initial appointments in the Evacuee Trust Property Board were illegal and that their deputation violated rules. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of the constitutional petition before the High Court regarding terms and conditions of service in light of the Service Tribunals Act, and the legality of the deputation and appointments. The Balochistan High Court held that the petition was not maintainable as the matter pertained to the terms and conditions of service and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The Court further directed that the deputation period of the private respondents shall not be extended, that they must be repatriated to their parent department, and that the parent department must initiate disciplinary action against them and the persons responsible for their irregular appointments and deputation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a constitutional petition regarding the transfer and posting of civil servants on deputation lie before the High Court or the Service Tribunal?
  • Whether matters pertaining to terms and conditions of service of civil servants are barred from High Court jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • What action is required when the deputation period of a government employee expires without extension?
  • Can the parent department take disciplinary action against a civil servant on deputation whose initial appointment is alleged to be bogus?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Din alias Fatoo vs The State2016 YLR 2781 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-18
  qatl-i-amdta'zirdiyatmitigating factorcompromisedeath sentencelife imprisonmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the offense of qatl-i-amd. The core legal question was whether a compromise entered into between the appellant and the legal heirs of the deceased, where the death sentence was awarded as ta'zir, could serve as a mitigating factor to reduce the sentence from death to life imprisonment, particularly when the payment of diyat to minor heirs remained unresolved. The Court held that the compromise, even if not fully executed regarding minor heirs, constitutes a valid mitigating factor. Consequently, the Court altered the sentence of death to life imprisonment, imposing a fine under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established the principle that in cases where a death sentence is awarded as ta'zir, a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased is a significant mitigating factor justifying the reduction of the sentence to life imprisonment, while leaving the specific determination of diyat payments for minor heirs to the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased in a case of qatl-i-amd serve as a mitigating factor to reduce a death sentence awarded as ta'zir?
  • Does the failure to pay diyat to minor legal heirs automatically invalidate a compromise for the purpose of sentencing mitigation?
  • Is a trial court empowered to determine the payment of diyat to minor heirs after the appellate court has altered the sentence based on a compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Bolan Mining Enterprises throughSite Incharge--- vs Ghous Baksh and 2 others2016 PLD Balochistan 81 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-04-18Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar Ali and another vs The State2016 YLR 2536 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-12-02
  Qatl-i-amdQisas and DiyatTa'zirsentencing discretionmitigating circumstancesremand of casecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the validity of a trial court judgment convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal question addressed by the Balochistan High Court concerned the proper interpretation and distinction between Qatl-i-amd liable to Qisas and punishment as Ta'zir under Sections 302 and 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as well as the requirement to record reasons under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when awarding a lesser sentence than death. The High Court held that the trial court committed a misconception of law by reasoning that Qisas could not be enforced simply because the strict proof requirements of Section 304 were absent, while failing to record mitigating circumstances for awarding life imprisonment instead of the normal sentence of death under Section 302(b). The appellate court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court for rewriting the judgment in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the strict proof requirements of Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply when an accused is convicted and punished under Section 302(b) as Ta'zir?
  • What is the normal sentence for committing Qatl-i-amd as Ta'zir under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a trial court obligated to record reasons and mitigating circumstances under Section 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when awarding life imprisonment instead of death for Qatl-i-amd?
  • Does the absence of proof under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude a conviction for Qatl-i-amd under Section 302(b)?
  Read full judgment →
• Badost vs The State2016 KLR Criminal Cases 48 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-20
  post-arrest bailjudicial confessionretracted confessiontentative assessmentanti-terrorismcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from FIR No. 28 of 2014, involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Explosive Substances Act, and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, following a violent incident in Kharan resulting in the death of a levies personnel. The applicant sought post-arrest bail after the trial court dismissed his initial application. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite a judicial confession and circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, noting that the judicial confession, even if retracted, could be considered at the bail stage for a tentative assessment of the prosecution's case. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court affirmed that incriminating evidence, including a confessional statement, provided sufficient grounds to connect the accused to the offence, thereby precluding the grant of bail. The court emphasized that the validity of a retracted confession is a matter for trial and not to be determined during bail proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession be considered by the court at the bail stage?
  • Does the existence of a judicial confession constitute sufficient incriminating evidence to deny bail?
  • Should a criminal bail application be dismissed for non-prosecution if the applicant's counsel fails to appear?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzaib vs Division Superintendent Pakistan Railways and 3 others2016 PLC (C.S.) 1314 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24
  service mattercivil servantpromotion quotaconstitutional jurisdictionmaintainabilityPakistan RailwaysService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by employees of Pakistan Railways challenging the promotion orders of two other employees, alleging that the promotions violated the prescribed quota policy. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate this service-related dispute, or if such matters were exclusively reserved for the Service Tribunal under the constitutional framework. The Court held that employees of Pakistan Railways are civil servants engaged in the service of Pakistan, and disputes concerning their terms and conditions of service, including promotion, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable due to the express bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for service matters where statutory remedies are available. The petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies under the relevant service laws.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of Pakistan Railways considered civil servants for the purposes of service laws?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters regarding promotion quotas?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from hearing service-related disputes?
  • Is a dispute regarding promotion to a higher grade a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• and Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, JDr. Asadullah Khan Tareen vs Government of Balochistan Health Department and another2016 PLC (C.S.) 195 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-16
  service tribunalexecution of judgmentwrit of mandamusconstitutional jurisdictioncivil servantterms and conditions of serviceseparation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the provincial government to implement a judgment passed by the Balochistan Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for the execution of a Service Tribunal's order, or whether the Tribunal itself possesses the inherent power to execute its own judgments. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable because the Service Tribunal, being a civil court under Section 5(2) of the Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974, possesses the inherent, plenary power to execute its own orders and initiate contempt proceedings, similar to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not be converted into an executing court for Service Tribunal orders. It further directed the provincial government to consider legislative amendments to explicitly empower the Tribunal, while affirming that the Tribunal already holds such authority by implication of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to execute a judgment passed by a Service Tribunal?
  • Does a Service Tribunal possess the inherent power to execute its own judgments and orders under the Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974?
  • Is a Service Tribunal considered a civil court for the purpose of executing its own orders?
  • Can a High Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel the implementation of a Service Tribunal's order?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs Secretary, Religious Affairs and Inter-Faith HarmonyK.L.R. 2016 Civil Cases 150 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Khan vs Superintendent Central Jail, Mach and 2 others2016 MLD 1012 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-03-07Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Muhammad vs Assistant Commissioner Killa Abdullah and 32016 P Cr. LJ 865 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-01-14
  re-investigationtransfer of investigationEx-officio Justice of the PeaceBalochistan Levies ActCode of Criminal Proceduremala fide investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge acting as an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace, whereby a request to transfer the investigation of a criminal case from the Levies to the Crimes Branch was declined on the ground that Section 10 of the Balochistan Levies Act, 2010 barred such transfer without prior recourse to specific administrative authorities and precluded the direct invocation of Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question concerned whether an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace can direct a re-investigation and change of the investigating officer under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in cases governed by the Balochistan Levies Act, 2010 after a challan has been submitted and trial has commenced. The Balochistan High Court held that Section 10 of the Balochistan Levies Act, 2010 does not bar the powers of an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that police or investigating agencies are not legally barred from conducting a fresh investigation or re-investigation even after the submission of a final report. The court laid down the principle that an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace, not being a judicial officer who has taken cognizance, may order a re-investigation with a change of the investigating officer in appropriate cases of flawed or mala fide investigations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 10 of the Balochistan Levies Act, 2010 places a bar on the powers of an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can an order for re-investigation and change of the investigating officer be made after a police report has been submitted and the trial has commenced?
  • Does an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace have the authority to direct the transfer of an investigation from the Levies to the Crimes Branch?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Jan and another vs Bibi Almas Bano and 8 others2016 CLC 1465 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-02-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Zahir vs Khuda-E-Dad and others2016 YLR 188 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-10-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Zahir Khan Achakzai vs District and Sessions Judge, Quetta_Returning Officer through Chairman and 2 others2016 PLD Balochistan 32 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State2016 MLD 2064 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24
  circumstantial evidencedeath penaltylife imprisonmentextra-judicial confessionmitigating circumstancessudden provocationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the appellant's wife. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession, recovery of the body from the appellant's house, and the appellant's unexplained abscondance. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction and the appropriateness of the death penalty. The High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt through an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. However, the Court modified the conviction to Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, noting the possibility of sudden provocation. Emphasizing that judicial caution must be exercised in sentencing, the Court ruled that where mitigating circumstances exist or doubt arises regarding the necessity of the death penalty, life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence. Consequently, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
  • Is the death penalty the mandatory or normal penalty for a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the existence of mitigating circumstances or sudden provocation justify commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State2016 PLD Balochistan 102 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-03-02
  double jeopardyautrefois convictspurious drugssubsequent prosecutionDrugs Courtcriminal appealmerits of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted and sentenced by a Judicial Magistrate under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code for dealing in fake, unregistered, and spurious drugs. Subsequently, the Drugs Court for Balochistan also tried and convicted the appellant under sections of the Drugs Act based on the same transaction and allegations. The appellant challenged the judgment of the Drugs Court before the Balochistan High Court, raising the plea of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution, section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and section 26 of the General Clauses Act. The core legal question was whether a person convicted under one enactment can be subsequently prosecuted and punished by another court under a different enactment for the same act or omission. The High Court held that once an accused has been tried and convicted by a competent court for an act constituting an offence, a subsequent trial and conviction for the same offence under a different enactment is barred by constitutional and statutory protections against double jeopardy. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Drugs Court was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution solely due to the appellant's absconsion after it has been admitted for regular hearing?
  • Does the conviction of an accused by a Judicial Magistrate under the Pakistan Penal Code bar a subsequent trial and conviction by a Drugs Court for the same transaction under the Drugs Act?
  • What are the essential conditions to be satisfied to claim the benefit of protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether prosecution and punishment under two different enactments for the same act or omission violates the principle against double punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Mandokhel and 2 others vs Chairman, Balochistan Public2016 PLC (C.S.) 1184 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-05-23
  constitutional petitionBalochistan Public Service Commissioncancellation of examinationdepartmental examinationnatural justiceaudi alteram partemterms and conditions of serviceouster of jurisdictionre-evaluation of answer sheetsunfair means
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by candidates challenging the decision of the Balochistan Public Service Commission (BPSC) to cancel and reschedule the 'Revenue Law-II' departmental examination for Assistant Commissioners/Tehsildars. The cancellation was based on an internal inquiry report that re-evaluated only 10% of randomly selected answer sheets and presumed cheating solely from the correctness of answers matching the textbook, without any complaints, invigilator reports, or hearing given to the candidates. The High Court rejected the preliminary objection under Article 212 of the Constitution, holding that BPSC was not a departmental authority passing a final service order. On the merits, the Court accepted the petition and declared the cancellation illegal and void. The Court held that domestic bodies cannot penalize candidates on mere suspicion or conjectures without concrete legal proof. Furthermore, the action violated the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem), provisions of the Manual of Recruitment, and the rule that statutory powers must be executed strictly in the prescribed manner under Article 4 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar a High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 against decisions or actions of the Balochistan Public Service Commission?
  • Can a public service commission cancel an entire examination paper on presumptive findings of cheating based solely on a random re-evaluation of only 10% of answer sheets?
  • Can adverse administrative decisions canceling examinations be taken against candidates without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing under the principles of natural justice?
  • Does Section 20 of the Balochistan General Clauses Act, 1956 confer power on a Public Service Commission Chairman to unilaterally re-evaluate answer sheets and cancel an examination in the absence of explicit statutory authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs The State2016 YLR 1418 · Balochistan High Court · 2016-01-04
  plea of alibibenefit of doubtmurderocular testimonyinterested witnessescriminal appealsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 2013 and Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2013 arising from a murder and assault case. The appellant, Abdul Haleem, challenged his conviction and sentence under sections 302(b), 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question involved the reliability of interested ocular testimony, the corroborative value of delayed forensic reports, and the substantiation of the appellant's special plea of alibi. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution evidence suffered from material infirmities, lack of independent corroboration, and unexplained delays in dispatching crime empties to the forensic laboratory. Furthermore, the appellant successfully established his plea of alibi through consistent oral and documentary evidence, including police station roznamcha records and hospital registers, while evidence also pointed toward possible false implication due to prior animosity with the local police SHO. The court laid down the principle that an established plea of alibi, supported by contemporaneous official records and corroborated by defense witnesses, creates sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal, thereby setting aside the conviction, extending the benefit of the doubt, and dismissing the revision for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an established plea of alibi supported by contemporaneous official records is sufficient to create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Does an unexplained inordinate delay in dispatching crime empties and weapons to the forensic science laboratory destroy the evidentiary value of expert reports?
  • Can the conviction be sustained on the basis of testimony from related and interested witnesses when independent corroboration is lacking?
  • Whether prior animosity between an accused and the local investigating police officer raises a strong probability of false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem and another vs The State and 2 others2016 P Cr. L J 482 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-11-02
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailsuccessive bail applicationsfurther inquirybailable offencemiscarriage of justicecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against the appellate court's order setting aside the post-arrest bail granted to the petitioners by the Judicial Magistrate. The core legal questions involve the validity of cancelling bail under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the maintainability of successive bail applications on fresh grounds, and whether the alleged injuries fell within a bailable category. The Balochistan High Court held that bail once granted cannot be cancelled without strong, cogent, and convincing grounds, that successive bail applications on fresh grounds are permissible, and that offences punishable under section 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are bailable in nature. The court laid down the principle that the power to cancel bail is not punitive, that each criminal case must be decided on its own merits, and that pre-trial incarceration should not be used as punishment, thereby setting aside the appellate court's order and restoring the bail granted by the Judicial Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail once granted can be cancelled without strong, cogent, and convincing grounds?
  • Does the law of bail impose an embargo on filing successive bail applications on fresh grounds?
  • Is an offence punishable under section 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable in nature?
  • Whether the provision of section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is punitive in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari Khadim vs Government of Balochistan2016 PLC (C.S.) 177 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-08-15
  constitutional petitiondepartmental appealservice tribunallimitationretiree benefitssalary arrears
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court by a retired civil servant seeking a direction to the competent authority to decide his pending departmental appeal regarding salary, perks, and reimbursements, thereby enabling him to approach The Balochistan Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition could be entertained to direct a departmental authority to decide a pending appeal when the limitation period for approaching the Service Tribunal had ostensibly lapsed. The Court held that since the only effective relief sought was a direction for the disposal of the pending departmental appeal, it was unnecessary to delve into the merits or determine the limitation question regarding the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the competent authority to decide the petitioner's pending appeal within one month. The key principle laid down is that a High Court may issue a direction to a departmental authority to decide a pending departmental appeal without entering into the merits or the question of limitation concerning subsequent remedies before a service tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable to seek a direction for the decision of a pending departmental appeal?
  • Can a High Court direct a departmental authority to decide a pending appeal without resolving the question of limitation for filing a service appeal?
  • Does the failure to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal within the stipulated period bar a constitutional direction for the disposal of a departmental representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulikha Bibi vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and another2015 YLR 1584 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-04
  Constitutional PetitionLocal Government ElectionDisqualificationQuo WarrantoZakat Committee ChairmanService of Statutory BodyLachesMala FideEligibility Criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition challenged the eligibility of an elected member of the Municipal Committee, Gaddani, on the grounds that he was a Government Contractor and Chairman of a Local Zakat Committee, allegedly violating Section 24(f)(g) of the Balochistan Local Government Act, 2010. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the writ petition concerning mala fide intention and laches, and whether holding the office of Chairman Zakat Committee constituted being 'in the service' of a statutory body, thus disqualifying the respondent. The Balochistan High Court held that the petition was maintainable, clarifying that in quo warranto petitions, the message overrides the messenger's conduct, and laches does not apply as the cause of action is recurring. The Court further ruled that the Chairman of a District Zakat Committee is deemed to be in the service of a statutory body controlled by the Provincial Government. As the respondent held this office at the time of his election, he was disqualified under Section 24(f) of the Act, 2010. Consequently, the notification declaring the respondent as a returned candidate was set aside.

  Read full judgment →
• Zia Ur Rehman vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 1502 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-25
  double jeopardyautrefois acquitacquittalremandanti-terrorismcriminal appealfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Khuzdar, following a remand of the case. The core legal question is whether the subsequent trial and conviction of the appellant for the same offence, after his initial acquittal had attained finality through a high court order maintaining it, violates the constitutional and statutory protection against double jeopardy. The Balochistan High Court held that since the appellant's acquittal in the first round of proceedings was expressly maintained by the High Court and had attained finality, any subsequent trial, conviction, and sentencing of the appellant for the exact same offense violated the doctrine of double jeopardy, Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established that a person whose acquittal has reached finality cannot be retried or punished again for the same offense, setting aside the impugned conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does retrying and convicting an accused person for the same offense after their previous acquittal has been maintained by a higher court violate the protection against double jeopardy?
  • Whether Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a fresh prosecution and conviction when a prior acquittal has attained finality?
  • What is the legal effect of a remand order on an accused whose acquittal was expressly maintained by the appellate court during earlier proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed vs Muhammad Alam and 2 others2015 YLR 503 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-10Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and others vs The State and another2015 YLR 2622 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-08-15
  circumstantial evidencedelayed FIRbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionchain of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for the murder of the deceased under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established guilt through circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitnesses. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate, unexplained delay of four days, which cast serious doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and unbroken; here, the chain was fragmented, and the motive remained unproven. The Court also noted discrepancies in witness statements and the lack of incriminating evidence connecting the appellants to the crime. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement, ruling that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal in a murder case?
  • What is the legal requirement for a chain of circumstantial evidence to sustain a criminal conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence when the prosecution fails to establish a motive?
  • Is medical evidence alone sufficient to sustain a conviction when it conflicts with ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs Messrs Parazelsus Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief2015 PLC 220 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-03
  grievance noticelabor courtindustrial relationstermination of servicemaintainabilityworkmanconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner against the concurrent judgments of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, whereby his grievance application under section 41 of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2008 was dismissed. The petitioner had challenged his termination from service after a series of transfers and redesignations across various corporate entities allegedly governed by the same parent company. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the mandatory pre-requisite of serving a grievance notice under section 41 of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2008 could be fulfilled by sending a legal notice through a legal practitioner instead of the worker bringing the grievance to the employer himself or through authorized statutory agencies like a Shop Steward or Trade Union. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the word 'himself' in the statute precludes the involvement of an advocate or outside agency at the pre-litigation grievance notice stage, thereby rendering the application not maintainable. The key principle laid down is that a grievance notice under industrial labor legislation must be served strictly in accordance with the mode prescribed by the statute, excluding legal practitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Can a worker serve a mandatory pre-litigation grievance notice through a legal practitioner under section 41 of the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2008?
  • Does the term 'himself' in industrial labor law provisions regarding grievance notices exclude representation by an advocate?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to serve a proper grievance notice upon the employer before filing a labor application?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Regional Director Anti-Narcotics Force, Quetta vs Abdul2015 YLR 568 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-09-23
  cancellation of bailpre-arrest bailnarcotics controlevidentiary value of disclosuremala fidesfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Special Court (CNS) in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 87 kg of heroin. The core legal question was whether the trial court's order granting pre-arrest bail was perverse or legally unsustainable, thereby warranting cancellation. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the trial court's order was perverse, against established bail principles, or that the accused was tampering with evidence. The Court noted that the disclosure statement made by the co-accused was not substantive evidence for bail purposes and that the respondent had provided documentation indicating he was abroad at the time of the alleged offense. The Court reaffirmed the principle that bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment and that, despite statutory bars in narcotics cases, courts retain discretion to grant bail in appropriate circumstances where the case requires further inquiry and the prosecution fails to establish compelling grounds for cancellation.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be cancelled solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused?
  • Does the statutory bar on bail in narcotics cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 absolutely preclude the grant of bail?
  • What are the essential grounds required for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail once it has been granted by a trial court?
  • Is a disclosure statement made by a co-accused admissible as evidence for the purpose of cancelling bail?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Public ProsecutorATA Quetta vs Abdul Hameed and 22015 YLR 1197 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-03
  acquittal appealabduction for ransomdelay in FIRsine die adjournmentcivil dispute given criminal hueanti-terrorism trialnon-appearance of witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-II, Quetta, whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 365-A, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court rightly acquitted the accused under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the non-appearance of material prosecution witnesses who had permanently shifted abroad, and the transformation of a civil property dispute into a criminal abduction case. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court's acquittal was justified as the prosecution case was highly doubtful, fraught with material contradictions, and lacked any probability of conviction, and that a criminal trial cannot be kept pending sine die contrary to section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court laid down the principle that courts can exercise powers under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent prolonged futile trials when there is no probability of conviction, and that criminal proceedings cannot be adjourned indefinitely to procure absent witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can keep a criminal case pending sine die for an indefinite period to procure the attendance of prosecution witnesses?
  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the examination of material witnesses when there is no probability of conviction?
  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Whether an order of acquittal carrying a double presumption of innocence can be interfered with when it is neither arbitrary nor contrary to the record?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General vs Muhammad Kaleem Bhatti2015 YLR 2214 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-29Read full judgment →
• The Bank of Punjab vs Khan Muhammad & 5 Others2015 NLR Civil 423 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-12-19Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain vs Sarfaraz Ahmed & 4 others2015 PLJ Quetta 20 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-06-10Read full judgment →
• Talal Haleem and 3 others vs Principal Bolan Medical College, Quetta2015 PLD Balochistan 97 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Imdad Shah vs Secretary, Forest and Wildlife Department, Government of Balochistan and 2 others2015 YLR 318 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Fateh Agha vs Accountability Court and 2 others2015 YLR 2235 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-06-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Bibi vs Naib Tehsildar Levies Bostan and 10 others2015 P Cr. L J 1777 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-08-20
  custodial deathsecond FIRcounter-versioncognizable offencefair investigationSection 22-A Cr.P.C.constitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the rejection of an application under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought the registration of an FIR against Levies personnel for the custodial death of the petitioner's son. The initial FIR alleged the deceased died during an armed encounter. However, the petitioner contended the deceased died due to torture while in custody, citing medical evidence of blunt force trauma inconsistent with the prosecution's version. The core legal question was whether a second FIR is permissible when a counter-version discloses a distinct cognizable offense. The Court held that where a counter-version presents a separate, distinct cognizable offense, the law does not bar the registration of a second FIR. Emphasizing the need for fair investigation and the unexplained medical findings, the Court set aside the impugned order, directed the registration of the FIR against the accused personnel, and ordered the investigation to be transferred to the Crimes Branch. The Court further mandated that both cases be tried simultaneously to ensure a just adjudication of the conflicting versions.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a statutory bar to the registration of a second FIR when a counter-version discloses a distinct and separate cognizable offence?
  • Can a High Court direct the registration of an FIR under its constitutional jurisdiction when a Justice of Peace has failed to exercise jurisdiction properly?
  • Should a trial be suspended pending the investigation of a cross-version FIR involving the same incident?
  Read full judgment →
• State through DPG vs Muhammad Rafique through Naib TehsildariPLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Quetta) 662 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-11-28
  criminal acquittal appealjurisdiction of magistratespeaking ordercoram non judiceArms Ordinancetrial by Sessions Courtnon-application of judicial mind
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate, who had acquitted the respondent in a case involving the recovery of a Kalashnikov, an offence under Section 13-E of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question was whether the Judicial Magistrate had the jurisdiction to try the offence and whether the acquittal order was legally sustainable. The High Court held that the offence involving a Kalashnikov falls under the proviso to Section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, rendering it exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. Consequently, the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction, and the proceedings were coram non judice. Furthermore, the Court found the acquittal order to be a non-speaking, perfunctory order lacking judicial reasoning. The Court established the principle that when an offence exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions is connected to or part of a charge sheet alongside offences triable by a Magistrate, the entire matter must be tried by the Court of Sessions. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for transmission to the Sessions Court for de novo trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Judicial Magistrate have jurisdiction to try an offence under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 involving a Kalashnikov?
  • When multiple offences are charged together, one triable by a Magistrate and another exclusively by a Court of Sessions, which court has jurisdiction to try the entire case?
  • Is an acquittal order passed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 valid if it fails to provide reasons or discuss the prosecution's case?
  • What is the duty of a Magistrate when receiving a challan for an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail vs Mst. Nazia Amin and 3 others2015 CLC 1374 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24Read full judgment →
• Sohail Haider and another vs The State2015 YLR 366 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-12-15
  criminal appealanti-terrorismcommon intentionrecovery of weaponsdisclosure memoidentification parademedical evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences passed by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism, Khuzdar, for murder and causing injuries during an incident at a petrol pump. The appellants were convicted under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution had established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the admissibility of disclosure memos and weapon recoveries, and the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the case through consistent eyewitness testimony, medical evidence differentiating the nature of injuries caused by the respective weapons used by the appellants, and the recovery of crime weapons based on the appellants' disclosure. The Court affirmed that the discovery of facts leading to the recovery of weapons from the accused in custody is admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court upheld the conviction, ruling that the incident created a sense of fear and insecurity, justifying the Anti-Terrorism Court's jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is the discovery of a fact based on information provided by an accused in police custody admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the commission of a murder in a public place causing fear and insecurity fall within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can a conviction be sustained where the medical evidence corroborates the specific roles and weapons attributed to each accused by eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahab-Ud-Din and 9 others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and 2 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 22 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24
  public service commissionclosing dateconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitystatutory functionmandatory time limit
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court by ten petitioners seeking a direction against the Balochistan Public Service Commission to extend the closing date for submission of applications for the posts of Pharmacists/Drug Analysts and Drug Inspectors advertised in March 2014, as their final professional examination results were announced after the original closing date. The core legal question was whether the fixing of a closing date for job applications by a public service commission is a mandatory statutory function and whether candidates have an enforceable right to seek an extension due to delayed academic results. The Court held that fixing the schedule and closing date for applications is a valid statutory function of the Commission falling within the realm of policy, and failure by private candidates to submit applications within the specified time is fatal to their claim. The Court laid down the principle that statutory deadlines for private individuals to claim rights are mandatory, and constitutional petitions are not maintainable against such administrative policy decisions in the absence of any statutory violation or malice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the fixing of a closing date for submission of applications by the Public Service Commission is a mandatory statutory function?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against the refusal of a Public Service Commission to extend the last date for submitting job applications?
  • Does failure by a candidate to submit an application within the specified time prove fatal to their claim for public employment?
  • Is the fixation of an application schedule by the Public Service Commission considered a matter of policy having statutory backing?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and 3 others vs Abdul Samad and 6 others2015 C.L.R. 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-27Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan vs Muhammad Noor and another2015 P Cr. L J 1482 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-06-29
  acquittal appealmurderunnatural conductdelayed FIRjoint propertyrecovery of weaponbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal arose from a trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of the charge of murdering his father. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular account of the deceased's other two sons, the recovery of a weapon on the respondent's pointation, and a prior statement of one of the sons. The High Court examined the admissibility of the disclosure and pointation under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, noting that the place of incident was already known to the police, thus excluding it from the scope of Article 40. The Court also found that the statement of the witness lacked evidentiary value due to the absence of notice under Section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Crucially, the Court observed that the eyewitnesses' conduct was highly unnatural as they remained silent for eleven months after the incident and stood to inherit the deceased's substantial land holdings upon the respondent's exclusion. Consequently, the High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no perversity in the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can information leading to the discovery of a place already known to the police be admitted under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if no notice was given to the accused?
  • Does the unnatural conduct of close relatives remaining silent for eleven months after a murder affect the credibility of their ocular account?
  • Can a potential financial or property motive for false implication by prosecution witnesses justify the grant of the benefit of doubt to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State through Prosecutor-General2015 P Cr. L J 382 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-25
  dishonestly receiving stolen propertycriminal revisionburden of proofstolen propertyhearsay evidencepossession of stolen propertyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted the petitioner under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonestly retaining a stolen motorcycle. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the essential ingredients of the offence, specifically that the property was indeed "stolen property" and that the petitioner possessed it with the requisite dishonest knowledge. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the motorcycle was stolen, relying merely on inadmissible hearsay information from the Citizen Police Liaison Committee rather than documentary evidence. Furthermore, the court emphasized that possession alone does not constitute an offence under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court ruled that the prosecution must prove the stolen status of the property and the accused's knowledge thereof. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing that without proof of the property's stolen nature and the accused's dishonest intent, a conviction cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere possession of a motorcycle constitute an offence under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of dishonest intent?
  • Is hearsay information regarding the status of property sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Must the prosecution prove that property is 'stolen property' as defined in Section 410 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before a conviction under Section 411 can be recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad and 6 others vs Arz Muhammad and 9 others2015 PLD Balochistan 135 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-04-24Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Shalkot, Quetta and another2015 MLD 1151 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-13Read full judgment →
• Saeed Azam vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 62 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-09-10
  substitution of accusednarcotics recoverybenefit of doubtdelayed chemical analysishostile witnessesNADRA verificationcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to life imprisonment for the alleged recovery of 220 kgs of white powder from a Suzuki van. The core legal questions involved the identity of the accused, the possibility of substitution of the real culprit by the police, the reliability of the recovery evidence, and the unexplained delay in sending samples for chemical analysis. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, establishing instead that the police had mala fide let the real accused go and wrongfully substituted the appellant, whose identity was verified through genuine NADRA records. The Court ruled that grave doubts arising from accused substitution, hostile prosecution witnesses, lack of independent corroboration, and delayed sample transmission must be resolved in favor of the accused, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the substitution of an accused person by the police vitiates the entire prosecution case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples for chemical analysis create a fatal loophole in the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when prosecution witnesses turn hostile and fail to support the recovery?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to connect the accused with the vehicle carrying contraband warrants an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabzal and 9 others vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector and 2 others2015 CLC 97 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-10-30Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Hidayatullah and 9 others vs Syed Bahauddin and another2015 MLD 1468 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-06-04Read full judgment →
• Rozi Khan vs Muhammad Asif and another2015 P Cr. L J 465 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-30
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtmedical jurisprudenceocular evidencedouble presumption of innocencecommon intentionlacerated vs incised wounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondent, Muhammad Asif, of charges under sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, while convicting his co-accused. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misreading or non-reading of evidence, specifically regarding the ocular testimony of the complainant versus the medical evidence. The High Court found a significant contradiction: the prosecution alleged the respondent caused injuries with a knife, but the medical evidence described the wounds as lacerated, which are typically caused by blunt objects, not sharp instruments. The Court held that this discrepancy created sufficient doubt regarding the respondent's involvement. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that an acquittal judgment carries a double presumption of innocence, and appellate courts should not interfere unless the verdict is perverse, artificial, or based on a misreading of evidence. Finding no such error, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution's case is inconsistent with medical findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal judgment carry a double presumption of innocence in the Pakistani criminal justice system?
  • Can a court interfere with an acquittal verdict if the prosecution's ocular testimony contradicts the medical evidence?
  • Is the principle of 'Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus' recognized in the Pakistani criminal legal system?
  • What are the specific criteria for an appellate court to set aside a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ahmad Baloch vs Arshad Khan and 2 others2015 PLD Balochistan 41 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-09-29Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 1163 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-04-02
  juvenile justicemurder convictioneyewitness testimonycriminal appeallife imprisonmentbusiness rivalryheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Rehmatullah, for the murder of Akhtar Muhammad under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on the appellant, who had been declared a juvenile. The Balochistan High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, finding that the prosecution had successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and proof of motive arising from business rivalry. The Court rejected the appellant's plea that the sentence was harsh, holding that while the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 is intended to provide care and reform for juvenile offenders, it cannot be utilized as a mechanism to evade justice for heinous crimes such as murder. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the life imprisonment sentence, ruling that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and properly balanced the appellant's juvenile status against the gravity of the offense.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 be used to evade justice for heinous crimes?
  • Is eyewitness testimony sufficient for a murder conviction when corroborated by medical evidence and motive?
  • Does the status of a juvenile offender automatically mitigate the sentence for a heinous offense like murder?
  • Is a disclosure statement leading to the discovery of new facts admissible in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Quetta Metropolitan Corporation throughAdministrator, Quetta and 22015 YLR 2106 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-27Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs Saeed Ahmed Qureshi2015 YLR 89 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-29
  restoration of appealdismissal for non-prosecutionlimitation periodcondonation of delayeasement rightscivil appealsufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenged the dismissal of an application for the restoration of an appeal, which had previously been dismissed for non-prosecution by the appellate court. The appellant sought restoration, citing medical grounds for his absence, but failed to produce supporting documentation. The core legal question was whether the restoration application was time-barred and if the appellant established sufficient cause for the delay. The High Court held that the application was time-barred, as it was filed four months after the dismissal, exceeding the thirty-day limitation period prescribed by Article 168 of the Limitation Act 1908. Furthermore, the appellant failed to file an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, nor did he provide a plausible explanation for the delay. The court affirmed that discretionary relief for restoration is reserved for vigilant parties who respect court orders. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that when an application is filed out of time, the party must explain each day of delay to prevent the accrual of rights in favor of the opposing party.

  Questions settled

  • What is the limitation period for filing an application for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Is an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 mandatory when a restoration application is filed beyond the prescribed period?
  • Must a party seeking restoration of an appeal provide an explanation for each day of delay when the application is time-barred?
  • Can discretionary relief for the restoration of an appeal be granted to a party who has not been vigilant in pursuing the case?
  Read full judgment →
• PWD Employees' Union, Balochistan through Vice-President and others2015 PLC (C.S.) 1182 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-11-10
  public employmentmerit-based recruitmentconstitutional petitionequal protection of lawjudicial reviewcivil service rulesnon-discriminationdelegated legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses constitutional petitions challenging the validity of Rules 12 and 12-A of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009. These rules permitted the appointment of spouses or children of deceased or retired civil servants to government posts without open advertisement. The core legal question was whether such preferential treatment for relatives of civil servants violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The Balochistan High Court held that the impugned rules were unconstitutional and ultra vires. The Court reasoned that while reasonable classification is permissible, it must possess a rational nexus with the object of the legislation, which in public employment is the selection of the most meritorious candidates. The Court established that reserving government posts for relatives of civil servants creates an arbitrary, hereditary-like system that violates Articles 25, 27, and 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the Court affirmed that public employment must be based on merit and transparent open competition, rejecting the notion that government jobs are a hereditary bounty or that such preferential classification is constitutionally permissible.

  Questions settled

  • Does the reservation of government posts for the children or spouses of deceased or retired civil servants violate the constitutional right to equality?
  • Can a rule providing for non-competitive appointment of relatives of civil servants be struck down as ultra vires to the Constitution?
  • Is the principle of open advertisement a mandatory requirement for public employment under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the judiciary have the power to strike down delegated legislation that infringes upon fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Obaidullah vs The State2015 MLD 1105 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-27
  illegal arms possessionrecovery witnessSection 103 CrPCballistic reportCIA investigationcriminal appealbenefit of doubtprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for illegal possession of a firearm. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the investigation conducted by CIA personnel, the failure to associate independent witnesses as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the lack of forensic verification of the recovered weapon. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the requirement to associate private witnesses is mandatory, and the failure to seal the weapon or submit it for ballistic analysis created significant evidentiary gaps. Furthermore, while acknowledging that CIA personnel lack statutory authority to investigate cognizable offenses under Section 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the court noted that such procedural irregularities might not always vitiate a trial under Section 156(2) unless prejudice is shown. However, given the cumulative discrepancies and lack of credible evidence, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Is the association of private witnesses as Mashirs mandatory under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to send a recovered weapon for forensic and ballistic analysis create a doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Do CIA personnel possess the statutory authority to investigate cognizable offenses under Section 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial be vitiated by procedural irregularities in investigation under Section 156(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if no prejudice is caused to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Noorullah and others vs Additional District and Sessions Judge and others2015 P Cr. L J 1509 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-25
  Justice of the Peaceex-officio Justice of the Peaceinherent powersconstitutional petitionadministrative ordercriminal proceduremaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of constitutional petitions challenging orders passed by Sessions/Additional Sessions Judges acting as ex-officio Justices of the Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether such orders, being administrative or executive in nature, are amenable to the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or whether they must be challenged via constitutional jurisdiction. The Court, relying on the principle that functions performed by a Justice of the Peace are administrative and ministerial rather than judicial, held that such orders are not assailable under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court determined that the appropriate remedy to challenge an order passed by an ex-officio Justice of the Peace is by way of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The judgment affirms that these orders lack the judicial character required to invoke the High Court's inherent criminal jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Are the functions performed by an ex-officio Justice of the Peace under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 judicial or administrative in nature?
  • Is an order passed by an ex-officio Justice of the Peace assailable under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 the appropriate remedy to challenge an order passed by an ex-officio Justice of the Peace?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan alias Dah Khan and others vs The State and others2015 P Cr. L J 539 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-01-19
  revisional jurisdictionconcurrent findingsenhancement of sentencedelay in FIRinterested witnesseshurtdaman
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from concurrent judgments of the trial court and appellate court convicting the petitioners under sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while a cross-petition sought enhancement of the sentence and conviction under section 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the legality of the conviction based on delayed FIR, interested witnesses, and the maintainability and grounds for enhancement of sentence in revisional jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that concurrent findings of fact supported by uncontradicted explanations for delay and corroborated by reliable eyewitness testimony without established mala fides did not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction, and that the revision petition for enhancement of sentence bypassing the Court of Sessions was not maintainable. The court laid down the principle that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is limited and will not be exercised to re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings unless a material illegality, perversity, or misexercise of jurisdiction is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case when satisfactorily explained by the investigating officer?
  • Does a mere blood relationship between prosecution witnesses and the complainant render their testimony untrustworthy in the absence of established mala fides?
  • Can a revision petition for enhancement of sentence be directly entertained by the High Court when the petitioner bypassed the Court of Sessions equipped with revisional powers?
  • To what extent can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the lower courts in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Ahmed vs Government of Balochistan, Education Department, through Secretary and 4 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 788 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-25
  service matterteacher appointmentmerit listweightage formulaconstitutional petitioneducational qualificationprofessional qualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition assailing the appointment of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 as Junior Vernacular Teachers (JVT, B-9) in the Education Department, Government of Balochistan, on the ground of erroneous compilation of the merit list in violation of the prescribed weightage formula. The core legal question concerns the correct application of academic and professional weightage criteria for determining merit under the recruitment advertisement. The Balochistan High Court held that the official respondents incorrectly calculated the merit of respondent No. 4 by considering his Bachelor degree as the minimum qualification instead of the Intermediate certificate, and misapplied marks for professional and higher qualifications. The court laid down the principle that recruitment authorities must strictly adhere to the stipulated weightage formula in advertisements, ensuring that minimum qualifications, professional credentials (such as PTC versus B.Ed.), and higher educational attainments are evaluated uniformly and without distortion, thereby protecting candidates who possess superior merit from being prejudiced by flawed administrative tabulations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appointment to a teaching post made in violation of the stipulated weightage formula in the recruitment advertisement is sustainable?
  • Can a candidate's Bachelor degree be considered as the minimum required qualification when the advertisement specifically prescribes Intermediate as the minimum qualification?
  • Whether a candidate holding a higher professional qualification like a B.Ed. degree can be prejudiced in merit calculation compared to candidates possessing only a PTC certificate?
  Read full judgment →
• Naimatullah Khan and others vs The National Accountability Bureau, Balochistan through Chairman and another2015 YLR 980 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-01-05Read full judgment →
• Nabeel and another vs The State and others2015 P Cr. L J 1364 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-04-16
  criminal appealacquittal appealmurderattempted murderanti-terrorismidentification paradeadverse inferencemotivedisclosure statementdoubt benefit
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposed of a criminal appeal against conviction and a State's acquittal appeal. The appellant, Nabeel, was convicted under sections 302(b), 324, 353, Pakistan Penal Code, read with section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, while co-accused were acquitted. The core legal questions revolved around the sufficiency of prosecution evidence, identification of accused, motive, and the admissibility of a delayed acquittal appeal. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against Nabeel beyond a reasonable doubt, citing contradictions, non-production of injured witnesses (leading to an adverse inference under Article 129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984), lack of identification parade for unknown accused in a night incident, and absence of motive. The court also found the disclosure statement inadmissible and the recovery of arms not properly linked. Consequently, Nabeel's conviction was set aside, and the State's acquittal appeal was dismissed as time-barred and devoid of merits, reinforcing that any doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for not producing star or injured witnesses?
  • Is an identification parade essential when accused persons are unknown to the complainant party and the incident occurs at night?
  • Is a disclosure statement made during police custody admissible if it does not lead to the discovery of new facts or recovery?
  • Can an acquittal appeal filed after a significant and unexplained delay be condoned?
  • How should doubts arising in a prosecution case be resolved?
  Read full judgment →
• Muneer Ahmed vs District and Sessions Judge, Lasbella at Hub and others2015 CLC 1053 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Director, Culture Balochistan 3 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 253 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24
  public appointmentselection committeecivil service rulesmala fideconstitutional petitionrecruitment processeligibility criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the appointment of several individuals to positions including Art Teacher, Mali, and Farash within the Directorate of Culture, Balochistan. The core legal questions concerned whether the recruitment process adhered to the prescribed statutory rules and whether the appointees possessed the mandatory qualifications. The High Court held that the appointments were illegal, void, and tainted by mala fide. The court found that the recruitment process was conducted by an unauthorized official while the actual Chairman of the Selection Committee was on leave, and that the committee minutes were falsified to misrepresent the Chairman’s participation. Additionally, the appointees failed to meet the mandatory educational and experience requirements stipulated in the advertisement. The court established the principle that public appointments made in violation of statutory procedures, lacking transparency, or involving the falsification of official records are unsustainable. Consequently, the court set aside the appointments, ordered the posts to be re-advertised, and directed the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officials responsible for the fraudulent selection process.

  Questions settled

  • Can an acting official legally conduct a selection process and make appointments when the statutory Chairman of the Selection Committee is on leave?
  • Are appointments valid if the appointees fail to meet the mandatory educational and experience requirements stipulated in the job advertisement?
  • Does the falsification of official records by a selection committee constitute sufficient grounds for setting aside public appointments?
  • Can a court order disciplinary action against government officials for fraudulent conduct during a recruitment process?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Sherani vs Shahjahan and 3 others2015 PLD Balochistan 143 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and others vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2015 CL.219 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and anothers vs The State2015 YLR 1156 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-30
  sodomyunnatural offencedishonest improvementsjoint disclosurejoint recoverymedical jurisprudencecatamitesemen analysisnon-compoundable offencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two criminal revision petitions: one filed by convicts challenging their conviction and three-year sentences under Section 377 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and another filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of sentence. The complainant subsequently sought to withdraw his petition and acquit the convicts via a compromise application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court dismissed the compromise application, observing that an offence under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is non-compoundable pursuant to Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. On the merits, the Court acquitted the convicts, finding that the prosecution's case was undermined by dishonest improvements by the complainant and victim, an inadmissible joint disclosure and recovery memo, contradictions regarding the recovery and viewing of digital evidence, unidentified faces in recovered media, and inconclusive medical evidence devoid of anal swabs or semen grouping. Furthermore, the Court took judicial notice that the alleged incident in a school could not have occurred as claimed on a declared national holiday.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be compounded on the basis of a compromise under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a joint disclosure memo or joint recovery memo admissible in evidence against co-accused persons?
  • Can a conviction under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained where the medical examination fails to secure anal swabs or perform semen matching, relying merely on an opinion that the victim is a catamite?
  • Can one tainted piece of evidence legally corroborate another tainted piece of evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs Ahsan Raza and 2 others2015 P Cr. L J 907 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-19
  Illegal Dispossession Actcriminal complaintlocus standiinherent powersproperty attachmentacquittaleducational institution
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the trial court's order dismissing a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and refusing to implead the petitioner as a co-complainant. The core legal questions concerned whether a third party has a statutory right to intervene as a complainant in criminal proceedings and the proper procedure for dismissing a complaint lacking evidence. The High Court held that the trial court correctly denied the petitioner’s request to join the proceedings, as no legal provision permits such intervention. Regarding the dismissal, the Court affirmed the decision but clarified that the trial court should have recorded an order of acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rather than merely dismissing the complaint. Furthermore, invoking its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice, the Court ordered the attachment of the disputed property—an educational institution—and directed the provincial government to appoint a board to manage the school, aiming to protect the institution's future and prevent further breach of peace arising from the parties' hostile litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a third party intervene or be added as a complainant in criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What is the correct legal procedure for a trial court to dismiss a criminal complaint for want of evidence?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to attach property and appoint an administrative board for an educational institution to prevent the destruction of the institution during ongoing litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem and 3 others vs Government of Balochistan2015 PLC (C.S.) 1143 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-04-14
  constitutional petitionconstructive res judicatapast and closed transactioncivil servantspublic appointmentsdiscretionary reliefservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenged a notification dated 25th June 2007 whereby private respondents were appointed as Assistant Investigating Officers in the Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Government of Balochistan, allegedly superseding the merit of the petitioners. The core legal questions involved whether a constitutional petition is maintainable to re-litigate a matter already adjudicated by another bench of the same court, whether the principle of constructive res judicata bars such proceedings, and whether the court should decline relief where it would cause grave injustice to employees who have served for years. The Balochistan High Court held that the appointments were made pursuant to an earlier judgment of a Division Bench in a prior constitutional petition, and a Bench cannot sit in appeal over or issue a writ against the order of another Bench of the same Court. The Court further held that the petition was barred by constructive res judicata and that equitable relief should be refused as the private respondents had rendered over eight years of service and become overage. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 interfere with or set aside an order passed by another Bench of the same Court?
  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata bar a constitutional petition where the core issue of appointments has already been adjudicated in a prior petition between the parties or on the same subject matter?
  • Will the superior courts decline constitutional relief against an appointment, even if initially flawed, where the appointees have served for a long period and would suffer grave injustice?
  • What is the extent of judicial review over the selection and evaluation made by a Departmental Selection Committee?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Lal vs The State2015 PLD Balochistan 62 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-01-12
  suo motu reviewinherent powers of High Courtpayment of Diyatqatl-i-amddouble punishmentpatent illegalitycriminal appellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a review of a previous criminal appellate judgment passed by the Balochistan High Court regarding the concurrent imposition of imprisonment and payment of Diyat for the offence of qatl-i-amd. The core legal question was whether a court can simultaneously award a sentence of imprisonment and order the payment of Diyat under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether a High Court can exercise suo motu review powers in criminal matters. The Court held that Section 302 provides for mutually exclusive punishments and does not authorize the simultaneous imposition of both imprisonment and Diyat, rendering the prior order patently illegal and void to that extent. The Court laid down the principle that while Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bars the review of criminal judgments, the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to suo motu review and recall its judgments or orders to correct patent illegalities, prevent abuse of process, and secure the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence of imprisonment and payment of Diyat can be simultaneously awarded under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a High Court exercise suo motu review powers in the absence of a formal review petition?
  • Whether a judgment passed by a criminal court exercising appellate jurisdiction can be reviewed or altered?
  • Does Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower the High Court to correct its own erroneous orders to prevent manifest injustice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and anothers vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 974 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24
  criminal revisionControl of Narcotics Substances Actframing of chargeHydrochloric Acidcontrolled substancestatutory interpretationresiduary provision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Special Judge (CNS)/Sessions Judge, Noshki, which rejected the petitioner's application to frame a charge under Section 16 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The accused were found in possession of Hydrochloric Acid (HCL), which the trial court had incorrectly categorized as a controlled substance requiring a license. The core legal question was whether Hydrochloric Acid falls within the definitions of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, or controlled substances under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The High Court held that HCL does not meet the statutory definitions of these contraband substances. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to alter the charge to Section 16 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, which serves as a residuary provision for offenses not specifically provided for elsewhere in the Act. The principle established is that substances not explicitly defined as contraband under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, cannot be treated as such for the purpose of framing charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does Hydrochloric Acid fall within the definition of a controlled substance under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can a trial court refuse to frame a charge under Section 16 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, when the recovered substance does not meet the definition of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance?
  • Is the High Court empowered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to direct the alteration of a charge by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ewaz Zehri (Baloch) vs Chairman Selection Committee for Appointment of District and Sessions Judges and 10 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 1455 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-18
  re-evaluation of answer sheetsconstitutional petitionjudicial examinationmala fidesselection committeebar examination
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate in the written test for appointment as District and Sessions Judges conducted by the Selection Committee of the Balochistan High Court, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 seeking re-evaluation of his answer sheet, disqualification of certain respondents, and other reliefs, alleging favoritism, nepotism, and discrimination based on caste and creed. The core legal questions involved whether an unsuccessful candidate can claim re-evaluation or re-checking of answer sheets as a matter of right in the absence of statutory provisions, and whether allegations of mala fides against the Selection Committee were sustainable. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that courts will not routinely order re-evaluation of answer scripts without strong grounds showing unjust evaluation, and that the examination process was conducted fairly and transparently. The Court laid down that re-evaluation of answer scripts is impermissible in the absence of provisions or strong demonstrable grounds of bias or malice, and that unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge examination proceedings or act as super-examiners merely due to their failure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unsuccessful candidate can claim re-evaluation or re-checking of answer scripts as a matter of right in the absence of any statutory provision?
  • Under what circumstances can a court order the re-evaluation of examination answer sheets?
  • Whether a candidate who participates in an examination can subsequently challenge its proceedings or the transparency of the evaluation process upon failing?
  • Whether practicing lawyers who hold positions such as Assistant District Attorneys are barred from applying for judicial posts if they meet the requisite professional standing?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub and otherss vs Bibi Gull and others2015 PLD Balochistan 47 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz Khan Jogezai and 2 others vs Government of Pakistan2015 PLC (C.S.) 346 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-10-15
  Federal Levies Forceconstitutional petitionpublic appointmenttribal areasSardari (Abolition) Actservice rulesmerit-based recruitmentadministrative arbitrariness
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an advertisement for 3000 appointments to the Federal Levies Force in Balochistan, arguing that the recruitment process, based on archaic 1954 Instructions, was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The core legal question concerned the validity of these 1954 Instructions, which required consultation with tribal chiefs, in light of the Sardari (Abolition) Act, 1976, and constitutional protections. The Court held that the 1954 Instructions were redundant, discriminatory, and in conflict with Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court rejected the use of these instructions for recruitment. As a stopgap measure, the Court approved a new, transparent recruitment criteria proposed by the Provincial Government to ensure merit-based selection. It further directed that recruitment be restricted to the 16 districts where the Federal Levies Force structure currently exists to avoid resource wastage. The judgment establishes that administrative actions, particularly in tribal areas, must be reasonable and non-arbitrary, and that the executive must ensure transparency and compliance with constitutional norms when making public appointments, especially in the absence of formal service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Are the 1954 Instructions for Federal Levies Force appointments in Balochistan constitutionally valid?
  • Can the executive government make public appointments in the absence of formal service rules?
  • Does the Sardari (Abolition) Act, 1976, render recruitment processes requiring consultation with tribal chiefs illegal?
  • Is the recruitment of personnel into a force structure in districts where that force does not exist a valid exercise of administrative power?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 7 others vs Mira Jan and others2015 YLR 440 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 21 others vs Abdul Jalil2015 CLC 1315 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Government of Pakistan and 2 othersPTCL 2015 CL.171 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar through Attorney vs Government of Pakistan and 2PTCL 2015 CL.171, 2015 PTD 116 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Azad and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division and others2015 PLD Balochistan 69 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-24
  implied repealstatutory interpretationShariat applicationterritorial jurisdictionconstitutional validityCentral Statutelocus poenitentiaeminority rightsjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated constitutional petitions challenged the legal status and continued applicability of the Dastoor-ul-Amal Diwani Riasat Kalat, 1952 ('Dastoor') and the Balochistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application) Regulation, 1976 ('Regulation'). The petitioners contended that the Dastoor was repealed by Section 28 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, and that the coexistence of multiple civil legal systems in Balochistan was discriminatory and unconstitutional. The High Court of Balochistan dismissed the petitions, holding that the Dastoor was not repealed in its entirety by the 1962 Ordinance. The Court reasoned that since the 1962 Ordinance was only selectively extended to specific areas of Balochistan via notification, its repealing provisions did not take effect in areas where it was not yet enforced. Furthermore, the Dastoor was re-enacted as a Central Statute via Ordinance XXI of 1960, and its provisions requiring adjudication according to Shariat and providing for minority dispute resolution (Punchait) were found to be consistent with Article 2-A of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that the Dastoor remains a valid, existing law on the statute book.

  Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Zafar and others vs The State through D.G. NAB2015 YLR 868 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-09-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shugafta vs Chairman Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad and 2 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 819 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-03
  FPSCeligibility criteriavested rightwritten testeducational qualificationsservice matterconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's candidature by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) for the posts of Assistant Head Mistress and Vice Principal. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications for the posts and whether her participation in the written test conferred a vested right to proceed to the interview stage. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to meet the mandatory qualification criteria, specifically the requirement of a B.Ed. degree in addition to a Master's degree. The Court further held that, pursuant to the FPSC’s General Instructions, appearing in a written examination does not create a vested right to participate in the interview if a candidate is subsequently found ineligible upon detailed scrutiny. The judgment affirms the principle that it is the government's prerogative to prescribe qualifications for public posts, and eligibility must be strictly determined in accordance with the advertisement. Consequently, the Court ruled that a non-qualified candidate cannot be appointed, and the FPSC’s rejection was lawful.

  Questions settled

  • Does appearing in a written test conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission confer a vested right to proceed to the interview stage?
  • Can a candidate challenge the rejection of their candidature on the ground that they possess an equivalent degree not explicitly listed in the recruitment criteria?
  • Is the Federal Public Service Commission authorized to cancel a candidate's candidature after the written test if they are found ineligible upon detailed scrutiny?
  • Does a general letter from the Higher Education Commission regarding degree equivalence automatically satisfy specific recruitment qualification requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razya Ghulam and anothers vs The General Public2015 PLD Balochistan 127 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-04-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem and anothers vs Ali Akbar and another2015 PLD Balochistan 30 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem and another vs Ali Akbar and another2015 PLD Balochistan 30, 2015 PLJ Quetta 23 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aisha and 2 otherss vs Mst Mah Gul and 2 others2015 CLC 1719 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-07-10
  succession certificatedetermination of titlesummary proceedingsdeceased government servantlegal heirsinheritancecivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Balochistan High Court arose from an order of the District Judge, Kharan, granting a succession certificate to the respondent widow for collecting the dues of her deceased husband while concurrently excluding the appellants (the mother, brother, and sister of the deceased) from receiving any share in the debt. The core legal question was whether a court acting under the Succession Act, 1925, while issuing a succession certificate, has the jurisdiction to conclusively determine the title and shares of competing claimants to the estate of a deceased government servant. The High Court held that proceedings for a succession certificate are summary in nature and are intended solely to enable the holder to recover debts and protect the debtor, rather than to conclusively declare rights, title, or shares in the estate. The Court ruled that the trial court erred in definitively excluding the appellants from their shares in the legacy. The key principle laid down is that the issuance of a succession certificate does not confer title upon the holder or bar other legal heirs from establishing their shares through a regular suit before a court of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a succession certificate under the Succession Act, 1925 conclusively determine the title or ownership of the parties to the debt?
  • Can a court in summary proceedings under Section 373 of the Succession Act, 1925 adjudicate intricate questions of law or fact regarding the shares of legal heirs?
  • What is the primary purpose and legal effect of a succession certificate issued under Section 381 of the Succession Act, 1925?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a legal heir whose claim or share has been bypassed during the issuance of a succession certificate?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Elsa Marri and 7 otherss vs Phillip M. Irani2015 CLC 1687 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Rafique and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others111 TAX 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-17Read full judgment →
• Mohae-Ud-Din vs The State through Prosecutor-General Balochistan2015 P Cr. L J 621 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-01-05
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureaucorruptionburden of prooffurther inquirytendering processmens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail concerns an Executive Engineer accused of corruption and corrupt practices by the National Accountability Bureau regarding a tendering process. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of misuse of authority and the applicability of the burden of proof provisions under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case against him required further inquiry. The Court established that while Section 14(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, places a burden of proof on the accused, it does not absolve the prosecution of its duty to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt at trial, nor does it bar the grant of bail at the pre-trial stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that when the prosecution has already seized all relevant documentary evidence, eliminating the risk of tampering, and the allegations rely on presumptions rather than concrete evidence, the accused is entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Medical grounds were also considered as a supporting factor.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof provision under Section 14(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, preclude the grant of bail at the pre-trial stage?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution has already seized all relevant documentary evidence and there is no risk of tampering?
  • Can a case based on presumptions regarding financial transactions between third parties constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Gulnaz Baloch vs Registrar, Balochistan High Court, Quetta and others2015 PLC (C.S.) 393 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-11-10
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionmaintainabilityadministrative actionsdefinition of personjudicial selectioncivil judge appointmentinterview marks
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a candidate challenging her non-selection for the post of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate (BPS-18) after securing low marks in the interview conducted by a panel of High Court judges. The petitioner sought a de novo interview process and the setting aside of the appointments of the successful candidates, alleging unfairness in the interview marking. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the administrative or executive actions of the High Court, its Chief Justice, or its Registrar acting on behalf of the Chief Justice. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that under Article 199(5) of the Constitution, the High Court is expressly excluded from the definition of a "person" amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court laid down the principle that this constitutional exclusion applies to both the judicial and administrative actions of the High Court and its Judges, and a notification issued by the Registrar on the direction of the Chief Justice is immune from judicial review under Article 199.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against the administrative or executive actions of a High Court or its Chief Justice?
  • Does the exclusion of the High Court from the definition of 'person' under Article 199(5) of the Constitution apply to notifications issued by the Registrar on behalf of the Chief Justice?
  • Can the High Court be treated as having two distinct characters—one judicial and one administrative—for the purpose of determining its amenability to writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza Luqman Masud vs Government of Pakistan, Establishment2015 PLC (C.S.) 526 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-03
  quo warrantoterritorial jurisdictionpublic officeNABconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionservice mattermaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking a writ of quo warranto against several retired army officers (respondents Nos. 6 to 15) appointed to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The petitioner, a former NAB employee, alleged that the appointments and subsequent promotions were made in violation of the NAB Ordinance, 1999, and the NAB Employees Terms and Conditions of Service (TCS), 2002, asserting that the respondents lacked the requisite qualifications. The core legal questions involved whether a High Court can issue a writ of quo warranto against public officials serving outside its territorial jurisdiction and the evidentiary burden required to maintain such a petition. The Court held that under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution, its jurisdiction is strictly confined to persons within its territorial limits. Since the respondents were appointed in Islamabad and served outside Balochistan, the petition was incompetent. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a petitioner must provide specific prima facie evidence of disqualification rather than relying on conjectures. The petition was dismissed in limine for lack of jurisdiction and failure to establish a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can issue a writ of quo warranto against a person holding public office outside its territorial jurisdiction?
  • What is the initial burden of proof on a petitioner seeking a writ of quo warranto regarding the qualifications of the respondents?
  • Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 against federal employees who were neither appointed nor performing duties within the province of that High Court?
  • Is an omnibus petition challenging multiple appointments maintainable without specific allegations of disqualification for each respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad Afzal and 7 otherss vs Government of Balochistan, Local Government and 12 others2015 PLD Balochistan 1 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. through General Manager and anothers vs Arbabnajeebullah2015 PLD Balochistan 110 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Singer Pakistan Ltd. through Director Personal and Administration2015 MLD 267 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-28Read full judgment →
• Merck (Private) Limited through Notified Factory Manager vs Member2015 PLC 313 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-08-06
  employer-employee relationshipcontractual employmentreinstatementlabour disputegrievance applicationindustrial relationsburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitution petitions challenging a Labour Appellate Tribunal judgment regarding the reinstatement of workers. The core legal question was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioner, a pharmaceutical company, and the respondents, thereby entitling the respondents to reinstatement and permanent status. The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in its findings. Based on documentary evidence, including service agreements, EOBI records, and payrolls, the court determined the respondents were employees of an independent contractor, not the petitioner. Consequently, no employer-employee relationship existed, and the grievance application was misconceived. The court established the principle that where workers are engaged by an independent contractor who maintains administrative control, pays salaries, and manages payroll, the principal company cannot be held liable as an employer for reinstatement or permanent status claims in the absence of direct employment evidence. The court emphasized that the burden of proving an employer-employee relationship lies with the claimant, and such relationship cannot be established where evidence confirms the workers were employees of a third-party contractor.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employer-employee relationship exist between a principal company and workers engaged by an independent contractor?
  • Can a company be compelled to reinstate workers who were on the payroll of an independent contractor?
  • Is a grievance application maintainable against a company where no direct employment relationship is established?
  Read full judgment →