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.

• MCB Ltd. through Attorney vs Muhammad Imran Bhatti and 2 Others2015 NLR Labour 151 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-18
  workman statusgrievance petitionIndustrial Relations Ordinance 2002constitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factmanagerial capacitygrievance notice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a bank, challenged the reinstatement of the respondent, a former employee, by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal questions were whether an employee holding the rank of Officer Grade-III qualifies as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, and whether the failure to issue a formal grievance notice renders a grievance petition non-maintainable. The Court held that the status of an employee is determined by the nature of duties performed rather than the designation or grade. Since the respondent performed manual and clerical tasks without managerial or administrative authority, he remained a 'workman.' Furthermore, the Court held that the issuance of a grievance notice is not a mandatory prerequisite that invalidates proceedings, especially when a departmental appeal has been filed. Finally, the Court affirmed that it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower forums in its constitutional jurisdiction absent established illegality. The key principle established is that the definition of 'workman' hinges on actual job functions, not hierarchical status, and procedural technicalities like grievance notices do not override substantive rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the designation or grade of an employee determine their status as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002?
  • Is the issuance of a formal grievance notice a mandatory prerequisite for maintaining a grievance petition before a Labour Court?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower forums in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • What criteria define whether an employee is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity for the purpose of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Ltd. through Attorney vs Muhammad Imran Bhatti and 2 others2015 NLR Labour 151, 2015 PLC 82 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-18
  workerworkmangrievance petitionlabour court jurisdictionindustrial relations ordinancemanagerial capacityconstitutional petitionback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from the dismissal of respondent No. 1, an Officer Grade-III/Accountant at MCB Bank Limited, on allegations of embezzlement. Following an inquiry, he was dismissed, after which he filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court, which reinstated him with back benefits. This decision was upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, prompting the bank to file the instant petition. The core legal questions involved whether an Officer Grade-III qualifies as a 'worker' or 'workman' under labour laws, whether a pre-litigation grievance notice is mandatory, and whether concurrent factual findings can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that the status of an employee depends on the actual duties performed rather than their designation or grade; since respondent No. 1 performed clerical and manual duties without managerial or administrative powers, he remained a workman. Furthermore, the court held that the use of the word 'may' in section 46 makes a grievance notice directory or satisfiable through alternative representations like a departmental appeal, and that concurrent factual findings regarding the lack of proof of embezzlement cannot be disturbed under constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee holding the designation of an Officer Grade-III in a bank falls within the definition of a worker or workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002?
  • Does the status of a worker or workman depend upon the designation and grade of the employee or upon the actual nature of the duties performed by him?
  • Is the issuance of a pre-litigation grievance notice mandatory under section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 before approaching a Labour Court?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Munir Ahmed vs Sardar Khair Muhammad Tajik and others2015 CLC 560 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-30Read full judgment →
• La Guardia Group of Companies through Assistant Manager Terminal vs Abdul Nafey and another2015 CLC 620 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-30Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ashraf and 3 otherss vs Aftab Ashraf and another2015 CLC 1833 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-06-29
  partition suitres judicatarecurring cause of actionunexecuted decreerejection of plaintinterim injunctionjoint property
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of a Regular First Appeal and a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arising from orders of the trial court rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and dismissing an application for interim injunction. The appellants filed a second suit for partition, possession, and permanent injunction regarding a joint family property after an earlier partition decree obtained by them had remained unexecuted within the period of limitation. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court reversed the decision, holding that the right to seek partition of joint property is a recurring cause of action that subsists so long as the property remains jointly held and unpartitioned in metes and bounds. The Court held that an unexecuted, unenforceable partition decree does not operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent partition suit. The appeals were accepted, the impugned orders set aside, and the suit remanded for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second suit for partition is barred by res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an earlier partition decree was not executed within the limitation period?
  • Is the cause of action for a suit seeking partition of joint property a continuous and recurring one?
  • What limitation provision governs the first application for execution of a decree when no prior execution proceeding was instituted?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bukhsh and 3 others vs Hamza and another2015 YLR 1621 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-01-30Read full judgment →
• Juma Gul vs Gul Bibi and others2015 MLD 1627 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-07-06Read full judgment →
• Jamal-Ud-Din and otherss vs National Database and Registration2015 PLD Balochistan 117 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-31Read full judgment →
• Institute for Development Studies and Practices, Quetta vs Government of Balochistan, Secretary Land Utilization_Senior Member Board of Revenue, Quetta2015 C.L.R. 205 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. through Attorney and anothers vs Prosecutor General, Quetta and 7 others2015 PLD Balochistan 54 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-12-30
  Constitutional petitionQuashment of FIRsMultiple trialsDouble jeopardySection 185 Cr.P.C.Jurisdiction of courtsConvenience of accusedAbuse of process of lawFreedom from repeated prosecutionFair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought the quashment or consolidation of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) and trials initiated against the petitioners across various courts for the same alleged offense of "Toheen-e-Ahl-e-Bait" during a morning show. The core legal question revolved around the interpretation of Section 185 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.), specifically whether the principle of "earlier commencement" from subsection (2) applies to subsection (1), and the permissibility of multiple FIRs for a single incident. The Balochistan High Court held that Section 185(1) Cr.P.C., concerning courts subordinate to the same High Court, grants unfettered discretion, allowing consideration of general convenience and other reasons, not solely earlier commencement. It further ruled that multiple FIRs for the same incident constitute an abuse of process and violate constitutional rights against double jeopardy (Articles 4, 9, 10-A, 13). The Court partly allowed the petition, quashing proceedings in three specific FIRs (Crimes Nos. 3, 5, and 35 of 2014) to the extent of the petitioners, while allowing the trial in Crime No. 117 of 2014 before the Sessions Judge, Quetta, to proceed.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of discretion of a High Court under Section 185(1) Cr.P.C. when deciding which of two or more subordinate courts should try an offense?
  • Can the principle of 'earlier commencement' from Section 185(2) Cr.P.C. be imported into Section 185(1) Cr.P.C.?
  • Are multiple FIRs permissible for the same incident under the same provisions of law against the same accused?
  • Does the registration of multiple FIRs for the same offense in different parts of the country constitute an abuse of the process of law?
  • Is the convenience of the accused a material consideration when determining the appropriate court for inquiry or trial under Section 185(1) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran vs The State2015 MLD 46 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-10-02
  criminal appealmurderretracted confessionconfessional statementmandatory requirementsburden of proofbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of two persons by stoning and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through direct or circumstantial evidence, and whether the retracted confessional statement of the appellant, recorded without fulfilling mandatory procedural formalities, could form the sole basis for conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that none of the prosecution witnesses were eye-witnesses and the retracted confession lacked the mandatory memorandum and safeguards required by Section 164(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby rendering it legally valueless without independent corroboration. The court laid down the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on a defective and uncorroborated retracted confessional statement, and the prosecution must independently prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted confessional statement serve as the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for recording a valid confessional statement under Section 164(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of a Judicial Magistrate to append the proper memorandum under Section 164(3) render a confessional statement inadmissible?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the basis of probabilities and without proof beyond a shadow of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ali vs The State2015 MLD 176 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-10-27
  common intentionvicarious liabilitymere presenceabscondencedisclosure memobenefit of doubtacquittalcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Jail Appeal was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court, whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and ordered to pay compensation. The prosecution alleged that the appellant facilitated the principal accused by standing nearby with an idling motorcycle and helping him flee after the fatal shooting. The core legal questions were whether mere presence and facilitating flight suffice to establish common intention under Section 34 PPC; whether an alleged disclosure reproducing already known facts qualifies as a discovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984; and whether abscondence alone can sustain a conviction. The High Court acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of doubt. It held that vicarious liability under Section 34 PPC requires proof of shared common intention beyond mere presence; disclosures containing facts already known to police do not constitute new discoveries under Article 40; and abscondence is merely corroborative and cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of substantive evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is mere presence of an accused at the crime scene sufficient to attract vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused's disclosure statement qualify as a discovery under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 if the disclosed facts were already known to the police?
  • Can an accused's abscondence alone sustain a criminal conviction in the absence of reliable substantive evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hifeeza and 5 others vs General Public2015 PLD Balochistan 132 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-04Read full judgment →
• Haroon Ahmed and others vs Secretary Communication and Works2015 MLD 1220 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Mullah Noor Ullah vs Secretary Mines and Minerals and 3 others2015 YLR 2349 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-07-14
  stone crushingenvironmental pollutionright to lifefundamental rightsfreedom of tradeprospecting licenseenvironmental protection agency
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition and civil revision challenge the cancellation of a prospecting license and the rejection of a plaint concerning limestone extraction and stone crushing plants in Quetta. The core legal questions involve balancing the fundamental right to freedom of trade and business against the right to life, clean environment, and health in the face of unregulated and polluting industrial activities. The Balochistan High Court held that while citizens possess the right to conduct trade and business under the Constitution, such rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions in the public interest, particularly when industrial operations endanger public health and environmental integrity. The court ruled that un-regulated stone crushing causing severe air pollution within populated valleys violates the right to life guaranteed under Article 9. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision petition, disallowed new permits within municipal limits, ordered the identification of safer industrial zones away from human habitations, and mandated the relocation of existing crushing plants within a stipulated timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 in environmental matters despite the bar of jurisdiction under the Balochistan Environmental Protection Act?
  • Does the fundamental right to freedom of trade and business under Article 18 of the Constitution include the right to carry on businesses that are inherently dangerous or harmful to public health and environment?
  • Whether the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution encompasses the right to live in a pollution-free environment and breathe clean air?
  • Can the Provincial Government and licensing authorities permit stone crushing plants to operate in residential areas without complying with environmental impact assessments and pollution control measures?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan Muhammad vs Government of Pakistan NAB through its &2015 PLJ Quetta 1 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Inayatullah Bazai vs Muhammad Ayub and 2 others2015 YLR 1692 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Qadir and another vs The State2015 YLR 2262 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-06-29
  vicarious liabilitycommon objectunlawful assemblycriminal appealsentence enhancementmurder convictionhurt
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) and Section 337-F(i)(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while the complainant sought sentence enhancement. The core legal question was whether the appellants could be held vicariously liable for murder under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of established common object or premeditation. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove a common object or unlawful assembly, noting that the incident appeared to be a spontaneous altercation rather than a planned attack. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions under Section 302(b) and Section 337-F(i), acquitting the appellants of those charges. However, the Court maintained the convictions under Section 337-F(ii) for specific injuries individually attributed to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that vicarious liability under Section 149 requires tangible evidence of a shared common object; without such proof, individual criminal responsibility applies, and an accused cannot be held liable for the acts of others in a spontaneous, unpremeditated incident.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be held vicariously liable under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of a proven common object?
  • Does a spontaneous altercation without premeditation constitute an unlawful assembly for the purpose of vicarious liability?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the prosecution fails to establish a common object or specific role in the murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Irshad Ahmed and 2 others2015 MLD 1073 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-19Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan through Additional Chief Secretary, Planning and Development Department_Petitioner vs Messrs Enterprise and Development Consulting (Pvt) Ltd2015 CLD 1743 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-26Read full judgment →
• Gohram alias All Gohar and another vs Mst. Zar Bano alias Zero through L.Rs, and othersK.L.R. 2015 Revenue Cases 52 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gohram alias Ali Gohar and another vs Mst. Zar Bano alias Zero through L.Rs. and others2015 C.L.R. 467 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gohram alias Ali Gohar and another vs Mst. Zar Bano alias Zero through L.Rs, and others2015 C.L.R. 467, K.L.R. 2015 Revenue Cases 1 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 1767 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-08-15
  narcoticsconscious possessionseizure memochemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtsecret cavitychain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Judge CNS Lasbela at Hub, which convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that a Hino Mini Truck driven by the appellant was intercepted, leading to the recovery of 100 kg of charas and 60 kg of liquid opium from a welded secret cavity. The High Court, on reappraisal of the evidence, observed material contradictions among prosecution witnesses and noted that the seizure memos and samples were not prepared or sealed at the spot, but later at the Custom House. The Court held that the failure to seal samples immediately after recovery without a plausible explanation creates serious doubt, rendering the Forensic Science Laboratory report devoid of evidentiary value. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's ownership of the vehicle or his conscious possession and knowledge of the concealed contraband. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary effect of failing to seal contraband samples immediately at the place of recovery?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession stand if the prosecution fails to establish the accused's connection to, or ownership of, the vehicle containing secret cavities?
  • Whether the benefit of material contradictions and procedural defects in drawing samples must be extended to the accused as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Governor of Balochistan, Etc.s2015 NLR Service 76 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-04
  service matterprovincial ombudsmanconstitutional petitionservice tribunaljurisdictionterms and conditions of servicecivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Governor of Balochistan, which set aside a decision of the Provincial Ombudsman in favor of the petitioner, a former teacher whose service was terminated. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Ombudsman possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate a service-related grievance of a civil servant, and whether the petitioner had bypassed the appropriate forum. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It ruled that the Provincial Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction over matters concerning the terms and conditions of a civil servant’s service, as such disputes are exclusively reserved for the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court further clarified that upon the failure of a departmental authority to decide a representation within ninety days, the aggrieved civil servant is required to approach the Service Tribunal under the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974, rather than seeking relief from the Ombudsman. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the Ombudsman’s intervention in service matters is legally barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Provincial Ombudsman have jurisdiction to adjudicate service-related grievances of a civil servant?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a civil servant if a departmental representation remains undecided for more than ninety days?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, bar the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Governor of Balochistan through Personal Secretary, Quetta and 3 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 1085 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-04
  Provincial Ombudsmanservice tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional petitioncivil servantbar of jurisdictiondepartmental representation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Governor of Balochistan which set aside an order of the Provincial Ombudsman that had favored the petitioner regarding his termination from service. The core legal questions involved whether the Provincial Ombudsman had jurisdiction to entertain service-related matters of a civil servant, and whether the constitutional petition was maintainable in light of the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The High Court held that the Provincial Ombudsman lacks jurisdiction to investigate matters concerning the terms and conditions of service of a public servant under Section 9 of the Establishment of Office of Provincial Ombudsman Ordinance, 2001, and that exclusive jurisdiction vests in the Service Tribunal. The court laid down the principle that service disputes must be agitated before the appropriate service tribunal, and the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and other courts is ousted in respect of matters falling within the domain of the service tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Provincial Ombudsman have jurisdiction to entertain complaints by public servants regarding their service matters?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a service dispute in view of the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What is the remedy available to a civil servant whose departmental representation is not decided within ninety days?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa and 4 others vs Evacuee Trust Property Board, Government of Pakistan through Chairman and 3 others2015 PLC (C.S.) 1513 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-08-13
  deputationservice tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicecivil servantrepatriationconstitutional petitionmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the transfer and posting of two respondents from the Evacuee Trust Property Board to the Revenue Department of Balochistan, alleging their initial appointments were illegal and bogus. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute regarding the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, or if the matter fell exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, ruling that the dispute concerned the terms and conditions of service, thereby attracting the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and the Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The key principle laid down is that matters involving the deputation and posting of civil servants, which affect their terms and conditions of service, must be adjudicated by the appropriate Service Tribunal rather than the High Court. Consequently, the Court declined to grant the requested relief but ordered the immediate repatriation of the respondents to their parent department and directed disciplinary proceedings regarding the alleged illegal appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  • Is a dispute concerning the deputation and posting of civil servants within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a court order the repatriation of a deputationist upon the expiration of their deputation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastagir & 3 Others vs The State2015 NLR Criminal 417 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-11-29
  wildlife protectionillegal huntingrevisional jurisdictionsentence enhancementprobation of offenderscommunity service orderrehabilitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from the conviction of the petitioners by a Magistrate for hunting and killing two female Markhors in violation of the Balochistan Wildlife Protection Act, 1974. The Magistrate sentenced the petitioners to six months' imprisonment and a fine, which the Sessions Judge on appeal reduced to the period already undergone and a reduced fine. The Balochistan High Court examined the legality of the appellate reduction without reasons and exercised its revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to restore the original sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Magistrate. Simultaneously, the Court considered the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 and held that a court may impose conditions of community service—such as planting and nurturing trees—as part of a probation order to ensure rehabilitation, deterrence, and reparation. The High Court accordingly placed the petitioners on probation for one year subject to performing specific community service involving tree planting under the supervision of a probation officer.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Sessions Judge reduce a criminal sentence on appeal without recording reasons?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere in revision to restore a trial court's sentence improperly reduced by an appellate court?
  • Can a court impose community service as a condition of probation under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960?
  • Whether tree planting can constitute a valid form of community service for an offender released on probation?
  Read full judgment →
• General (R) Syed Pervez Musharraf vs The State & Another2015 NLR Criminal 216 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-08-24
  Anti-Terrorism Courttransfer of caseterritorial jurisdictionsecurity concernsstatutory interpretationHigh Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a transfer application filed by General (R) Syed Pervez Musharraf, seeking to move a criminal case pending before an Anti-Terrorism Court in Quetta to an Anti-Terrorism Court in Islamabad, citing security concerns. The core legal question was whether the Chief Justice of a High Court possesses the authority under Section 28(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to transfer a case from an Anti-Terrorism Court within their territorial jurisdiction to one situated outside that jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the Chief Justice of a High Court lacks the legal authority to transfer a case beyond the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court. The Court clarified that the term 'area' in Section 28(1) is restricted to the territorial limits of the High Court concerned. Consequently, the power to transfer cases is confined to reassigning matters between Anti-Terrorism Courts operating within the same territorial jurisdiction. The Court further noted that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim that the trial location in Quetta posed a greater security risk than the proposed location in Islamabad.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Justice of a High Court have the authority under Section 28(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, to transfer a case to an Anti-Terrorism Court outside the High Court's territorial jurisdiction?
  • What is the scope of the term 'area' as used in Section 28(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a case pending before an Anti-Terrorism Court be transferred to a court outside the province?
  Read full judgment →
• Gelcaps Pakistan Employees Union through General Secretary vs Province of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and another2015 PLC 195 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-11
  constitutional petitionunfair labour practicealternate remedyprivate entity maintainabilityindividual grievanceclosure of establishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the General Secretary of the GELCAP Pakistan Employees Union seeking a writ against a private establishment, MESSRS GELCAPs (Pvt.) Limited, to restrain actions allegedly amounting to unfair labour practice and to prevent the termination or closure of the establishment following the submission of a charter of demand. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against a private company, the availability of an alternate statutory remedy for labour grievances, and whether disputed questions of fact regarding unfair labour practice can be resolved in writ jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a purely private entity, that apprehension of future termination does not constitute an actionable cause of action, and that adequate alternate remedies are provided under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The court laid down the principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when a well-defined alternate statutory remedy exists, nor can it be used to resolve disputed questions of fact or against private bodies lacking public functions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 is maintainable against a purely private limited company?
  • Can a writ petition be filed on the basis of an apprehended cause of action or future termination of employment?
  • Does the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 provide an adequate alternate remedy for the redressal of individual or collective labour grievances?
  • Whether disputed questions of fact regarding unfair labour practice can be adjudicated within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Fareedullah vs Muzaffar Ali2015 YLR 730 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-12-22
  bail cancellationsuccessive bail applicationsfresh groundsfurther inquirymurderjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition seeks the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the private respondent by the trial court under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether a subsequent bail application can be entertained and bail granted on grounds that were already available when earlier bail applications were withdrawn or dismissed. The Balochistan High Court held that successive bail applications to the same or subordinate courts are incompetent unless based on fresh grounds that did not exist at the time of previous applications. The Court found that the grounds relied upon by the trial court were previously available and that the trial court exercised its discretion in violation of settled judicial principles. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and cancelled the bail granted to the private respondent, laying down the principle that grounds available earlier cannot be resurrected as fresh grounds for subsequent bail applications.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subsequent bail application be entertained on grounds that were already available when an earlier bail application was withdrawn or dismissed?
  • Does a trial court possess the discretion to grant post-arrest bail on grounds previously existing without the emergence of a fresh ground?
  • What constitutes a fresh ground for the purpose of filing a subsequent bail application after the withdrawal of a prior one?
  Read full judgment →
• Engineer Zamrak Khan vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2015 MLD 117 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-28Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmed vs The State2015 NLR Criminal 399 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-01-08
  post-arrest bailabsconsionmotiveinterested witnessrule of consistencymurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and an absconder intercepted the deceased and eyewitnesses, and the applicant shot the deceased, resulting in his death, with a motive stemming from previous enmity. The core legal questions involved whether the acquittal of co-accused persons entitled the applicant to bail on the rule of consistency, the evidentiary value of an interested witness and motive, and the legal effect of long-term absconsion coupled with proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the applicant's case was distinguishable from the acquitted co-accused who faced only abetment charges, that interested witness testimony supported by surrounding circumstances is reliable, that motive acts as a strong corroborative factor, and that prolonged absconsion after issuance of proclamation constitutes strong corroborative evidence against the grant of bail. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused charged with abetment automatically entitle the principal accused to bail?
  • Can the statement of an interested or related eye-witness be relied upon without corroboration in bail matters?
  • What is the evidentiary value of prolonged absconsion when considering a post-arrest bail petition?
  • Does a minor delay in lodging the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilmurad Diljan alias Dilo vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 1389 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-04-28
  dying declarationmurderbenefit of doubtmedical fitness certificatehearsay evidencecriminal appealabandonment of witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Turbat, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased Shakir Ali. The core legal question revolves around whether a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be treated as a reliable dying declaration under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in the absence of a medical fitness certificate and doctor's attestation, and whether an un-witnessed occurrence based on hearsay and uncorroborated evidence can sustain a conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that a police-recorded statement of a deceased person without a doctor's certificate of mental fitness or hospital staff association is a weak piece of evidence and unsafe to rely upon as a dying declaration, especially when material eye-witnesses are abandoned. The court laid down the principle that a dying declaration must be carefully scrutinized, and to be relied upon without cross-examination, it must be proved that the maker was fully conscious and alert, and ideally certified fit by a medical officer present at the recording.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as a dying declaration under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a dying declaration reliable to sustain a capital conviction without a medical certificate certifying the mental fitness of the deceased at the time of making the statement?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a police officer's testimony recording a dying declaration without the presence or attestation of hospital staff or a doctor?
  • Does the abandonment of a material eye-witness by the prosecution create an adverse inference regarding the truth of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Dad Muhammad alias DADA/Convict vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 944 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-19
  trial in absentiafair trialdue processright to be heardconstitutional violationremandcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a judgment dated 10th December 1997, wherein the appellant was convicted in absentia by the Special Judge, S.T.A. Quetta, for offenses under Section 302 and Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced to death. The core legal question was whether the trial and subsequent conviction of an accused in absentia, without affording him an opportunity to be heard or defend himself, is sustainable under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the conviction in absentia was illegal and unconstitutional, as it violated the fundamental rights to a fair trial and due process. Relying on established precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Arbab Khan's case and Mir Ikhlaq Ahmed v. The State, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for a fresh trial. The key principle laid down is that trial in absentia, which denies an accused the right to be heard and to legal representation, is ultra vires to the Constitution and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction recorded in absentia sustainable under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a trial in absentia violate the right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution?
  • Can an accused be convicted in absentia without evidence of willful absconsion to impede the course of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, through Additional Collector of Customs vs Messrs Hmi Ballow Khan and another2015 PTD 1080 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-03-10Read full judgment →
• Bibi Babo vs Muhammad Aslam and another2015 CLC 1555 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-04-16Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs The State2015 MLD 313 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-12-11
  kidnapping for ransombenefit of doubtinterested witnessesindependent corroborationdelayed FIRidentification paradecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Sections 6(e) and 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for kidnapping for ransom. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of independent corroboration, and the reliance on interested witnesses. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that the FIR was lodged with unexplained delay, the identification parade was procedurally flawed, and the prosecution relied solely on closely related witnesses without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the court noted that the alleged recovery of the abductee was not linked to the appellants. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that the prosecution must stand on its own merits and that any doubt arising from the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused. The appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of closely related witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the identification parade fails to comply with legal formalities?
  • Must the prosecution prove its case independently of the weaknesses in the defense's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Banners Store Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through General Manager vs Malik2015 YLR 1377 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-10
  appeal against acquittalaggrieved personcriminal breach of trustmisappropriationsecondary evidenceinadmissible documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting the private respondents of charges under sections 409, 406 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of an appeal against acquittal filed by a company manager as an aggrieved person, and whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust and proved its case through admissible evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable as the manager did not qualify as an aggrieved person under the relevant law, and further found on merits that the prosecution failed to prove entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, or loss, and that photocopies of documents were inadmissible without foundation for secondary evidence. The court established that an appeal against acquittal must be brought by a competent aggrieved person, and that unproven secondary evidence cannot form the basis of a criminal conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the manager of a company can maintain an appeal against acquittal as an aggrieved person under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Can photocopies of documents be exhibited and considered in evidence without fulfilling the legal requirements for leading secondary evidence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and improvements made in testimony render the prosecution case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Badost vs The State2015 YLR 2420 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-24
  post-arrest bailjudicial confessionretracted confessiontentative assessmentanti-terrorismcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Badost, facing charges under Sections 302, 324, 353, 186, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The accused sought bail following the dismissal of his application by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail despite the existence of a judicial confession implicating him in the commission of the offence. The Court, noting the accused's counsel's absence, proceeded to decide the matter on the merits. The Court held that the judicial confession, even if retracted, constitutes incriminating evidence that can be considered during the bail stage for a tentative assessment. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that the confession provided sufficient grounds to connect the accused to the offence. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, as the case fell within the prohibited degree of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession be considered for the purpose of deciding a bail application?
  • Is it permissible for a court to decide a criminal bail application on its merits despite the absence of the applicant's counsel?
  • Does a judicial confession implicating an accused in a heinous offence constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Babul alias Babu vs The State2015 MLD 1694 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-02-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirysupplementary statementunnamed accusedprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the applicant, Babul alias Babu, seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 14 of 2014 registered under sections 302-Q&D and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Wadh, Khuzdar District. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given that he was not nominated in the FIR, his name surfaced through a delayed supplementary statement of a non-eye-witness, and no recovery was attributed to him. The Balochistan High Court held that a tentative assessment of the record indicates a case for further inquiry into the guilt of the applicant, making him a matter of right entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which supersedes the practice of withholding bail when a trial is imminent. The court laid down the principle that the statutory right to bail under Section 497(2) cannot be withheld on the ground of judicial practice or propriety regarding imminent trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not nominated in the FIR and whose name appears through a delayed supplementary statement is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the practice of declining bail when a trial is in sight override the statutory right to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can bail be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 when no recovery has been effected from the accused and no eye-witness is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ullah vs Registrar Trade Union Balochistan, Quetta and 22015 PLC 119 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-09-02
  Election disputeTrade union electionLabour CourtBurden of proofFraming of issuesRecording of evidenceElection riggingAppellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order of the Labour Court which had directed re-election in ten polling stations of the Livestock Peoples Workers Union following allegations of rigging and irregularities. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court could summarily set aside an election result based on such allegations without conducting a full trial. The Appellate Tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable because the allegations of rigging, bogus polling, and the failure to allow voters to cast ballots involved disputed questions of fact. The Tribunal ruled that such matters cannot be determined without framing issues and recording evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Labour Court's order and remanded the case with directions to frame issues and record evidence to reach a decision based on merit. The key principle laid down is that the burden of proof rests upon the party alleging election irregularities, and such allegations must be substantiated through reliable evidence rather than summary adjudication, ensuring that the judicial process adheres to procedural fairness in election disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Labour Court set aside a trade union election result based on allegations of rigging without framing issues and recording evidence?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the party alleging election irregularities to substantiate their claims through evidence?
  • Is it legally permissible for a court to determine disputed questions of fact regarding election proceedings summarily?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 105 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-10-30
  criminal appealqatl-i-amdsudden fightpremeditationconversion of sentenceland disputedying declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the validity of the trial court's judgment whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the act of the appellant constituted premeditated murder under section 302(b) or fell within the exceptions of sudden fight and lack of premeditation attracting section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Balochistan High Court held that the incident erupted suddenly during a gathering for peaceful settlement of a land dispute, without any preplanning or premeditation, thereby attracting the principles akin to Exception 4 to erstwhile section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the court partly allowed the appeal, converting the appellant's conviction from section 302(b) to section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a reduced compensation amount.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an incident erupting suddenly during a settlement process without premeditation falls under section 302(b) or section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction for qatl-i-amd under section 302(b) be converted to section 302(c) when the evidence establishes a sudden flare-up and heat of passion?
  • What is the effect of a lack of premeditation and absence of undue advantage on the sentencing of an accused in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs Secretary Religious Affairsand Inter-Faith Harmony2015 CLC 1552 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-07-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Dina and anothers vs The State and another2015 MLD 460 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Baloch and others vs The State through D.P.G. NAB and others2015 YLR 666 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-01-12
  pre-arrest baildouble jeopardyclosure of investigationreinvestigationNational Accountability Ordinanceconstitutional petitionmisuse of authorityquashment of reference
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan sought pre-arrest bail and the quashment of a reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) relating to the illegal allotment and sale of public land, alongside a challenge to the reopening of investigation on the grounds of double jeopardy. The core legal questions revolved around whether the closure of an investigation constitutes an acquittal or withdrawal from prosecution barring reinvestigation, and whether the petitioners met the stringent criteria for pre-arrest bail in accountability matters. The Balochistan High Court held that the closure of an investigation under section 9(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO) is akin to a discharge under section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, functioning as an administrative order rather than a judicial acquittal or withdrawal from prosecution under section 31-B of the NAO; thus, it does not attract the bar of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution and does not prevent the prosecution from reinitiating investigation upon fresh circumstances. Finding prima facie evidence connecting the petitioners to the misuse of authority and noting the absence of exceptional circumstances or proven mala fides, the Court dismissed the petitions and recalled the interim pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the closure of an investigation under section 9(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 amount to an acquittal or withdrawal from prosecution that bars subsequent reinvestigation?
  • Whether reinitiating an investigation and filing a reference after the initial closure of an inquiry constitutes double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted in National Accountability Bureau cases in the absence of extraordinary circumstances and proven mala fides on the part of the prosecution?
  • Does an order of discharge passed by an Accountability Court during the investigation stage operate as a judicial bar against future proceedings regarding the same subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Langove vs Inspector General of Police, BALOCHISTANand 3 others2015 YLR 58 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-18Read full judgment →
• Adam vs Mst. Abida and 2 others2015 PLD Balochistan 26 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Khan Durrani and others vs Province of Balochistan2015 PLC (C.S.) 489 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-12-30
  contractual employmentregularization of servicesad hoc appointmentvested rightpublic service commissionconstitutional petitionservice rulesmerit-based recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by contract-based prosecutors seeking the regularization of their services and challenging the recommendations of a government-constituted committee that advised against such regularization, instead proposing that the posts be filled through the Balochistan Public Service Commission. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as contract employees, possessed a vested right to be regularized in government service based on prior departmental summaries or political incentives. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that contract or ad hoc appointments do not confer any vested right to permanent absorption. The Court affirmed that public appointments must strictly adhere to established legal procedures, including the advertisement of posts and competitive examination. The judgment established that the regularization of irregular appointments is contrary to law and that the petitioners, having accepted the terms of their temporary contracts, were estopped from claiming permanent status. The Court emphasized that the continuation of service does not ipso facto convert temporary employment into permanent status, and that the committee's recommendation to follow the prescribed recruitment process was legally sound and consistent with the principles of equality and merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract or ad hoc appointment in government service confer a vested right to regularization?
  • Can the government regularize contract employees without adhering to prescribed recruitment procedures and competitive examinations?
  • Does the mere continuation of service for a temporary employee convert their appointment into a permanent one?
  • Are employees who accept the terms of a temporary contract estopped from claiming permanent status?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs The State2015 P Cr. L J 808 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24
  post-arrest bailkidnapping for ransomAnti-Terrorism Courtstatutory delayfourth proviso to Section 497non-bailable offenceheinous crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose from FIR No. 2 of 2012 registered under Sections 302, 365, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, pending trial before the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta. The applicant sought bail primarily on the statutory ground of delay under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, asserting continuous detention since March 2012 and trial delay attributable to prosecution defaults. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant was nominated in a promptly lodged FIR for kidnapping a taxi driver for ransom and committing a gruesome murder. Relying on the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 21-D(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, the Court ruled that persons accused of acts of terrorism punishable with death or life imprisonment are statutorily disentitled from receiving bail on the ground of statutory delay. Furthermore, offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 carrying punishment over three years are explicitly non-bailable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused facing trial for an act of terrorism punishable with death or life imprisonment is entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the fourth proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar statutory delay bail for offences involving kidnapping for ransom and gruesome murder?
  • What is the effect of Section 21-D(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 on bail applications where an offence under the Act is punishable with death or imprisonment exceeding three years?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary2015 PLC (C.S.) 318 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-02
  review applicationscope of reviewtransfer and postingconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application arises from an order dismissing a constitutional petition that sought implementation of a mutual transfer between two government servants and challenged junior officer appointments. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the review application under civil procedure, the scope of review, and whether matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Balochistan High Court held that the review application failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or sufficient cause under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and noted that review is not an appeal or rehearing mechanism. Furthermore, the court held that grievances regarding transfer and posting pertain to terms and conditions of service, ousting the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • What are the grounds for maintaining a review application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants?
  • Are grievances regarding the transfer and posting of civil servants barred from High Court jurisdiction by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can contempt proceedings be initiated within the scope of a review application?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Kehtran vs The State2015 P Cr.L J 852 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-03
  post-arrest bailillicit arms and ammunitionexplosive substancesprohibitory clauseinconsistent pleastentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises out of FIR No. 6 of 2014 registered at Police Station Barkhan under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, following the recovery of a massive cache of arms, ammunition, and explosives from a bungalow during a raid. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given his denial of ownership of the premises, alleged political victimization, and the nature of the offences charged. The Balochistan High Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, finding prima facie reasonable grounds connecting him to the recovery, his presence at the spot during the raid, and inconsistent pleas taken across multiple connected proceedings regarding the ownership of the property. The court laid down the principle that where huge quantities of illicit arms and explosives are recovered from premises linked to an accused who fails to offer a consistent or plausible defense, and where statements of witnesses and memo of search prima facie implicate him, the case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and bail must be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when huge quantities of illicit arms and explosives are recovered from premises connected to him?
  • Does a plea of false implication due to political motives warrant further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when prima facie evidence is available?
  • Can contradictory stances taken by an accused across multiple bail applications regarding the ownership of the place of recovery disentitle him from the grant of bail?
  • Whether offences under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance 1965 and sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs The State through Deputy Prosecutor-General NAB, Balochistan2015 MLD 1572 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum and 8 others vs Abdul Ghaffar and 2 others2015 MLD 605 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs The State2015 MLD 499 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-09-18
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlconscious possessionrule of consistencydirectory provisionsrecovery of contrabandprivate witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from the arrest of the applicant, who was apprehended while driving a truck containing 4650 kg of poppy straw. The applicant sought post-arrest bail, contending that the raiding party failed to associate private witnesses, that the complainant (a Soobedar) was unauthorized, and that the rule of consistency entitled him to bail as a co-accused had been granted relief. The core legal questions were whether the non-association of private witnesses and the rank of the complainant vitiated the prosecution case, and whether the rule of consistency applied. The Court held that the applicant was in conscious possession of the contraband as the driver. It ruled that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excludes the requirement of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that procedural provisions regarding officer rank are directory, not mandatory. The Court dismissed the application, finding no merit in the arguments and distinguishing the applicant's case from that of the co-accused, thereby denying bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses in a narcotics case vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Are the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 regarding the rank of the investigating officer directory or mandatory?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply to bail applications where the evidence against co-accused persons is not identical?
  • Can conscious possession of contraband be inferred from the fact that an accused was driving the vehicle containing the illicit items?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez Luni vs The State through NAB2015 YLR 1596 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-24
  recovery of finedefault imprisonmentarrears of land revenueaccountability courtcriminal appealliability for fine
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by the Accountability Court-I, Balochistan, which allowed an application by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) for the recovery of a fine imposed upon the petitioner following his conviction. The core legal question was whether the fine imposed in a corruption reference could be recovered from the petitioner even after he had already served the full term of imprisonment awarded in default of payment of that fine. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the recovery of the fine remains valid despite the completion of the default sentence. Relying on established precedents, the court affirmed that serving a term of imprisonment in default of payment does not discharge the liability to pay the fine. The key principle laid down is that where an offender possesses the means to pay, the court retains the discretion to order the levy of the fine as arrears of land revenue, notwithstanding that the offender has already served the full term of imprisonment ordered for default of payment.

  Questions settled

  • Does serving the full term of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine discharge the liability to pay the fine?
  • Can a fine imposed by an Accountability Court be recovered as arrears of land revenue?
  • Does the court have the discretion to order the levy of a fine even after the offender has served the default imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari Khadim vs Government of Balochistan, Etc.s2015 NLR Service 142 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-08-15
  service appealdepartmental appealwrit jurisdictionlimitation periodretired civil servantservice tribunalrecovery of salary
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a retired civil servant seeking a direction from the High Court to the competent departmental authority to decide a pending departmental appeal regarding the recovery of salary, perks, and reimbursements. The petitioner, a former employee of the Education Department, had filed a departmental appeal in 2012 but failed to approach the Service Tribunal within the statutory 120-day period prescribed under the Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974. The State objected, arguing that the claim was time-barred and the petitioner had lost his right to appeal. The Court, however, declined to adjudicate the merits of the limitation issue or the maintainability of the petition regarding service conditions. Instead, the Court held that since the specific relief sought was merely a direction for the departmental authority to decide the pending appeal, it was appropriate to grant that limited relief. The Court directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner's pending appeal within one month, leaving the question of limitation and the merits of the service claim to be determined by the Service Tribunal as the relevant forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court issue a direction to a departmental authority to decide a pending appeal without adjudicating the underlying service dispute?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for the limited purpose of compelling a departmental authority to dispose of a pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs Moula Dad and 3 others2014 MLD 911 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-03Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad vs Provincial Transport Authority, Balochistan2014 CLC 1433 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-28Read full judgment →
• Usman Ltd. vs Lasbella Industrial Estate Development Authority Hub2014 YLR 1893 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-30Read full judgment →
• Ubaidullah and anothers vs The State and anothers2014 YLR 753 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-31
  quashment of FIRdishonoured chequeSection 489-F PPCinherent jurisdictionfugitive from lawcivil and criminal proceedingsSection 561-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of an FIR registered under sections 419, 420, 471, 489-F, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the dishonour of a cheque issued for a coal mining commission. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings under Section 489-F can be quashed on the grounds that the underlying dispute is purely civil and that payment was subsequently made. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the dishonour of a cheque issued for the fulfilment of an obligation constitutes a distinct criminal offence under Section 489-F, regardless of the civil nature of the underlying transaction. The Court emphasized that criminal and civil proceedings can proceed simultaneously and that inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should not be invoked to bypass the trial court when an alternative remedy, such as Section 249-A, exists. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners, having failed to surrender to the trial court, were fugitives from law and thus disentitled to discretionary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be quashed on the ground that the underlying dispute is purely civil?
  • Does the existence of a civil obligation preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings for the dishonour of a cheque?
  • Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an alternative remedy exists under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are petitioners who fail to surrender to the trial court entitled to seek the quashment of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor-General Balochistan, Quetta vs Abdul Aleem2014 P Cr. L J 432 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-25
  superdariinterim custodymotor vehicle taxcriminal revisionfake number platesinherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged the orders of a Judicial Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge, which granted superdari (custody) of a vehicle to the respondent. The vehicle had been seized by police due to allegations of using fake number plates, unauthorized police sirens, lights, and a government monogram. The core legal question concerned the criteria for granting interim custody of a vehicle involved in criminal proceedings. The High Court held that the lower courts acted in a cursory manner by failing to verify the vehicle's registration, tax status, or the legitimacy of its modifications before granting custody. The Court emphasized that mere possession at the time of seizure does not automatically entitle a person to superdari. It laid down the principle that a Magistrate has a duty to ensure a vehicle is compliant with applicable laws—including payment of motor vehicle tax and verification of registration—before releasing it. Although the lower courts erred, the High Court allowed the respondent to retain the vehicle, noting that the tax arrears were subsequently paid and the original registration documents were produced.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere possession of a vehicle at the time of seizure automatically entitle the possessor to interim custody (superdari)?
  • Is a Magistrate required to verify the legal compliance of a vehicle, such as payment of motor vehicle tax and registration status, before granting interim custody?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to correct a cursory order passed by a lower court regarding the custody of case property?
  Read full judgment →
• The Bank of Punjab through Regional Chief, General Manager, Quetta vs Khan Muhammad and 5 others through Attorneys2014 YLR 1002 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-12-19Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain Magsi and anothers vs Speaker Balochistan Provincial2014 CLC 1778 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-19Read full judgment →
• Talat Waheed Khan vs Government of Balochistan, through Secretary2014 YLR 2415 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Taj-Ud-Din vs Akhtar Muhammad and another2014 PLD Balochistan 96 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Nazeer Agha and another vs Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and 4 others2014 PLD Balochistan 86 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-23
  right to educationfundamental rightspublic interest litigationschool infrastructureteacher absenteeismconstitutional petitionsBalochistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions filed as public interest litigation addressing the non-provision of textbooks, poor state of educational infrastructure, absenteeism of teachers, and general dereliction of educational duties by authorities in Balochistan. The core legal question revolves around the implementation and enforcement of Article 25A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, which enshrines the right to education as a fundamental right requiring the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children aged five to sixteen. The court held that the State's constitutional obligation extends beyond merely constructing schools and providing free textbooks to actively ensuring an inviting school environment, regular teacher attendance, protection of school property from encroachment, and mandatory school attendance for all children, particularly girls. The key principle laid down is that making education a fundamental right requires concrete, multidimensional state action encompassing physical audits, revenue record protections, timely textbook distribution, and rigorous inspection mechanisms to fulfill both the free and compulsory components of the constitutional mandate.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 25A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 impose a duty on the State to ensure compulsory school attendance in addition to providing free education?
  • What specific measures can the Government of Balochistan take to prevent the illegal encroachment and transfer of school properties?
  • Whether the State's obligation under the fundamental right to education is fulfilled merely by constructing school buildings and supplying free textbooks?
  • How does the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 frame the obligations of state authorities regarding the provision of education to children aged five to sixteen?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahmeer vs The State2014 NLR Criminal 487, 2014 YLR 1138 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-01-02
  murder convictionhostile witnessdisclosure statementadmissibility of evidencepolice statementcriminal appealacquittalhearsay evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of a disclosure statement made to the police and the propriety of the prosecution using statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to contradict its own witnesses after they were declared hostile. The Balochistan High Court held that the disclosure statement was inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 because it did not lead to any discovery and was merely a statement made to a police officer. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that the prosecution cannot use statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to contradict its own witnesses, even after they are declared hostile, as such statements are reserved for the defence to contradict prosecution witnesses. Consequently, the Court found the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reiterates the strict exclusionary rules regarding police-recorded statements and confessions under Pakistani law.

  Questions settled

  • Is a disclosure statement made to the police admissible if it does not lead to any discovery of facts?
  • Can the prosecution use statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to contradict its own witnesses after they are declared hostile?
  • Is a statement made to a police officer admissible as evidence if it was made in the presence of a Magistrate?
  • Can hearsay evidence be used to sustain a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and 3 others vs Abdul Samad and 6 others2014 CLC 1609 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-27Read full judgment →
• Shah Meer vs The State2014 NLR Criminal 487 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-01-02
  criminal appealmurderinadmissible evidencehostile witnesspolice disclosureconfession to policeacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of a police disclosure statement under Articles 38 and 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the reliability of hearsay evidence, and whether the prosecution can use a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to contradict its own hostile witnesses. The Balochistan High Court held that a disclosure statement made to the police when prior knowledge already exists is inadmissible under Article 38, that hearsay evidence is inadmissible under Article 71, and that the prosecution cannot confront its own witness with a Section 161 statement for contradiction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that convictions cannot be sustained on inadmissible evidence and misappreciation of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a disclosure statement made to the police is admissible in evidence when the police already had prior knowledge of the facts?
  • Can the prosecution use a statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to contradict its own witness after declaring them hostile?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when it is primarily based on inadmissible evidence and hearsay?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaan Sher Tareen vs Registrar, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad and 2 others2014 PLC (C.S.) 1138 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-02
  constitutional petitionstatutory bodymaster and servantcompulsory retirementappellate authoritydelegation of powersright of audienceback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Regional Director at Allama Iqbal Open University, challenged his compulsory retirement resulting from corruption allegations regarding unverified vouchers. After an initial inquiry recommended compulsory retirement, a second inquiry years later led to a major penalty. He appealed to the Executive Council of the University under section 31 of the Allama Iqbal Open University Act, 1974, which ultimately dismissed his appeal based on a committee's report. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against a statutory university under master-and-servant principles, the delegability of appellate powers by the Executive Council, and the necessity of a hearing under natural justice and statutory provisions. The Balochistan High Court held that the University is a statutory body amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, that the Executive Council cannot delegate its statutory appellate function, and that failing to provide a personal hearing violated Section 31(3) of the Act. Furthermore, the court held that no mens rea or financial loss was established against the petitioner. The petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and restoring the petitioner's service with back-benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable against the Allama Iqbal Open University in service matters?
  • Does the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 apply to the service matters of employees of the Allama Iqbal Open University?
  • Can the Executive Council of the Allama Iqbal Open University delegate its power to hear and decide an appeal under section 31 of the Allama Iqbal Open University Act, 1974 to a Sub-Committee?
  • Is it mandatory to afford an opportunity of being heard to an appellant before passing an order on an appeal under section 31 of the Allama Iqbal Open University Act, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali and another vs The State2014 YLR 37 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-26
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlprohibitory clauserecovery of charasexclusion of section 103 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application challenges the order of the Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, Balochistan, Quetta, which refused post-arrest bail to the applicants facing trial under sections 9(c), 14, and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in F.I.R. No. 42 of 2013 registered at Police Station A.N.F., Quetta. The core legal question involved whether the accused were entitled to bail given the huge recovery of narcotics (1500 grams of Charas and liquor) from their possession and the applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Balochistan High Court held that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, carrying capital punishment or imprisonment for life, and that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded in narcotics cases pursuant to Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The court dismissed the bail application, laying down that recovery of narcotics from the direct possession of accused persons in cases falling under the prohibitory clause disentitles them to bail at this stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded in cases relating to narcotics pursuant to Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Are accused persons connected with the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics falling within the prohibitory clause entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Can the question of minority or juvenility of an accused be determined by the trial court during proceedings when no authentic documents are produced at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Saima vs Government of Balochistan2014 PLC (C.S.) 579 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-03
  writ jurisdictionaggrieved personeducational qualificationspublic appointmentservice lawconstitutional petitioneligibility criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appointment to the post of Lab Assistant at a Government Girls High School, with the petitioner seeking to have the existing appointment declared illegal and herself appointed instead. The petitioner contended that she was the sole candidate from the relevant Union Council and that her family had donated the land for the school, thereby entitling her to the position. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who lacked the requisite educational qualification (Matric in Science) specified in the advertisement, could claim a right to the appointment. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that the government is competent to prescribe specific qualifications for posts, and candidates must strictly meet these requirements. It ruled that a non-qualified person cannot be appointed to a post, regardless of local residency or land donation claims. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under Article 199 of the Constitution, a petitioner must demonstrate the infringement of a legal right to be considered an 'aggrieved person,' which the petitioner failed to establish.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate be appointed to a government post if they do not possess the requisite educational qualifications specified in the advertisement?
  • Does the donation of land for a government institution create a legal right for the donor's family member to be appointed to a post at that institution?
  • Is a petitioner who lacks the necessary qualifications for a post an 'aggrieved person' under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can a candidate claim an entitlement to a government post solely on the basis of being the only applicant from a specific Union Council?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadullah and another vs Secretary, Irrigation Department2014 MLD 19 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-07-26Read full judgment →
• Registrar, High Court of Balochistan, Quetta vs Mazar Khan and others2014 PLC (C.S.) 1275 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-11
  correction of date of birthcivil servantsuo motu revisionjurisdiction of civil courtsservice tribunalterms and conditions of servicesuperannuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from civil revision petitions initiated suo motu by the Balochistan High Court regarding declaratory decrees obtained by civil servants from subordinate Qazi courts altering their dates of birth near their retirement age. The core legal questions involved whether civil courts possess jurisdiction to entertain suits for the correction of dates of birth of civil servants, whether such matters fall exclusively within the domain of service tribunals under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the High Court can exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code without being constrained by limitation. The High Court held that civil courts have no jurisdiction to alter the date of birth of a civil servant, as such matters relate to the terms and conditions of service and fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution read with the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 and Rule 11 of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009. The key principles laid down are that decrees obtained from civil courts without jurisdiction or without impleading the government are nullities, that limitation does not bar the High Court from exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional errors, and that dates of birth once recorded at entry into service are final subject to strict limitation and procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the correction of date of birth filed by a civil servant?
  • Does the bar of limitation apply when the High Court exercises suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908?
  • Whether matters relating to the correction of a civil servant's date of birth fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a declaratory decree obtained from a civil court regarding a date of birth binding on the Government when the Government was not impleaded as a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Payo Khan alias Kakay vs The State2014 YLR 2270 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-16
  unlicensed armsexplosive substancesrecovery memojoint house recoverydemand for licencehostile witnesscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and section 13(e) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, following the alleged recovery of unlicensed arms, ammunition, and explosive materials from his house during a raid. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution proved the conscious possession and recovery of the items beyond a reasonable doubt, the effect of failing to demand a licence prior to prosecution under arms laws, and the legal consequences of violating mandatory procedural requirements regarding spot recoveries and joint houses under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that keeping an arm is not an offence unless a demand to produce a licence is made and refused, that recoveries from joint houses without independent witnesses and in violation of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are highly doubtful, and that flawed investigations vitiate the case. The key principles laid down include the necessity of demanding a licence before prosecuting for unlicensed possession and the strict requirement to adhere to statutory procedural safeguards during police raids and recoveries.

  Questions settled

  • Whether keeping an arm constitutes an offence under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 without a prior demand for the production of a licence?
  • What is the legal effect on a recovery if the recovery memo is prepared at the police station hours later instead of immediately at the spot in violation of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the failure of the investigating agency to join independent and respectable local witnesses during a raid from a joint house render the recovery doubtful?
  • What are the consequences of an Investigating Officer conducting an investigation in a cursory and slipshod manner in violation of the Police Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Workers Federation, Balochistan through President Pakistan2014 PLC 351 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-26
  constitutional lawEighteenth Amendmentlegislative competencetrans-provincial establishmentstrade unionsindustrial relationsFederal Legislative Listpith and substancedevolution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a series of constitutional petitions challenging the vires of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA 2012) following the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan. The petitioners contended that after the omission of the Concurrent Legislative List, trade unions and industrial disputes fell within the exclusive legislative domain of the provinces. The High Court examined whether Parliament retained competence to legislate for 'trans-provincial' establishments. The Court held that the IRA 2012 is intra vires the Constitution. The ratio decidendi establishes that while labor is generally a provincial subject, Parliament remains competent to legislate for establishments operating in more than one province under the 'Corporations Clause', 'Federally Controlled Institutions Clause', and 'Inter-province Clause' of the Federal Legislative List. The Court further applied the doctrine of 'pith and substance' and the 'Matters Incidental Clause', ruling that uniform regulation of trans-provincial trade unions is ancillary to the effective management of federal and inter-provincial entities. Consequently, provincial registrars cannot register unions for federal bodies like NADRA.

  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Petroleum Limited through Attorney vs Chief Minister, Balochistan through Principal Secretary Chief Minister House, Quetta and 3 others2014 CLC 405 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Uddin vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 113 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-05-23
  insanity defenseparanoid schizophrenialegal insanity vs medical insanityburden of proofcriminal liabilitymurder convictioninterested witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his cousin. The core legal question is whether the appellant, who was diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia, is entitled to the defense of insanity under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court held that the appellant failed to establish legal insanity at the time of the offense. While medical insanity (a diagnosis of mental illness) was present, the court emphasized that legal insanity requires proof that the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law. The court found that the appellant's behavior before, during, and after the crime indicated he understood the nature and consequences of his actions. The key principle laid down is that legal insanity is distinct from medical insanity; a diagnosis of mental disorder does not ipso facto exempt an accused from criminal liability unless it impairs cognitive faculties to the extent that the accused cannot distinguish right from wrong.

  Questions settled

  • Does a diagnosis of Paranoid Schizophrenia automatically entitle an accused to the defense of insanity under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the distinction between medical insanity and legal insanity in the context of criminal responsibility?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when an accused raises a plea of insanity as a general exception?
  • Can a witness be classified as an 'interested witness' solely based on their relationship with the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed vs The State2014 YLR 1125 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-06
  murder referencecriminal appealdeath penaltyfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusocular evidencesifting grain from chaffforensic evidence delaymotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a criminal jail appeal and murder reference against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Makran at Turbat, which convicted and sentenced the appellant to death on two counts under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for committing double murder. The core legal questions pertained to whether minor improvements or discrepancies between an eye-witness's court testimony and police statement discredit ocular evidence, whether a two-month delay in sending recovered empty cartridges for forensic testing creates fatal doubt, and whether the absence of proven motive serves as a mitigating circumstance against capital punishment. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence. The court held that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply in Pakistan, and courts must sift the grain from the chaff to accept reliable, corroborated portions of evidence. Minor variations between witness testimony and recovery memos do not fatalize the prosecution case when material facts are consistent. Furthermore, failure to question the investigating officer regarding delayed forensic dispatch precludes defence reliance on that ground, and absence of motive cannot mitigate the death penalty when double murder is established.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor discrepancy between an eye-witness statement and a recovery memo render ocular evidence unreliable?
  • Does the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to criminal trials in Pakistan?
  • Can delay in sending empty cartridges for forensic examination discredit prosecution evidence if no question regarding tampering was put to the investigating officer?
  • Does the absence of a proven motive constitute a mitigating circumstance to reduce a sentence of death in a double murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed vs Abid Ahmed and another2014 P Cr. L J 914 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-20
  appeal against acquittalperson aggrievedlimitation periodcondonation of delayhurt casesQisasCriminal Procedure Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses an appeal filed under section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 challenging the acquittal of the respondent by a Judicial Magistrate for offences under sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(i) read with section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions pertained to whether an appeal against acquittal in a hurt case is competent when filed by the victim's brother rather than the victim herself, and whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to condone delay in filing such an appeal under section 417(2-A), Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is excluded due to the bar under section 29(2) thereof, and that in hurt cases, only the victim or a competent legal representative in case of minority or insanity qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' under section 417(2-A), Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, rendering an appeal filed solely by the victim's brother incompetent. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is applicable to an appeal against acquittal filed under section 417(2-A), Criminal Procedure Code, 1898?
  • Does a brother of an injured victim qualify as an 'aggrieved person' to maintain an appeal against acquittal under section 417(2-A), Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 in a hurt case?
  • Who is competent to file an appeal against an order of acquittal in cases of hurt under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs The State2014 MLD 866 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-02-26
  narcotics recoverychemical analysisrepresentative samplecriminal appealsentencing reductionControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of two kilograms of hashish. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the recovery of the entire quantity of narcotics when samples were not taken from each individual piece of the recovered contraband. The High Court held that where multiple pieces of narcotics are recovered, a sample must be extracted from each piece and sent separately for chemical analysis to ensure the sample is representative. Failure to do so renders it unsafe to rely on the prosecution's claims regarding the substances not individually tested. Consequently, the Court ruled that only the quantity represented by the single tested sample could be attributed to the appellant. Applying this principle, the Court converted the conviction from Section 9(c) to Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and reduced the sentence accordingly, emphasizing the necessity of proper sampling procedures in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sample taken from only one piece of multiple recovered narcotic pieces sufficient to prove the weight of the entire recovery?
  • What is the consequence of failing to send separate samples from each piece of recovered narcotics for chemical analysis?
  • Can a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be converted to Section 9(b) based on improper sampling of the recovered contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs Muhammad Rasool and 7 others2014 CLC 1323 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-30Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah and others vs Chairman, Water and Sanitation Authority2014 PLC (C.S.) 531 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-23
  regularization of servicesdaily wagersconstitutional petitionstatutory bodiesgovernment employmentbasta high court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court by daily-wage employees seeking to set aside office orders regularizing their services as Valvemen (BPS-2) rather than as Supervisors (BPS-9), and praying for regularization in the higher grade. The core legal question was whether daily-wage employees appointed without advertisement or compliance with law have a legal right to claim regularization in a higher grade or demand regularization as a matter of right. The court held that the petition was devoid of merit, noting that regularization of daily-wage employees appointed outside the law is legally impermissible unless specifically provided by statute, and that the petitioners had accepted their appointment in BPS-2 and delayed challenging it. The court dismissed the petition with costs, establishing the principle that government and statutory appointments must strictly comply with applicable laws and that regularization without statutory backing is illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether daily-wage employees have a legal right to be regularized in service or in a particular grade without statutory backing?
  • Can appointments in government service and statutory bodies be made without advertising the posts?
  • Is the concept of regularization of illegal appointments permissible under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Ali vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 1464 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-05-23
  post-arrest bailelectronic transactionsfake facebook profileprohibitory clausefurther inquiryalternative punishmentscyber crime
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 36 and 37(1) of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, read with sections 420, 506, 507, and 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly creating a fake Facebook profile of the complainant, uploading her photographs, and sending obscene messages. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the relevant provisions provided for alternative punishments of imprisonment or fine. The Balochistan High Court held that since the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and alternative sentences of fine or imprisonment were provided, the lesser punishment should be considered for bail, rendering the case one of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that grant of bail is the rule where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, and alternative punishments make the applicability of imprisonment a matter of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence carrying alternative punishments of imprisonment or fine qualify as a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Are offences under sections 420, 506, 507 and 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the completion of investigation and submission of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 negate the need for custodial interrogation for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Musawir Ahmed and others vs Ghulam Rasool and another2014 MLD 229 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasool vs Abdul Ghafoor2014 MLD 95 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-07-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2014 PTD 1881, 111 TAX 1, 2022 PCTLR 1234 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qahir Shah and others vs Federation of Pakistan, Ministry2014 YLR 2571 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-08-30
  public interest litigationlocus standiauction of railway landpublic property dispositiontransparency in public auctionextension of payment termsright of first refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment addresses public interest constitutional petitions assailing the non-transparent auction and sale of valuable public land owned by Pakistan Railways in Quetta and Chamman at throwaway prices. The petitioner contended that the process was non-transparent, lacked adequate local publicity, and that the railway authority unlawfully altered payment terms and extended payment deadlines for successful bidders without inviting fresh public bids. The respondents challenged the petitioner's locus standi. The Balochistan High Court held that strict locus standi rules do not apply in public interest litigation highlighting serious transgressions of public duty. The court ruled that public property must be disposed of transparently to achieve the maximum market price. The court held that modifying bid payment conditions secretly to accommodate successful bidders without public re-advertisement violated principles of fairness and equity. Consequently, the court set aside the sale proceedings for the Quetta and Chamman properties, directing Pakistan Railways to offer the lands to the Government of Balochistan or re-auction them through a transparent, publicly advertised process.

  Questions settled

  • Does a citizen or public-spirited person have locus standi under Article 199 to challenge the unlawful disposition of public property?
  • Can a public authority secretly relax or alter the material payment terms of an auction for a successful bidder without inviting fresh public bids?
  • Does the failure of an auction purchaser to pay the bid consideration within the stipulated mandatory period render the sale invalid?
  • What duty lies on public functionaries when advertising public land for lease or auction to ensure competitive and transparent bidding?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Ibrahim2014 MLD 397 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Amanullah and 2 others2014 C.L.R. 1262 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Junan and 2 others2014 CLC 548 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan2014 PLC (C.S.) 467 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-12-19
  WAPDA employeesconstitutional petitionservice jurisdictionpromotion disputeseniorityArticle 212civil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former WAPDA employee seeking a declaration of seniority over a private respondent and subsequent promotion. The petitioner, having served as a Superintending Engineer, alleged that he was superseded by a junior colleague despite having an unblemished service record. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate a dispute concerning promotion, given the statutory status of WAPDA employees. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 17(1)(1B) of the West Pakistan Water And Power Development Authority Act, 1958, WAPDA employees are deemed civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 applies, ousting the High Court's jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that promotion is not a vested right but depends on eligibility-cum-fitness, and disputes regarding terms and conditions of service fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, not the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Are WAPDA employees considered civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate promotion disputes of WAPDA employees?
  • Is promotion a vested right of a civil servant that can be enforced through a constitutional petition?
  • Does the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 apply to service matters of WAPDA employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan, Etc.2014 PLC (C.S.) 467, 2014 NLR Service 9 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-12-19
  WAPDA employeesservice matterpromotion disputeconstitutional jurisdictionArticle 212 barcivil servantseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired WAPDA employee, filed a constitutional petition challenging the promotion of a junior colleague, asserting his own seniority rights. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate a service-related grievance concerning promotion, or whether such matters were exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal under Article 212. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction. It determined that WAPDA employees are deemed civil servants under the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, and the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, disputes regarding terms and conditions of service, including promotion and seniority, are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court reaffirmed that promotion is not a vested right but depends on eligibility and fitness, and that matters relating to terms and conditions of service are barred from High Court scrutiny by Article 212 of the Constitution, falling instead under the exclusive purview of the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate service-related promotion disputes for WAPDA employees?
  • Are WAPDA employees considered civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Is promotion a vested right of a civil servant that can be agitated in a constitutional petition?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution bar the High Court from hearing service matters regarding terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 951 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-13
  criminal appealmurderretracted confessionlast seen evidencecircumstantial evidencevoluntary confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal was filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Turbat, which convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including 'last seen' evidence, the recovery of an empty cartridge, and a judicial confession. The appellant contended that the conviction was based on a retracted confession lacking independent corroboration and that there were contradictions in the witness statements. The High Court observed that the confession was recorded voluntarily without duress by a Judicial Magistrate who complied with all legal formalities. The Court held that there is no legal bar to recording a conviction based on a retracted confession if it is found to be voluntary and true. Finding that the confession was corroborated by the 'last seen' evidence and the recovery of the empty shell, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a retracted confession alone sufficient to sustain a conviction if it is found to have been made voluntarily and truthfully?
  • What is the evidentiary value of 'last seen' evidence when it is corroborated by a voluntary confession and recovery of weapon materials?
  • Does the retraction of a confession affect the determination of whether it was originally made voluntarily and under no duress?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs S.H.O. Police Station New Sariab, Quetta and 22014 P Cr. L J 1007 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-21
  registration of FIRcross versionssecond FIRex-officio justice of the peacecognizable offencepolice investigationcriminal quashmentmurderous assault
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal quashment petition challenged an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge acting as an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, which dismissed the petitioner's application under section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the registration of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) based on his version of an occurrence. The SHO had refused to record a separate F.I.R., instead incorporating the petitioner's written statement into an earlier F.I.R. registered by the police, relying on departmental instructions prohibiting multiple F.I.Rs in counter-version scuffles. The core legal questions involved the legality of refusing a separate F.I.R. upon receiving cross-versions of a cognizable offence and the binding authority of administrative police instructions over statutory duties. The Balochistan High Court held that an SHO has no legal authority to determine the truth or falsehood of allegations or refuse an F.I.R. based on credibility assessments; where distinct and separate cross-versions disclose cognizable offences, the police are statutorily bound to record a separate F.I.R. to ensure a fair investigation. The court laid down the principle that administrative instructions cannot override statutory provisions requiring the registration of independent F.I.Rs for distinct counter-versions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an SHO is legally justified in refusing to register a separate FIR for a cross-version on the ground that an FIR for the same occurrence has already been recorded?
  • Can administrative instructions or departmental letters issued by police high-ups override the statutory duty to record an information regarding a cognizable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an officer in charge of a police station possess the legal authority to determine the truth, credibility, or falsity of allegations before recording an FIR?
  • Whether a separate and independent FIR must be recorded when two distinct and opposite versions of the same criminal occurrence are brought to the notice of the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Essa vs District Judge, Pishin and 14 others2014 CLC 1288 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 178 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-20
  post-arrest bailcompromisenon-compoundable offencedacoitymurderHudoodQisas and Ta'zir
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was moved before the Balochistan High Court seeking post-arrest bail for the accused, Muhammad Ayub, who was charged under sections 302 and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for a murder committed during a dacoity. The core legal question was whether a compromise effected between the parties can serve as a ground for granting bail in a non-bailable and non-compoundable offence, particularly when a murder occurs during a dacoity. The court dismissed the bail application, holding that a compromise in a non-compoundable offence cannot be given legal effect to grant bail as a matter of right, and that criminal offences are crimes against the State in which society has a vital interest. The key principle laid down is that while a compromise may be a factor to consider alongside the facts and circumstances of a case, it cannot form the sole basis for granting bail in heinous, non-compoundable offences where statutory bars like section 345(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a compromise effected between the parties can be considered as a ground for release of a person accused of a non-bailable and non-compoundable offence?
  • Does a compromise in a non-compoundable offence override the statutory bar envisaged under section 345(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of bail?
  • Can an offence of murder committed during the course of a dacoity be compounded under Islamic law or statutory penal provisions?
  • Is the possibility that witnesses might resile at trial a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Khan and anothers vs Secretary, Board of Directors2014 YLR 553 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam and others vs Planning and Development Department, Government of Balochistan through Additional Chief Secretary and others2014 PLD Balochistan 1 · Balochistan High Court
  Public Interest LitigationLocus StandiMisuse of Public FundsConstitutional JurisdictionConflict of InterestNepotismJudicial ReviewAdministrative Discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the allocation of Rs. 154.801 million from public funds for the construction of a private madrassa, Jamia Dar-ul-Aloom, owned by the family of the Provincial Minister for Planning and Development. The core legal questions concerned the standing of petitioners in public interest litigation to challenge the use of public funds and whether the government possesses unfettered discretion in such allocations. The Court held that the allocation was arbitrary, unfair, and constituted nepotism, lacking transparency and public purpose. Emphasizing that public funds are held in trust by the government, the Court ruled that such resources cannot be diverted for private interests or self-aggrandizement. Consequently, the Court declared the allocation without lawful authority and ordered the private respondent to return all received funds within ninety days, failing which recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue must be initiated. The judgment establishes that public servants act as custodians, not owners, of public money, and that any expenditure must adhere to principles of probity, transparency, and public welfare, subject to judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner in public interest litigation withdraw their petition at will?
  • Does a citizen have the standing to challenge the allocation of public funds to a private entity under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Is the government's discretion to allocate funds from the Provincial Consolidated Fund unfettered and absolute?
  • Does the allocation of public funds to an entity owned by the family of a government minister constitute a conflict of interest?
  Read full judgment →