Latest Judgments

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

• Muhammad Afzal and 7 others vs Government of Balochistan and 122014 C.L.R. 1439 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra and others vs Tariq Murtaza and another2014 MLD 740 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-11-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Alim Taj vs Mst. Sahib Jan and 2 otherss2014 YLR 385 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-30
  benami transactioninheritancelocus standimutation entrysource of considerationostensible ownerdocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge-IV, Quetta, dismissing a suit for declaration, possession, injunction, and rendition of accounts. The appellant contended that her late father had purchased a residential house with his own funds and placed the title in her step-mother's name as a benamidar out of love and affection, making the subsequent transfer by the step-mother void and entitling the appellant to her inheritance share. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant proved the transaction was benami, and whether she possessed locus standi to challenge mutation entries that her deceased father had not challenged during his lifetime. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that documentary evidence excluded oral testimony under Article 103 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that mere provision of purchase consideration does not render a transaction benami if intended to confer title on a close relative. The Court reaffirmed that legal heirs cannot challenge mutations left uncontested by their predecessor.

  Questions settled

  • Does a property purchased by a person from his own funds in the name of a close relative automatically become a benami transaction if the purchaser intended title to vest in that relative?
  • Can legal heirs challenge a property mutation as benami after their predecessor's death when the predecessor never challenged the mutation during his lifetime?
  • Does documentary evidence reflecting a transferor's title exclude contradictory oral evidence regarding property ownership under Article 103 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Zahida Nawaz vs Government of Balochistan through2014 PLC (C.S.) 294 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-12-04
  public employmentmerit-based appointmentconstitutional discriminationequal protectionzonal quotapublic service commissionservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a qualified candidate for the post of Research Officer (B-17) in the Agriculture and Cooperative Department of the Government of Balochistan, successfully passed the tests and interviews conducted by the Balochistan Public Service Commission. Despite receiving an offer of appointment and clearing medical examinations, the government failed to issue an appointment letter, citing domicile issues and the refusal to relax zonal quotas. The core legal question was whether the government could deny an appointment to a candidate who had secured the highest marks on merit, particularly when other merit seats remained vacant. The Court held that the petitioner, having secured the highest marks, was entitled to be appointed on a merit seat. The Court found the government's failure to appoint her discriminatory and violative of constitutional guarantees. The key principle laid down is that the state cannot deny employment to a qualified candidate who has secured the highest merit position, as doing so constitutes discrimination and violates the constitutional right to equality before the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government deny an appointment to a candidate who has secured the highest marks on merit in a public service examination?
  • Does the failure to appoint a qualified candidate who secured the highest marks constitute discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a candidate entitled to appointment on a merit seat when they have successfully cleared the selection process and obtained higher marks than other appointees?
  Read full judgment →
• Mitha Khan Umrani vs Federation of Pakistan2014 PLC (C.S.) 571 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-23
  constitutional petitionservice matterrequisite qualificationage relaxationabolition of postpublic appointmenteligibility criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Balochistan High Court seeking directions against the National Assembly Secretariat for failing to interview him for the post of "Micro Form Technician" or consider him under the Balochistan provincial quota. The core legal questions involved whether an unqualified and over-age candidate could challenge recruitment criteria, and whether the employer had the discretion to re-designate or abolish obsolete posts. The High Court held that the petitioner lacked the stipulated educational qualification (possessing an Arts intermediate rather than Science, and lacking the requisite microfilming experience by the cutoff date) and was over-age, while also noting that the post in question had been legitimately abolished and re-designated. The court affirmed the principle that the government is fully competent to prescribe qualifications for a post, eligibility must strictly conform to the advertisement and service rules, and un-qualified candidates have no enforceable right to public appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unqualified candidate lacks the legal right to challenge a recruitment process for a public post?
  • Is the government competent to prescribe and alter educational and experience qualifications for a particular public post?
  • Can a candidate claim eligibility based on qualifications and experience acquired after the cutoff date stipulated in the job advertisement?
  • Does an employer have the discretion to re-designate or abolish a post that has lost its utility?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Sanad Khan and 6 others vs The State2014 PLD Balochistan 113 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-13
  summoning of material witnessinquiry officer opinionadmissibility of evidencecriminal revisionjudicial proceedingdiscretionary power of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Loralai, allowing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to summon a Judicial Magistrate as a witness to record his evidence regarding an inquiry conducted by him. The core legal question revolved around whether the opinion or statement of an inquiry officer/Magistrate, who did not witness the occurrence but formed an opinion based on statements of witnesses, is admissible in evidence and essential for the just decision of a criminal trial. The High Court held that the statement of the Magistrate amounts to an opinion rather than a fact, is inadmissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and cannot be used as an incriminating piece of evidence or bind the trial court. The Court laid down the principle that discretionary powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, must be exercised judiciously for the ends of justice and not to summon a witness whose testimony is legally inadmissible or merely a futile repetition to fill gaps.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the opinion of a Judicial Magistrate acting as an inquiry officer is admissible in evidence during a criminal trial?
  • Can a trial court summon an inquiry officer as a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, when his proposed evidence is based on hearsay and statements of witnesses already examined?
  • What is the distinction between an inquiry and a judicial proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Are the findings or opinion of an inquiry officer binding upon a trial court deciding a case on independent assessment of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation (Pvt) Limited2014 PLD Balochistan 55 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-07-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bolan Steel Industries (Pvt) Ltd. through Managing Director and others vs Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) through Chairman and others2014 PLD Balochistan 173 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-08Read full judgment →
• Merck (Private) Limited through Manager and others vs Member Labour2014 PLC 164 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-31
  workmanindustrial disputeback benefitspleadingslabour court jurisdictionreinstatementconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves constitutional petitions filed by Merck (Private) Limited challenging the concurrent judgments of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of terminated employees with back-benefits. The core legal question was whether the private respondents qualified as 'workmen' under the applicable labour laws and whether their termination was sustainable. The Balochistan High Court held that the lower forums failed to properly evaluate whether the employees fell within the definition of workmen based on the nature of their duties, noting that evidence regarding job descriptions was beyond the pleadings and that the foundational requirements for invoking labour court jurisdiction were not met. The court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the cases back to the 1st Labour Court with directions to allow the applicants to amend their applications and decide the matter afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Whether designation as an officer alone excludes an employee from the category of a workman?
  • Can a party be permitted to lead evidence beyond the scope of its pleadings?
  • Whether back-benefits should be granted automatically upon reinstatement under the principle of no work no pay?
  • Whether an appellate labour tribunal can analyze evidence when the trial court failed to discuss or appreciate it?
  Read full judgment →
• Mardumanemalle Zai Nida Kahol through Haji Saleh Muhammad and others vs Mardumanekilli Khudaierahim Sadezai (Shai) through their Elders and others2014 CLC 426 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-07-18Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain alias Mama vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 744 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-07
  attempt to commit qatl-e-amdplea of alibiadverse presumptiongiven up witnessesocular testimonymotiveminor discrepancies
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, handed down by the Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Quetta, for firing upon the complainant and causing him bullet injuries. The core legal questions involved the evaluation of a special plea of alibi, the effect of the prosecution giving up certain material witnesses under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the necessity of establishing motive in the presence of unimpeachable ocular evidence, and the distinction between minor discrepancies and fatal contradictions in testimonies. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, that the appellant failed to substantiate his plea of alibi, and that the explanation provided by the Investigating Officer regarding given up witnesses rebutted any adverse presumption. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of motive is fatal to the prosecution case in the presence of unimpeachable ocular evidence?
  • Can an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 be drawn against the prosecution when the Investigating Officer offers a reasonable explanation for giving up certain witnesses?
  • How are minor inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses to be treated by the court?
  • What is the scope and application of the first part of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 regarding intention, knowledge, and the award of Ta'zir punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Maher Gul vs Government of Balochistan, Education Department2014 CLC 1810 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-07-07Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 48 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-08-21
  post-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clauseelectricity theftregistration of FIRcognizable offencepreliminary inquiryconstitutional petitiondouble jeopardy
  Summary & questions settled

  The first matter concerns a post-arrest bail application for an accused charged with electricity theft and criminal misconduct. The court held that since the investigation was complete and the alleged offences, excluding the inapplicable corruption charge, fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail should be granted as a rule. The court emphasized that refusing bail in cases punishable by fine alone risks double jeopardy and contravenes Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The second matter involves a constitutional petition seeking the registration of an FIR for a cognizable offence. The court held that police officials are legally obligated to register an FIR upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence and are strictly prohibited from conducting preliminary inquiries to determine the truth or falsity of the allegations. Relying on established Supreme Court precedent, the court affirmed that the remedy for false reporting is the prosecution of the informant, not the refusal to register the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail a rule in non-bailable offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an Officer Incharge of a Police Station have the legal authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the truthfulness of information before registering an FIR?
  • Can the refusal of bail in cases punishable by fine alone constitute double jeopardy?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for the lodging of a false FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad and others vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 449 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-11-29
  post-arrest bailpublic functionaryprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustmisappropriation of armsexceptional circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from FIR No. 24 of 2012 registered at Police Station Barkhan under sections 408 and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, regarding the mysterious missing of a large quantity of arms and ammunition from the police line kot room. The core legal question concerns whether public functionaries accused of misappropriating state arms and ammunition from their custody are entitled to post-arrest bail when the offenses fall outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Balochistan High Court held that offenses committed by public functionaries in connection with their public office, affecting society as a whole and endangering public peace, constitute exceptional circumstances warranting the refusal of bail even if the offense falls outside the prohibitory clause. The court established that courts must exercise strict discretion in bail matters involving public officeholders accused of breach of trust regarding state property.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be refused in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under exceptional circumstances?
  • Does an offense committed by a public functionary in connection with public office constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting the refusal of bail?
  • Are public officials accused of losing or misappropriating state arms and ammunition entitled to post-arrest bail as a matter of routine?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalal Ud Din and another vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 308 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-08-02
  post-arrest bailexplosive substancespotassium chlorateburden of proofprohibitory clausesuspicious circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons charged under sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the recovery of 80 sacks of potassium chlorate from their vehicle. The core legal question was whether the possession of potassium chlorate, which the applicants argued was not an explosive substance per se, warranted the grant of bail. The court held that while potassium chloride is inert, potassium chlorate is a precursor used in explosives and is inherently dangerous. Relying on the Bomb Disposal Commander's report and a certificate from the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, the court found prima facie evidence of possession of explosive material. The court clarified that under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the burden lies on the accused to prove that possession of such substances was for a lawful object once reasonable suspicion is established. Finding that the applicants failed to provide a plausible explanation and noting the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court dismissed the bail applications.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of potassium chlorate constitute possession of an explosive substance under the Explosive Substances Act 1908?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish a lawful object for the possession of explosive substances under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908?
  • Does the offense of possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Institute for Development Studies and Practices, Quetta vs Government of Balochistan, Secretary Land Utilization_Senior Member Board of Revenue, Quetta2014 CLC 1211 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-01Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah and Three Others vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 594, 2014 NLR Criminal 509 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-22
  common intentioncriminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencevicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Quetta, which convicted the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and Section 337(d) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the common intention of the appellants under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to hold them liable for the fatal firearm injuries inflicted by an absconding co-accused. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide direct evidence linking the appellants to the fatal injuries or to prove that the appellants acted in furtherance of a common intention with the absconding shooter. The Court noted material contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' statements and a lack of recovery of incriminating evidence from the appellants. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that when evidence is insufficient to connect accused persons to the commission of an offense, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to them.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without evidence of a specific role, establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an accused liable for a fatal act committed by a co-accused if there is no evidence of a shared common intention?
  • Should an acquittal be ordered when there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah and 3 others vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 594 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-22
  common intentioncriminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencemurder convictionvicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Quetta, which convicted the appellants under Section 302(b) and Section 337(D) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment and imprisonment for injuries caused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' culpability for the murder and injuries under the doctrine of common intention, given the specific evidence presented. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the appellants and the injuries sustained by the victims. While an absconding co-accused was identified as the shooter, no specific role or weapon recovery was attributed to the appellants that would substantiate their involvement in the fatal act. The Court found material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence and concluded that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the lack of evidence connecting the appellants to the crime. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and affirmed that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when evidence is insufficient to prove common intention.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of specific role attribution and weapon recovery preclude a conviction under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the roles of the accused?
  • Should the benefit of doubt be extended to appellants when the medical evidence fails to corroborate the prosecution's version of the injuries caused by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• High Court Bar Association vs Government of Balochistan and others2014 PLD Balochistan 76 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-23Read full judgment →
• Hayrbayar Domki vs Returning Officer, Municipal Committee.2014 CLC 1490 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-05-29Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Jan and another vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 571 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-26
  anti-terrorismmurderunlawful assemblyvicarious liabilityocular and medical contradictiondisclosure memoconfessioneyewitness testimonycommon object
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta, convicting the appellants under section 302(b) read with section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for life imprisonment. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether minor contradictions between ocular and medical evidence warrant total rejection of eyewitness testimony, the admissibility of disclosure memos under the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, and the application of vicarious liability under an unlawful assembly. The Balochistan High Court held that minor contradictions do not discredit otherwise reliable eyewitnesses, especially when corroborated by injured witnesses and the accused's own statements admitting presence at the crime scene. Furthermore, disclosure memos leading to no new discovery are inadmissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. The court established that members of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object are vicariously liable for offenses committed in prosecution thereof. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions between ocular and medical evidence are fatal to the entire prosecution case?
  • Can a disclosure memo made to police be used as an admission or confession without resulting in the discovery of a new fact under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • When does the principle of vicarious liability apply to members of an unlawful assembly under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Should the testimony of interested or inimical eyewitnesses be entirely discarded due to minor inconsistencies?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Hameed vs Raz Muhammad and another2014 PLD Balochistan 50 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-08-20
  disinterment of corpsecriminal revisioncause of deathmedical evidenceDNA testexhumationCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Loralai, which permitted the disinterment of a deceased person's body for DNA testing approximately 18 months after the incident. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the exhumation of a body to facilitate the collection of evidence for the accused's defense regarding the weapon used in the crime. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside. The Court established that Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is strictly intended for inquiries into the actual cause of death, particularly where it remains mysterious, rather than for identifying perpetrators or verifying crime weapons. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that disinterment is a sensitive process involving cultural and religious considerations and should not be permitted for academic exercises or to rectify evidentiary gaps after significant delays. The appropriate remedy for an accused to challenge medical evidence is through cross-examination or expert testimony, not exhumation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order the disinterment of a corpse under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of identifying the weapon used in a crime?
  • Is the power to order disinterment under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 intended to be used for academic exercises or to fill gaps in evidence?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for an accused to challenge the medical evidence regarding the cause of death or the nature of injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Ali Khan Jamali vs Returning Officer/Adc Jaffarabad and 22014 CLC 1381 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-12-20
  nomination paperselectoral rolllocal bodies electionqualification of candidateselection scheduleBalochistan Local Government
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting his nomination papers for Ward No. 2 of the Municipal Committee, Usta Muhammad, after his acceptance by the Returning Officer was set aside in appeal. The core legal question was whether a candidate whose name is not entered in the electoral roll of a specific ward can contest the election from that constituency, and whether electoral rolls can be corrected after the announcement of the election schedule. The Balochistan High Court held that a person must be enrolled as a voter in the electoral roll of the relevant ward to qualify as a candidate, and that under Section 20 of the Electoral Rolls Act 1974, no correction or revision of electoral rolls can be made after the constituency has been called upon to elect. The Court laid down the principle that failure to verify electoral enrollment within the provided time and the statutory bar against post-schedule corrections preclude a candidate from contesting in a constituency where their name is not duly enrolled.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person contest a local council election from a ward where their name is not entered in the electoral roll?
  • Whether any correction or revision of an electoral roll can be made after a constituency has been called upon to elect its representative?
  • What are the qualifications required for a candidate to be elected to a local council under the Balochistan Local Government Act 2010?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah and anothers vs The State2014 YLR 1833 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-30
  criminal appealmurderocular accountchance witnessplea of alibiwithholding of evidencebenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular testimony provided by allegedly chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, the effect of withholding vital independent eyewitnesses, and the validity of the plea of alibi supported by service and mobile location records. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was unreliable due to unexplained presence at a distant location and failure to receive injuries during indiscriminate firing, that an adverse inference was warranted against the prosecution for withholding material witnesses under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and that the defence had successfully substantiated its plea of alibi to create reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses residing far from the crime scene can be relied upon without independent corroboration when their presence appears unnatural and unexplained?
  • What is the legal effect when the prosecution withholds crucial independent eyewitnesses and best evidence available during a murder trial?
  • Can a plea of alibi supported by official attendance records and mobile location data be deemed sufficient to create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Whether a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt regarding the presence of an eye-witness is sufficient to discard their testimony under criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah and 8 others vs Mir Manzoor Hussain and another2014 MLD 303 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-14Read full judgment →
• Gohram alias Ali Gohar and anothers vs Mst. Zar Bano alias Zero2014 CLC 1126 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and another vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 1366 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-12
  vicarious liabilitycommon intentioncriminal appealmurder convictiondisclosure statementAnti-Terrorism Actadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the murder of the deceased, Adho Mall, under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the appellants, who were present at the scene and acted in concert with an absconding co-accused, could be held vicariously liable for murder despite the fatal shots being fired by the absconding individual. The court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt through consistent witness testimony, prompt FIR registration, and admissible disclosure statements under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The court held that the evidence demonstrated a prearranged plan and common intention to commit the crime. The key principle laid down is that under the doctrine of vicarious liability, when a criminal act is committed in furtherance of a common intention, all participants are equally liable for the act, regardless of the specific role played by each individual.

  Questions settled

  • Is a disclosure statement made to a police officer admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, if it leads to the discovery of a fact?
  • Can an accused be held vicariously liable for murder under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the fatal shot was fired by an absconding co-accused?
  • Does the doctrine of common intention apply to participants who share a prearranged plan even if they did not personally fire the fatal weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State2014 YLR 1550 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-24
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealrecovery memochemical analysis reportsifting grain from chaffburden of proofControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances, Balochistan, Quetta, which convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of a large quantity of narcotics (Charas and Opium) found in a Hino truck. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically addressing arguments regarding the validity of the sampling process and the alleged inconsistency in convicting the appellant while acquitting a co-accused. The Court held that the prosecution’s evidence, including recovery memos and the chemical analysis report, was consistent and reliable, establishing the guilt to the hilt. The Court rejected the appellant's contentions, noting that the sample size was sufficient to attract the relevant penal provisions and that the trial court correctly applied the principle of 'sifting the grain from the chaff' when evaluating the evidence against the co-accused. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to demonstrate any illegality or misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction of one accused while acquitting another on the same set of evidence is legally permissible?
  • Does a sample size of narcotics that is less than the total recovered quantity invalidate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the testimony of raiding party officials sufficient to establish guilt in narcotics cases without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Chairman/Secretary S&Gad, Housing Allotment2014 PLC (C.S.) 219 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-02-06
  government accommodationallotment of quartersrejection of plaintillegal occupantcause of actioncivil procedurelocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from concurrent decisions of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's civil suit seeking a declaration of entitlement to allotment of a government quarter and cancellation of another's allotment. The core legal questions involved whether an unauthorized occupant possessing government accommodation through an ex-allottee acquires a legal right or cause of action for allotment, and whether failure to frame issues by the trial court vitiates the proceedings warranting a remand. The High Court held that the petitioner, having entered the premises without a valid allotment order and in violation of the applicable rules, held the status of an illegal occupant possessing no cause of action, and that remanding the case despite the trial court's procedural irregularity of not framing issues would be an abuse of process where the pleadings themselves disclose no legal right. The court affirmed the dismissal of the suit with the modification that the plaint stands rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principles laid down are that mere physical occupation, informal handover by an ex-allottee, or salary deductions for rent do not create a legal right or cause of action for government accommodation without a valid allotment order under the governing rules, and a technical procedural defect like failing to frame issues does not warrant remand if the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unauthorized occupant of government accommodation acquire a cause of action for allotment merely because rent is deducted from their salary?
  • Whether failure to frame issues by the trial court necessitates a remand when the plaint discloses no cause of action under the governing rules?
  • Can a close relative or ex-allottee legally transfer possession of government residential accommodation without a valid allotment order by the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastagir and 3 others vs The State2014 PLD Balochistan 100 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-11-29
  wildlife protectionillegal huntingrevisional jurisdictionreduction of sentenceprobation 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, resulting in a six-month sentence of imprisonment and a fine. The Sessions Judge subsequently reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone without recording reasons. The primary legal question addressed by the High Court was whether the Sessions Judge's unjustified reduction of sentence could be corrected in revision, and whether a court releasing an offender on probation under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 can legally impose a condition requiring the performance of community service. The High Court held that the Sessions Judge committed an illegality by reducing the sentence without reasons, thereby restoring the original six-month sentence, but further exercised its discretion to release the petitioners on probation for one year, incorporating a community service order requiring them to plant and nurture trees as a condition of their probation. The court laid down the principle that the broad enabling language of section 5(2) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 permits the imposition of community service conditions to achieve rehabilitation and reparation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can reduce a sentence of imprisonment without recording reasons?
  • Can a court exercising revisional jurisdiction restore a trial court's sentence of imprisonment reduced arbitrarily by an appellate court?
  • Whether a condition requiring the performance of community service can be lawfully imposed when releasing an offender on probation under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960?
  • Whether the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 exclude the incorporation of community service as a condition of probation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastageer vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 410 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-10-31
  custody of vehiclecase propertyconfiscationfunctus officioanti-terrorismcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from an order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Quetta, rejecting an application for the custody of a confiscated vehicle under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the trial court could refuse to entertain an application for the custody of case property on the ground that it had become functus officio under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following a confiscation order in a judgment, despite directions from the Supreme Court of Pakistan to decide the matter on merits. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court committed a material irregularity by dismissing the application as barred by Section 369, noting that the Supreme Court had explicitly set aside previous orders and directed the trial court to decide the custody application afresh. The key principle laid down is that a trial court cannot refuse to decide the custody of case property pursuant to specific directions of the apex court under the guise of being functus officio.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can refuse to decide an application for the custody of case property on the ground of being functus officio under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an order regarding the confiscation of case property fall within the definition of a judgment under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are subordinate courts bound to comply with specific directions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to entertain and decide applications regarding case property on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghousuddin and 5 others vs Rashida and 3 otherss2014 YLR 293 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-09Read full judgment →
• General (R) Syed Pervez Musharraf vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 1434 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-29
  personal appearanceexemption from attendancecriminal trial procedureAnti-Terrorism Courtframing of chargeSection 540-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Anti-Terrorism Court, which dismissed an application for exemption from personal appearance filed by the petitioner, Pervez Musharraf, in a murder case. The core legal question was whether an accused in a non-summons criminal case can be granted exemption from personal appearance under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without having first appeared before the court to answer the charge. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Aurangzeb v. Mushtaq Ahmed, held that the impugned order was legally sound. The court ruled that Section 540-A requires the accused to be physically present before the court to initially answer the charge before any exemption from future attendance can be considered. The ratio established is that in non-summons cases, an accused must personally appear to face the charge, as the right to respond to a criminal charge is a fundamental procedural safeguard. Consequently, the court upheld the trial court's decision, directing the State to ensure the petitioner's safety during court appearances.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused in a non-summons criminal case be granted exemption from personal appearance under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first appearing to answer the charge?
  • Does the requirement of being 'before the Court' in Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 necessitate the physical presence of the accused?
  • Is Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to murder cases where a warrant of arrest has been issued?
  Read full judgment →
• General (R) Syed Pervaiz Musharraf vs The State and another2014 PLD Balochistan 44 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-08-24
  transfer applicationAnti-Terrorism Courtterritorial jurisdictionstatutory interpretationjudicial powersecurity of accusedAnti-Terrorism Act 1997
  Summary & questions settled

  This transfer application was filed by General (R) Syed Pervez Musharraf seeking to transfer a murder case pending before an Anti-Terrorism Court in Quetta to an Anti-Terrorism Court in Islamabad, citing security threats. 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 the province to one outside the province. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the Chief Justice of a High Court lacks the jurisdiction to transfer a case beyond the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court. The Court clarified that the term "area" in Section 28(1) refers strictly to areas within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court concerned, as defined by Section 2(k) of the Act. Consequently, the power to transfer cases does not extend to transferring matters to courts outside the High Court's territorial limits. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's security concerns were unsubstantiated, emphasizing the state's duty to ensure the safety of under-trial prisoners.

  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 territorial jurisdiction of that High Court?
  • What is the scope of the term 'area' as used in Section 28(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 regarding the transfer of cases?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court case be transferred to a court outside the province based on the security concerns of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Gen. (R) Syed Pervez Musharraf vs The State and another2014 PLD Balochistan 33 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-07-30
  post-arrest bailterritorial jurisdictionpolice reportcustody of accusedpremature bail applicationsupplementary challan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant, General (R) Syed Pervez Musharraf, seeking post-arrest bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in F.I.R. No. 26 of 2009 registered under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Dera Bugti concerning the murder of Nawab Muhammad Akbar Khan Bugti. The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of a bail application under section 497 when the accused, though arrested in connection with the case and facing a supplementary challan, has not yet been produced in custody or transferred within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. The Balochistan High Court held that an application under section 497 is premature and not maintainable before a court unless the accused is physically produced in custody or brought within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. The High Court laid down the principle that once an investigation is completed and a police report is submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the physical custody of the accused must be forwarded to the concerned trial court, and a court which does not possess physical custody cannot entertain a bail application under section 497.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bail application under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable when the accused has not been produced in custody within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court?
  • What are the essential requirements of a police report or challan submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before a trial Court can commence proceedings?
  • Does an accused arrested in multiple criminal cases remain deemed arrested in all such cases under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Bari vs Model Custom Collector, Custom House, Quetta and 2 othersPTCL 2014 CL. 777 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-05-05Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmed vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 636 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-01-08
  post-arrest bailmurderabsconsionmotiveinterested witnessrule of consistency
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application was filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Bijli Road, Quetta. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and an absconding co-accused intercepted the complainant party and fired at them, resulting in the fatal injury of the deceased, with 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, whether interested witnesses could be relied upon, and whether prolonged absconsion disentitled an accused to post-arrest bail. The Balochistan High Court held that the applicant was assigned a distinct overt act compared to the acquitted co-accused, that the eyewitness testimony was corroborated by a strong motive, and that prolonged absconsion coupled with ocular account disentitled the applicant to relief. The court dismissed the bail application, laying down principles regarding the evaluation of motive as a double-edged weapon, the assessment of interested witnesses, and the evidentiary value of absconsion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of co-accused persons assigned only abetment and instigation entitles an accused facing direct overt act allegations to bail under the rule of consistency?
  • Can the statement of an eyewitness who is related to the deceased be discarded solely on the ground of inter se relationship without evaluating the value of the evidence?
  • Does prolonged absconsion by an accused act as a strong piece of corroborative evidence when considered alongside direct and circumstantial evidence in bail matters?
  • Is a delay of one hour and fifteen minutes in lodging the First Information Report considered fatal to the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad Khan Nasar and others vs Muhammad Shafiq Tareen2014 PLD Balochistan 152 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-05-06
  constitutional petitionelection tribunalinterlocutory ordermaintainabilityelection disputejudicial reviewRepresentation of the People ActArticle 199Article 225expeditious disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses six petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, challenging interlocutory orders issued by various election tribunals established under the Representation of the People Act, 1976, following the 2013 general elections. The core legal question before the larger bench was whether a constitutional petition could be filed against such interlocutory orders. The court held that petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution are not maintainable against interlocutory orders of election tribunals when an appeal against the final decision of such tribunals lies to the Supreme Court under the Representation of the People Act, 1976. The court emphasized that Article 225 of the Constitution establishes a special forum for post-election disputes, and the Act mandates expeditious resolution of election petitions within four months. While interlocutory orders are not directly appealable to the Supreme Court, any grievances against them can be raised in an appeal against the final decision of the tribunal. Exceptions to this bar include pre-election disputes, orders of the Election Commission under Section 103-AA of the Act, or orders of tribunals under local government laws where no appeal is provided.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be filed against an interlocutory order of an election tribunal constituted under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Is the power of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution available against orders of election tribunals constituted to hear appeals against acceptance or rejection of nomination papers?
  • Can petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution be filed against orders of an election tribunal constituted under local government laws if no appeal is provided under such laws?
  • Does an appeal lie to the Supreme Court against an interlocutory order of an Election Tribunal under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Are election petitions filed under Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, required to be decided within a specific timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Rasheed and another vs Government of Balochistan, Healthdepartment through Secretary and 51 others2014 PLD Balochistan 186 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-01Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax vs Abdul RashidPTCL 2014 CL. 107 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-07-10Read full judgment →
• Collector of Custom, Federal Excise & Sales Tax, Custom House, Quetta vs Appellate Tribunal (Customs, Excise & Sales Tax), EtcNLR 2014 Tax 76 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chaman Ali vs The State2014 MLD 824 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-07
  Arsh paymentcriminal revisioninstallment paymentconvict's healthfinancial hardshipsentencing relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Petition was filed by a convict challenging the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted him under Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries with a knife and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment alongside the payment of Arsh. The petitioner, having served the substantive term of imprisonment, sought relief regarding the payment of Arsh, citing extreme poverty and severe chronic liver disease. The core legal question was whether a convict, unable to pay Arsh in a lump sum due to financial hardship and health issues, could be granted the facility of installment payments. The Court, noting the petitioner's medical condition and financial status, held that the payment of Arsh could be deferred and paid in installments. Relying on Section 331 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Court ordered the petitioner's release upon furnishing security equal to the Arsh amount, directing payment in 36 equal monthly installments over three years, with the condition that failure to pay would result in re-arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Can a convict be permitted to pay the amount of Arsh in installments if they are unable to pay in a lump sum?
  • Does the court have the authority to release a convict on bail pending the payment of Arsh in installments?
  • What is the maximum period allowed for the payment of Arsh in installments under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Feroza and 5 others vs Abdul Hadi and another2014 CLC 60 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-08-24
  quashment of FIRdissolution of marriagekhulareturn of benefitssecond marriagecriminal procedurefamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under sections 494, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 493 of the Woman Protection Act, 2006, alleging that petitioner No.1 contracted a second marriage while her first marriage was still subsisting, claiming the dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula was incomplete due to non-return of benefits. The core legal question was whether a dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula takes effect immediately upon the decree being passed or is contingent upon the return of marital benefits, and whether contracting a subsequent marriage thereafter constitutes an offence. The Balochistan High Court held that the right of khula is not contingent on the return of benefits, that a decree for dissolution on the basis of khula operates immediately to dissolve the marriage, and that the return of benefits is merely a civil liability. The Court laid down the principle that failure to return benefits within a stipulated period does not affect the factum of dissolution, and initiating criminal proceedings against a woman for contracting a subsequent marriage after a valid khula decree is an abuse of the criminal process, leading to the quashment of the F.I.R.

  Questions settled

  • Does a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula take effect immediately when passed, or is it contingent upon the return of marital benefits?
  • Is the failure of a wife to return benefits received from her husband a condition precedent to the dissolution of marriage or merely a civil liability?
  • Can a criminal case under bigamy or related offences be maintained against a woman who contracts a second marriage after her first marriage has been dissolved through khula?
  • Are proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 competent against a criminal investigation if it encroaches upon fundamental rights or is motivated by mala fides?
  Read full judgment →
• Balochistanj Abdul Qudoos and 3 others vs The State2014 YLR 1473 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-07
  criminal appealenhancement of sentenceunlawful assemblycommon objecthurt casesTa'zirDamanalteration of charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kalat at Mastung, convicting the appellants under sections 337-F(iii) and 337-F(vi) read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether a conviction for a minor offence is sustainable without a formal alteration of charge, the extent of constructive liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in assault cases, and the principles governing the quantum of Ta'zir sentences in hurt cases. The Balochistan High Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the convictions and sentences by holding that minor hurts and specific fractures were properly punishable under appropriate alternative sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and dismissed the complainant's revision petition for enhancement as the convicts were not hardened criminals and lacked aggravating antecedents. The key legal principles laid down are that an accused charged with a major offence can be convicted of a minor proved offence pursuant to section 238(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without prejudice, constructive liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires strict attribution of specific roles, and Ta'zir sentences for hurt must duly consider mitigating factors and antecedents under section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused charged with a major offence be convicted of a minor offence without a formal alteration of charge?
  • How is constructive liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 determined when multiple accused are assigned distinct roles?
  • What factors must be considered under section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when awarding Ta'zir sentences in hurt cases?
  • Under what circumstances can a criminal revision petition for enhancement of sentence be entertained in hurt cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Azad Khan vs The Station House Officer, Police Station Satellite Town2014 P Cr. L J 256 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-06
  second FIRregistration of FIRJustice of the Peacecognizable offenceconstitutional petitionpolice dutycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Justice of the Peace, which declined to direct the registration of a second FIR regarding a murder and assault incident. The petitioner argued that the initial FIR, lodged by the SHO, distorted facts to protect the accused. The core legal question is whether a second FIR is permissible when the first FIR fails to reflect the true version of the incident, and whether the alternative remedy of a private complaint bars such relief. The Court held that there is no legal embargo on registering a second FIR if it provides a distinct version of the occurrence rather than a mere amplification of the first. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the availability of a private complaint does not absolve the police from their mandatory duty under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to register cognizable offences. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the SHO to register the petitioner's FIR in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a legal bar to the registration of a second FIR regarding the same incident if it presents a different version of events?
  • Does the availability of a private complaint remedy preclude the High Court from directing the police to register an FIR?
  • Is the police officer mandated to register a separate FIR for a counter-version of an incident instead of including it in the initial FIR?
  • Can a Justice of the Peace dispose of an application for the registration of an FIR without providing a reasoned order?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah and another vs Government of Balochistan, Local2014 PLD Balochistan 206 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-05-23
  local government electionsreserved seatsequality of citizenssecret ballotshow of handsaffirmative actionconstitutional petitionultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Balochistan High Court assailed the Balochistan Local Government (Amendment) Act, 2014 and a subsequent notification amending the Balochistan Local Government (Election) Rules, 2013, which introduced 'professionals' and 'social workers' as new categories of reserved seats by halving the existing quota of peasants and workers, and replaced secret balloting with a show of hands for electing chairmen and vice-chairmen of local councils. The core legal questions examined the vires of creating special interest seats for classes not recognized by the Constitution, the violation of the equality principle under Article 25, the legitimacy of substituting secret ballots with open voting, and the scope of delegated rule-making power. The court held that reserved seats can only be maintained for downtrodden, impoverished, or discriminated classes explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such as women, minorities, peasants, and workers. Professionals and social workers do not suffer from such deprivation and their inclusion by reducing the quota of peasants and workers violates Articles 25 and 32 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the executive government lacked the delegated authority under the parent Act to alter the long-standing statutory mode of voting from secret ballot to a show of hands, rendering the impugned rules ultra vires. The court laid down key principles regarding affirmative action, the impermissibility of creating suspect classifications in local government representation, and the strict adherence to secret ballots under constitutional and statutory frameworks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provincial legislature can create reserved seats for professionals and social workers by reducing the statutory quota of peasants and workers under the local government law?
  • Does the substitution of secret ballot with open voting through a show of hands for electing local council chairmen and vice-chairmen fall within the rule-making powers of the executive under the parent statute?
  • Whether local government elections are elections held under the Constitution attracting the proscription of secret ballot under Article 226?
  • Do public-spirited persons and lawyers possess locus standi to challenge unconstitutional legislation affecting fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaque Ahmed and 4 others vs National Accountability Bureau2014 PLD Balochistan 109 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-11-13Read full judgment →
• Anwar Shah and 5 others vs Secretary Government of Balochistan2014 PLC (C.S.) 250 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-12-12
  constitutional petitionwrit of mandamusappointment ordersvested rightsselection merit listmala fide actionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No. 1 to issue appointment orders to the petitioners, who stood first on the approved merit list for various posts ranging from PBS-5 to PBS-7 after participating in tests and interviews. Their appointment orders were kept in abeyance at the advice of the Minister, Irrigation and Powers Department, based on an alleged prior agreement favoring land affectees of the Sabakzai Dam. The core legal question was whether the respondents could lawfully withhold appointment orders of duly selected candidates on the basis of a subsequent policy or agreement that contradicted the advertised criteria. The Court held that withholding the appointment orders and re-advertising the posts was arbitrary, illegal, and actuated by mala fide, as the petitioners had acquired vested rights upon selection and the advertisement invited candidates from District Zhob generally without any restrictive condition regarding the Sabakzai area. The Court laid down the principle that vested rights created through a transparent selection process cannot be undone by administrative somersaults or extraneous agreements, and that landowners affected by a project must be compensated under the statutory framework of the Land Acquisition Act rather than by infringing upon the employment rights of lawfully selected candidates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether appointment orders of successfully selected candidates can be withheld on the basis of an administrative agreement executed prior to the advertisement?
  • Does a candidate acquire a vested right to an appointment upon successfully passing tests and interviews and appearing at the top of an approved merit list?
  • Can the respondents legally refuse to issue appointment orders by altering the eligibility criteria stipulated in the original job advertisement?
  • How are landowners affected by a public project required to be compensated under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali and anothers vs The State2014 YLR 1436 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-11
  criminal appeallife imprisonmentdying declarationacid attackcircumstantial evidencecorroborationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kharan, which convicted the appellants under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced them to life imprisonment for a fatal acid attack. The prosecution's case rested entirely on an oral dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased to his relatives (the complainant and other witnesses) at the hospital. However, the medical officer, the first responder who transported the victim, and the investigating officer all testified that the deceased did not name any assailants while at the hospital, and no formal dying declaration was recorded. The High Court observed that a dying declaration is a major exception to the hearsay rule and must be free from all doubt and tutoring to form the sole basis of conviction. Finding that the alleged oral declaration was uncorroborated, contradicted by independent witnesses, and likely influenced by enmity, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital offense be based solely on an oral dying declaration if doubts exist regarding its truthfulness and voluntariness?
  • Whether an oral dying declaration allegedly made to interested or inimical relatives can be accepted without independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an oral dying declaration when the attending doctor and investigating officer testify that the deceased did not name any culprits?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad vs Abdul Bari and 6 otherss2014 YLR 167 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-20Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain and another vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 88 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-07-31
  revision petitionstolen propertyconscious possessionrecent possessionpassenger busacquittalrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under section 435 read with section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the judgments of the lower courts whereby the petitioners were convicted under section 411 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months for allegedly possessing stolen motorcycle parts recovered from a passenger bus in which they were travelling. The core legal question was whether mere presence of passengers in a public transport vehicle carrying stolen goods establishes conscious and exclusive possession so as to attract penal liability under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove actual and conscious possession, noting that the petitioners were ordinary passengers in a bus driven by another, and that the recovery was not recent. Consequently, the High Court set aside the concurrent judgments of the lower courts and acquitted the petitioners, laying down that mere presence in a vehicle containing stolen property without proof of exclusive possession, knowledge, and control is insufficient to sustain a conviction for dishonestly receiving stolen property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere presence of a passenger in a public transport vehicle from which stolen articles are recovered constitutes conscious and exclusive possession under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the essential ingredients that the prosecution must prove to establish an offence under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a revisional court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts?
  • What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction in cases involving misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Allauddin vs The State2014 P Cr. L J 27 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-09
  narcotics controlcharas recoverycriminal appealstatement of accuseddelay in FIRpost-arrest recoverychemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge (C.N.S.) Balochistan, Quetta, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine for the recovery of 306 kilograms of charas from a vehicle driven by him. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and whether non-putative circumstances under section 342, Cr.P.C. vitiated the trial. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent, the recovery was fully established, the forensic report confirmed the contraband as charas, and minor procedural delays or discrepancies did not undermine the case. The court ruled that incriminating material was properly put to the accused during his examination, and procedural irregularities without proof of prejudice do not demolish the prosecution case. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of a large quantity of narcotic substances is sufficient to sustain a conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does a minor delay in lodging the first information report vitiate the prosecution case when adequately explained by practical difficulties?
  • Whether procedural defects or irregularities in recording statements under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 demolish the prosecution case in the absence of prejudice?
  • Can minor variations and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses discredit an otherwise consistent and confidence-inspiring case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan vs The State2014 NLR Criminal 210 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-26
  narcoticsillicit traffickingrecovery of charasburden of proofconfiscation of propertybank account seizurecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge (CNS), Balochistan, Quetta, convicting the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to life imprisonment for the recovery of a large quantity of charas and opium, along with the seizure and confiscation of bank accounts under Section 37 of the same Act. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of narcotics, the shift in the burden of proof under Section 29, and the legality of seizing and confiscating bank accounts without complying with the procedural requirements of Section 39. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics from the appellants, whose presence at the crime scene was unexplained and corroborated by reliable evidence, thus upholding the conviction and sentence. However, the Court ruled that the confiscation of bank accounts without framing a charge under Section 39 and without granting a proper opportunity to establish that the funds were not narcotics proceeds was illegal. The principle laid down is that while a proven recovery shifts the burden of proof to the accused under narcotics laws, property confiscation orders strictly require adherence to procedural safeguards and evidentiary inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 once the prosecution proves the recovery of contraband?
  • Can bank accounts be confiscated under Section 37 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 without complying with the procedural requirements of Section 39?
  • Whether an unexplained presence at the site of a narcotics recovery is sufficient to maintain a conviction when prosecution witnesses are reliable and confidence-inspiring?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan and 2 others vs The State2014 NLR Criminal 210, 2014 P Cr. L J 267 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-26
  narcotics smugglingrecovery of charas and opiumburden of proofconfiscation of propertybank account seizurecontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge (CNS) Balochistan, Quetta, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, along with the seizure and confiscation of bank accounts under Section 37 of the same Act. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence regarding the recovery of huge quantities of narcotics and the legality of the procedure adopted for the confiscation of property without providing an opportunity of hearing as mandated by law. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics from the possession of the appellants, whose presence at the spot was established and un-rebutted, thereby maintaining the conviction and sentence. However, regarding the bank accounts, the Court held that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory legal formalities and inquiry under Section 39 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Consequently, the conviction was upheld, but the confiscation order was set aside and remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must prove the recovery of contraband before the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can bank accounts be confiscated under Section 37 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 without complying with the procedural requirements of Section 39?
  • Does the unexplained presence of an accused at a remote recovery site corroborate police testimony in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Nawaz Solangi and another vs Court of Special Judge-Anti-2014 YLR 1723 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-31
  post-arrest bailcorruptionprohibitory clausefurther inquirymisappropriation of fundsdocumentary evidencebribery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants challenging the dismissal of their bail plea by the Special Judge (Central) in a case involving allegations of bribery and corruption. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, observing that the prosecution relied solely on oral evidence and contradictory witness statements, failing to produce necessary documentary proof of the alleged misappropriation. Furthermore, the Court determined that the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the maximum punishment for the alleged offenses did not mandate the denial of bail. The key principle laid down is that at the bail stage, courts must rely on prima facie material rather than generalized allegations, and where the prosecution fails to substantiate its case with documentary evidence in financial crimes, bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case involving Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should bail be withheld in corruption cases based solely on generalized allegations without documentary evidence?
  • Is the principle of 'further inquiry' applicable to bail applications when the prosecution relies exclusively on contradictory oral evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDULLAHPetitidner vs Provincial Government through Secretary Board2014 CLC 285 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-09-20
  revisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factdeclaratory suitunregistered sale deedevidence beyond pleadingsmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration and injunction regarding a school building constructed with government grant-in-aid on a plot allegedly purchased by the petitioner. The core legal questions involved the scope of revisional interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding concurrent findings of fact, the validity of an unregistered sale deed, and the admissibility of evidence beyond pleadings. The Balochistan High Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence and free of misreading or non-reading cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction, and that a suit for declaration is incompetent without a perfect title based on valid, registered documents. The key principles laid down include the limited scope of revisional interference with concurrent findings of fact, the inadmissibility of evidence beyond pleadings and unexhibited documents, and the requirement of clear legal title for maintaining a declaratory suit.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of a High Court's interference with concurrent findings of fact in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a suit for declaration be maintained without establishing a valid and perfect title to the property in question?
  • Is a document that has not been formally tendered in evidence and exhibited legally admissible and capable of being taken into consideration by the court?
  • Can evidence be led beyond the scope of the pleadings of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and anothers vs Mst. Farzana2014 CLC 1463 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-06-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The StateK.L.R. 2014 Criminal Cases 429, 2014 P Cr. L J 1087 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-04
  criminal appealpossession of stolen propertySection 342 CrPCreasonable doubtburden of proofacquittalmisreading of evidenceincriminating evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the possession of a stolen vehicle. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilty knowledge—a mandatory ingredient of the offense—and whether the trial court erred by relying on incriminating evidence that was never confronted to the accused during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's knowledge and that the trial court’s reliance on un-confronted evidence was legally impermissible. Furthermore, the court noted that the defense successfully created reasonable doubt regarding the vehicle's stolen status by producing verification documents from the Excise and Taxation Office. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the benefit of reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused if the defense creates a dent in the prosecution's case, and that evidence not put to the accused under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on incriminating evidence that was not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is knowledge of the stolen nature of property a necessary ingredient for conviction under Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the creation of a reasonable doubt by the defense regarding the prosecution's case entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Shah vs Muhammad Qasim and 2 others2014 PLD Balochistan 28 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-08-24
  extra-territorial jurisdictionregistration of FIRSection 188 Cr.P.C.place of inquirycriminal procedurejurisdiction of policeblind murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge-III/Justice of the Peace, Quetta, directing the registration of an FIR for a murder case. The petitioner contended that the alleged offence occurred outside Pakistan, necessitating prior sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and argued that the local police lacked jurisdiction. The core legal questions were whether an FIR can be registered without such sanction and whether local police have jurisdiction when the exact place of occurrence is uncertain. The Court held that the sanction requirement under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to the judicial inquiry or trial of an offence, not to the initial registration of an FIR or police investigation. Furthermore, relying on Sections 179 and 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court affirmed that where the place of occurrence is uncertain, the court within whose jurisdiction the consequences ensued possesses the authority to inquire into the matter. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement of sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to the registration of an FIR?
  • Can a court inquire into an offence where the exact place of occurrence is uncertain?
  • Does the police have the authority to investigate an offence committed outside the territorial limits of Pakistan?
  • Is the sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a prerequisite for the initiation of police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Lateef and 13 others/Convicts vs The State2014 PLD Balochistan 120 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-03-07
  criminal revisionunlawful assemblysifting grain from chaffDamanfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusland disputeTa'zirbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which convicted fourteen petitioners for assault arising from a land dispute. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the charge sheet, the necessity of proving motive, the application of Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding unlawful assembly, and the propriety of the sentences awarded. The Court held that errors in the charge are curable under Section 225 and Section 537(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 unless they cause prejudice. While motive is not strictly necessary, it was sufficiently proven here. Applying the principle of sifting grain from chaff, the Court acquitted nine petitioners, noting the tendency to falsely implicate elderly family members in tribal disputes. For the remaining five, the Court upheld the convictions but modified the sentences, setting aside imprisonment in favor of Daman under Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The judgment reaffirms that the principle of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is not applicable in the Pakistani criminal justice system.

  Questions settled

  • Are errors in a charge sheet curable if they do not cause prejudice to the accused?
  • Does the principle of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' apply in the Pakistani criminal justice system?
  • Can an accused be convicted of a lesser offence under the second part of Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if they did not share the common object of the unlawful assembly?
  • What factors should be considered when awarding Ta'zir in hurt cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The S.H.O. Sariab Police Station Quetta and 3 others2014 P Cr. L J 240 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-07-30
  second FIRcounter casecognizable offencequashment petitionJustice of the Peaceregistration of criminal case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous quashment petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Quetta, whereby the petitioner's application under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for registration of a separate F.I.R. was dismissed on the ground that an F.I.R. regarding the same occurrence had already been lodged. The core legal question concerns whether a second F.I.R. can be registered in respect of a different version given by an aggrieved party of the same occurrence. The Balochistan High Court held that there is no bar against the registration of a second F.I.R. or a counter case if the information subsequently given discloses a distinct cognizable offence and is not a mere amplification of the first version. The court established the principle that where an application discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and presents a distinct version of the incident, the authorities are bound to record it, and proposed accused persons have no right of hearing at the stage of F.I.R. registration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second F.I.R. be registered in respect of a different version given by an aggrieved party of the same occurrence?
  • Does an accused person have a right of hearing at the time of registration of a First Information Report?
  • What is the scope of powers vested in a Justice of the Peace under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Whether the police are bound to record a separate F.I.R. when an application discloses the commission of a distinct cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Mengal vs Sultan Badshah2014 CLC 1063 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-02-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Mst. Shabnam alias Shabana and 2 others2014 PLD Balochistan 39 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-07-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs The StateK.L.R. 2014 Criminal Cases 422, 2014 P Cr. L J 1218 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-04-30
  Control of Narcotic Substances Actcharas recoverydropping material witnessremand of caseprosecution discretionmaterial irregularitySection 9(c) CNSA
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Balochistan High Court challenged the conviction and life sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, passed by the Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances, Quetta. The core legal question was whether the trial court committed a material irregularity by allowing the prosecution to drop a key witness—the driver of the vehicle from which narcotics were allegedly recovered—despite specific directions by the High Court in a prior bail application order requiring his testimony to be recorded. The High Court held that while the prosecution generally enjoys discretion to choose which witnesses to produce, it cannot drop a material and essential witness whose evidence forms the foundation of the case or is necessary for a just decision. Furthermore, the trial court failed to fulfill its legal obligation by not using coercive measures to enforce the witness's attendance pursuant to the High Court's directions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court to record the driver's testimony, re-examine the appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.C., and decide the matter afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution have absolute discretion to drop a material and essential witness whose evidence goes to the root of the case?
  • Whether the trial court commits a material irregularity vitiating its judgment by allowing the prosecution to drop a witness whose testimony was specifically directed to be recorded by a High Court order?
  • Can a trial court close prosecution evidence without using coercive measures to procure the attendance of an essential witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hadi vs Government of Balochistan, Local Government Rural2014 CLC 1450 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-12-19Read full judgment →
• The State through Public Prosecutor General vs Mula Kalimullah2013 MLD 490 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-11-14
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencemedical evidenceinterested witnessesmurder chargeappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pishin, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the death of his wife. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence. The High Court held that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, affirming the trial court's acquittal. The Court reasoned that the prosecution's witnesses were interested and inimical, and their testimonies contained material contradictions. Crucially, the medical evidence—attributing death to Renal Parenchymacal disease and sepsis—directly contradicted the prosecution's theory of death by physical beating. The Court reiterated the principle that an acquittal order grants the accused a double presumption of innocence, which can only be overturned if the original judgment is found to be perverse, arbitrary, or illegal. Finding no such defects in the trial court's well-reasoned order, the appellate court declined to interfere.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal order grant the accused a double presumption of innocence?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order if the trial court's reasoning is not perverse or arbitrary?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when medical evidence regarding the cause of death contradicts the prosecution's ocular account?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General Accountability, Pakistan vs Tariq2013 PLD Balochistan 138 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-03-19
  acquittal appealmisappropriation of public fundsNAB Ordinancepremature acquittalcircumstantial evidenceappraisal of evidenceabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the orders passed by the Accountability Court, Quetta, whereby applications under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 were accepted and the respondents were acquitted of charges relating to corruption and misappropriation of compensation funds meant for affectees of a tragic incident, under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether the trial Court properly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 265-K to acquit the accused at a premature stage before the recording of prosecution evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused hastily without affording a fair opportunity to the prosecution to produce evidence, especially in cases involving corruption and misappropriation of public money. The Court set aside the acquittal orders and directed that the trials proceed from the stage at which the applications were decided. The key principles laid down are that powers under Section 265-K should not be exercised to throttle justice where prima facie evidence exists, and courts must act with extreme care and caution in corruption cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 carries the same sanctity as an acquittal on merits after a full trial?
  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 before recording any prosecution evidence?
  • What is the standard of caution required from courts when dealing with cases of corruption and misappropriation of public money?
  • Does the appellate court have the power to re-appreciate evidence and set aside an order of acquittal passed under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecution General vs Noor Uddin and 2 others2013 YLR 618 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-11-12
  Karo Karihonor killinganti-terrorism courtjurisdictiondouble jeopardyacquittal appealde novo trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an acquittal judgment rendered by a Sessions Court in a double murder case involving allegations of 'Karo Kari' (honor killing). The core legal question is whether the ordinary Sessions Court was competent to take cognizance and try the offence, or whether exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Anti-Terrorism Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Balochistan High Court held that honor killings creating panic and terror in society fall within the purview of scheduled offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, rendering the Sessions Court an incompetent forum without jurisdiction. The court ruled that an acquittal by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and does not attract the bar against double jeopardy under section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as a valid plea of autrefois acquit requires a trial by a court of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned acquittal, accepted the appeal, and remanded the matter for a de novo trial before the Anti-Terrorism Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence of murder committed on the pretext of 'Karo Kari' or honor killing falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Does an order of acquittal passed by a court lacking jurisdictional competence operate as a bar to a subsequent trial under the principle of double jeopardy?
  • Can a trial conducted and concluded by a court lacking territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction be sustained in law?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Assistant AdvocateGeneral, ExOfficio and Public2013 PLD Balochistan 39 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-12-04
  premature acquittalsection 265-K Cr.P.C.harabahoffences against propertyanti-terrorism appealdelay in FIRhostile witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge (STA), Quetta, in a case involving charges under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerned the propriety of granting premature acquittal under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. when sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence was available on record and the trial was at its concluding stage. The High Court held that the trial court misapplied the law by discarding prosecution evidence on minor grounds such as delay in recording section 161 statements and by failing to properly evaluate the testimonies of eyewitnesses who specifically implicated the respondent. Setting aside the acquittal order, the appellate court ruled that premature acquittal should be exercised with extreme care and is not warranted where a probability of conviction exists based on available material. The matter was remanded to the trial court for expeditious conclusion of the trial in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 carries the same double presumption of innocence as an acquittal recorded on merits after a full-fledged trial?
  • Does a delay in recording statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the testimony of an eyewitness legally worthless by itself?
  • Is the existence of a previously recorded statement mandatory under Article 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to declare a witness hostile or permit cross-examination by the party calling him?
  • Under what circumstances is a trial court justified in exercising its discretion to grant a premature acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State Through Additional Prosecutor General vs Nawabzada Shah ZainK.L.R. 2013 Criminal Cases 35 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State through Additional Prosecutor General vs Nawabzada Shah2013 P Cr. L J 147 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-09-06
  additional evidencesummoning of witnessesjust decision of the casecriminal trial procedurediscretionary power of courtprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the trial court's order refusing to summon two additional witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution sought to examine two Frontier Corps officers as witnesses because the sole eye-witness cited in the challan had died. The trial court had rejected the application, citing delay and the prosecution's failure to include these witnesses in the initial police report. The High Court held that Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants the court discretionary power to summon any person as a witness at any stage if their evidence is essential for a just decision. The Court clarified that Sections 265-C and 265-F, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which concern the supply of documents and the procedure for evidence, do not impose an embargo on the court's power under Section 540. Finding that the death of the sole eye-witness necessitated the production of other available witnesses to ensure a just outcome, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the prosecution to produce the additional witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power of a court to summon a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 override the procedural requirements of Sections 265-C and 265-F?
  • Is the court obligated to summon a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if their evidence is essential for the just decision of the case?
  • Can the prosecution be permitted to produce additional witnesses not cited in the initial police report or challan?
  Read full judgment →
• The State and another vs Hameed and another2013 KLR Criminal Cases 327, 2013 PLD Balochistan 144 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-03-12
  Qatl-e-AmdQisasDiyatBadl-e-SulhCompounding of offenceMinor WaliWaiver of Qisas
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-e-Amd, resulting in a death sentence. Following the conviction, the parties reached a compromise, and the legal heirs of the deceased pardoned the appellant, waiving their right of Qisas. The core legal question concerned the validity of this compromise, particularly regarding the rights of minor legal heirs. The Court held that while adult Walis may waive Qisas, the law prohibits such waiver by minors. Instead, the Wali of a minor may compound the right of Qisas, provided the Badl-e-Sulh (compensation) is not less than the value of Diyat. The Court affirmed that a compromise does not automatically result in acquittal; the court retains discretion to accept it based on the facts. Consequently, the Court accepted the compromise for adults but mandated the payment of Badl-e-Sulh for the minors, calculated based on the prevailing value of silver, to satisfy legal requirements before granting acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a minor Wali waive the right of Qisas in a Qatl-e-Amd case?
  • Is a compromise between parties in a murder case sufficient to warrant automatic acquittal?
  • What is the legal requirement for compounding the right of Qisas when the Wali is a minor?
  • Can the Wali of a minor compound the right of Qisas without accepting compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain vs Sarfaraz Ahmed and 4 others2013 CLC 1620 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-06-10
  nomination formgeneral electionsdisqualificationcriminal casesservice of Pakistanboard of managementelection appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the acceptance of the nomination form of respondent No. 1 for the Provincial Assembly Constituency of Dera Bugti (PB-24) in the 2013 General Elections. The petitioner raised two primary objections: firstly, that respondent No. 1 failed to disclose pending criminal cases in his nomination form, thereby making a false declaration; and secondly, that respondent No. 1 was disqualified under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 for serving as a member of the Board of Management of Pakistan State Oil Company Limited (PSO). The Balochistan High Court held that the initial burden to prove the candidate's knowledge of pending criminal cases lay upon the petitioner, which he failed to establish, and that non-disclosure of pending cases (wherein the candidate was not convicted) does not entail disqualification. Furthermore, the court held that serving as a non-paid member of the Board of Management of PSO does not constitute being in the service of Pakistan or a statutory body so as to attract disqualification under Article 63(1)(k). The constitutional petition was accordingly dismissed and the Election Tribunal's judgment upholding the acceptance of the nomination form was affirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to disclose pending criminal cases in a nomination form automatically entail disqualification of a candidate?
  • Does serving as a member of the Board of Management of Pakistan State Oil Company Limited constitute being in the service of Pakistan under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Where a candidate is not a paid employee or recipient of remuneration, does holding a board directorship attract statutory disqualification from contesting elections?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mehmood, Inspector Of Police (Investigation) vs The State Through Prosecutor General, Balochistan High Court, Quetta2013 KLR Criminal Cases 364 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tahir Mehmood Inspector of Police (Investigation) vs The State2013 KLR Criminal Cases 364, 2013 P Cr. L J 1057 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-04-23
  illegal gratificationanti-corruptiontrap raidhostile witnessbenefit of the doubttainted money recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Balochistan, Quetta, which convicted the appellant, a police inspector, under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of bribery through consistent, reliable evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery of tainted money, notwithstanding the turning hostile of key witnesses and material contradictions in the testimony of police eye-witnesses. The Balochistan High Court held that material contradictions between the prosecution's eye-witnesses, the failure of decoy and victim witnesses to identify or implicate the appellant, and doubts surrounding the recovery of tainted money rendered the prosecution's case unproven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that in corruption cases, where primary witnesses turn hostile and material eye-witnesses contradict each other regarding the trap raid and recovery, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated and contradictory testimony of police officials in a trap raid can sustain a conviction for illegal gratification when material witnesses turn hostile?
  • Does the failure of a complainant and decoy witnesses to identify the accused in court vitiate the prosecution's case under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the absence of a Judicial Magistrate during a trap raid fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of statements given by witnesses who have been declared hostile by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ziauddin and anothers vs Shabir Ahmed and others2013 CLC 1395 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-04-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahabuddin vs Haji Abdul Ghani and 5 others2013 YLR 1955 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-05-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Ain Ulah and 4 otherss vs Dilbar and 2 others2013 MLD 708 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-11-19Read full judgment →
• State Through Prosecutor General Accountability, Pakistan vs Tariq2013 KLR Criminal Cases 350 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shamsullah vs The State2013 MLD 1527 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-06-20
  narcoticschain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealsample analysisrecovery proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Shamsullah, under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of Charas. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the integrity of the recovered samples and the chain of custody. The Balochistan High Court identified significant contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, noting that witnesses failed to clarify how samples were collected from the various recovered items, contradicting the recovery memo. Furthermore, the Court highlighted an unexplained delay in sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, creating a break in the chain of custody. Consequently, the Court held that these defects rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. While maintaining the conviction, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone and reduced the fine. The principle laid down is that any material doubt in the chain of prosecution evidence, particularly regarding sample collection and custody, must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to a forensic laboratory create a fatal defect in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be maintained when there are material contradictions regarding the method of sample collection from recovered contraband?
  • Is the benefit of doubt in the chain of custody of evidence to be given to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hakeem vs Altaf Hussain Agha and anothers2013 P Cr. L J 188 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-08-05
  Illegal Dispossession Act 2005mens reacriminal liabilityencroachmentretrospective effectpossession restorationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, for allegedly encroaching upon the complainant's land. The core legal questions concerned the retrospective application of the Act and the necessity of proving mens rea to establish an offence under the statute. The High Court observed that while the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, does not have retrospective effect, it applies to cases not pending before other forums upon its enforcement. However, the Court held that the appellant could not be held criminally liable as he was not in charge of the company at the time of the initial encroachment and the prosecution failed to establish the requisite mens rea. The Court emphasized that mere encroachment is distinct from illegal dispossession, as the former does not necessarily involve the criminal intent to grab property. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, as the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence against him personally.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, have retrospective effect on cases pending before other forums?
  • Is proof of mens rea a necessary ingredient to constitute an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does mere encroachment on property constitute illegal dispossession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can an individual be held criminally liable under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, for acts committed by a company before they joined?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary Communication and Works Department Government of Balochistan and otherss vs Dad Bakhsh and another2013 CLC 343 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-09-27
  Regular Second Appealex parte decreegovernment contractorservice of summonsrecording of evidenceexecution proceedingsauction of state propertycollusionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The Balochistan High Court heard two Regular Second Appeals (R.S.A.) filed by the Secretary, Communication and Works Department against ex parte decrees and subsequent execution orders involving the recovery of millions of rupees and the auction of a government rest house. The respondent (contractor) claimed dues for additional work and expenses based on verbal assurances from departmental officers. The trial court had decreed the suits without recording evidence, assuming admissions in the written statements. The High Court held that the proceedings were void ab initio due to lack of proper service upon the Secretary and the failure to record evidence on disputed facts. It emphasized that pleadings are not evidence and must be proved through testimony on oath under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Court further ruled that verbal orders by officials do not bind the government without competent sanction. Consequently, the Court set aside the decrees and execution orders, cancelled the property auction, and remanded the cases for trial while ordering an inquiry into the suspected collusion of officials.

  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad alias Hashim Marri vs The State2013 P Cr. L J 692 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-10-24
  solitary witnessrelated witnesscapital punishmentdeath sentence confirmationocular accountmedical corroborationmotivesite plan omission
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to death for the double murder of two victims and causing firearm injuries to three others following a petty money dispute over the purchase of bananas. The core legal questions involved whether a conviction can be sustained on the solitary, related testimony of an eyewitness without corroboration, and whether the absence of recovery of crime empties or defects in the site plan vitiate the prosecution's case. The Balochistan High Court held that the testimony of a solitary witness, even if related, is sufficient for conviction if it is confidence-inspiring, natural, and corroborated by medical evidence and motive. The court established that quality rather than quantity of evidence governs criminal adjudication, that minor omissions by the investigating officer do not destroy reliable ocular accounts, and confirmed the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained on the solitary statement of a related eyewitness in the absence of other ocular testimony?
  • Does the mere relationship of an eyewitness with the deceased render their testimony untrustworthy or inadmissible?
  • Is the non-recovery of crime empties from the place of occurrence fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does an omission in the site plan regarding the precise position of witnesses negate their presence at the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Safi ULLAHand 13 others vs The State2013 YLR 643 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-12-11
  post-arrest bailunlawful assemblycommon objectcross firingprohibitory clausemurdertentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by Safi Ullah and 13 others seeking post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.80 of 2012 registered at Police Station Jinnah Town, Quetta, under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, following a shootout between two rival groups resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The core legal question is whether the applicants, who were allegedly part of an unlawful assembly engaged in cross-firing, are entitled to post-arrest bail when lethal weapons were recovered and incriminating statements implicated them. The Balochistan High Court held that the applicants, being members of an unlawful assembly whose common object involved violent acts resulting in fatalities and injuries supported by medical and recovery evidence, are not entitled to bail at this stage. The court laid down the principle that members of an unlawful assembly whose common object culminates in offences falling within the prohibitory clause are generally not entitled to bail, and tentative assessment of record suffices for declining relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether members of an unlawful assembly involved in cross-firing resulting in deaths and injuries are entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the recovery of lethal weapons and incriminating statements from accused persons preclude the grant of bail in heinous offences?
  • Whether the question of who is the aggressor in a sudden cross-firing incident warrants further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah and others vs A. Hameedullah and others2013 PLJ Quetta 95 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-10-24Read full judgment →
• Registrar, High Court of Balochistan vs Abdul Majeed and 3 others2013 PLD Balochistan 26 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-12-14
  civil revisionsuo motu jurisdictiondate of birth correctioncivil servantterritorial jurisdictionnon-joinder of partieslimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a District Judge's decree allowing a civil servant to alter his date of birth in official records. The High Court examined whether it could exercise revisional jurisdiction suo motu to correct the trial court's judgment. The core legal questions concerned the existence of time limits for revisional powers, the impact of not filing an appeal, and the trial court's jurisdiction. The Court held that it possesses suo motu revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which is not subject to any specific time limitation, and that the failure to file an appeal does not preclude the High Court from intervening to rectify jurisdictional errors or material irregularities. The Court further held that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties. It established that civil servants cannot use civil suits to bypass service rules regarding date-of-birth alterations. Consequently, the trial court’s decree was declared void ab initio, and the Registrar’s administrative implementation of the change was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the power to exercise revisional jurisdiction suo motu under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is there a prescribed time limit within which the High Court must exercise its revisional powers?
  • Does the availability of an appeal remedy strictly bar the High Court from exercising revisional jurisdiction?
  • Can a civil servant maintain a civil suit to alter their date of birth in service records by bypassing established service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh Abro vs Shahnaz Parveen and 4 others2013 C.L.R. 1612 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-05-17Read full judgment →
• Qamar Gill vs Iram Nathaniel and 2 others2013 PLJ Quetta 101, 2013 PLD Balochistan 59 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-12-26Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Khan and 8 others vs Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan and 3 others2013 PLC (C.S.) 1132 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-04-24
  recruitment processcancellation of testvested rightDepartmental Selection Committeetransparency in public appointmentsNaib Tehsildaradministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who had qualified in a written test for the post of Naib Tehsildar (BPS-14) in the Revenue Department of Balochistan, challenged the cancellation of the selection process by the provincial government. The core legal question was whether the government possessed the authority to cancel a recruitment process before final appointments were made, particularly when the process was alleged to have been conducted in violation of prescribed procedures. The Court held that the government acted within its legal rights in cancelling the selection process, as the petitioners failed to rebut allegations that the Departmental Selection Committee was not properly constituted and that unauthorized officers had conducted the tests. The Court established the principle that no vested right accrues to a candidate merely by passing a written test prior to the finalization of the appointment process. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the government retains the authority to cancel recruitment processes where the credibility and transparency of the procedure are compromised by procedural irregularities, provided such actions are not arbitrary or illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate acquire a vested right to appointment upon passing a written test for a government post?
  • Is the government authorized to cancel a recruitment process before final appointments are made if procedural irregularities are discovered?
  • Can a selection process be invalidated if the prescribed Departmental Selection Committee was not properly associated with the testing process?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mobile Communication Ltd. (Mobilink), Islamabad through its2013 PLJ Quetta 1 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Obaidullah vs Senator Mir Muhammad Ali Rind and 2 others2013 PLJ Quetta 6 · Balochistan High Court · 2011-08-25Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed vs The State2013 KLR Criminal Cases 342 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-03-11
  murdercriminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubteyewitness testimonycontradictionsacquittalqatl-i-amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Noshki, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd. The core legal questions involved the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, the validity and admissibility of an identification parade, and the presence of sufficient doubt to warrant the benefit of the doubt in favor of the accused. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt due to darkness at the crime scene, material contradictions between eyewitnesses, delayed recording of statements, and flaws in the identification parade vitiated by prior disclosure of the accused's description. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the immediate release of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the identification parade loses its legal sanctity if the description of the accused is disclosed to the eyewitness prior to the parade?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Whether material contradictions and unexplained delays in recording the statements of alleged eyewitnesses are sufficient to discard their testimony in a murder trial?
  • Does the absence of sufficient light at the crime scene at the time of the incident render the identification of the assailant by eyewitnesses doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad vs Muhammad Amin and 3 others2013 CLC 46 · Balochistan High Court · 2012-09-13Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad Khoso, Ex-Assistant Food Controller/Incharge Food2013 PLJ Quetta 15 · Balochistan High Court
  service tribunalenforcement of judgmentalternate remedycivil servantwrit jurisdictioncivil court powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former Assistant Food Controller seeking the implementation of a judgment passed by the Balochistan Service Tribunal, which had set aside his removal from service and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the High Court is the appropriate forum to enforce a judgment of the Service Tribunal, or if the Tribunal itself possesses the inherent authority to ensure compliance with its own orders. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy. Relying on Section 5(2) of the Balochistan Service Tribunal Act, 1974, the Court determined that the Service Tribunal is deemed a civil court for the purpose of deciding appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal possesses the powers vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including the authority to enforce its own judgments. The Court concluded that the petitioner must approach the Service Tribunal directly for the enforcement of its order, rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Balochistan Service Tribunal have the authority to enforce its own judgments?
  • Is the Balochistan Service Tribunal considered a civil court for the purpose of exercising powers under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a petitioner approach the High Court to enforce a judgment of the Service Tribunal when an alternate remedy exists before the Tribunal itself?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasm Mehmood vs Director Education (Colleges), Balochistan, Quetta and 5 others2013 PLC (C.S.) 1143 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-05-09
  hope certificateconstitutional petitioneducational qualificationappointmentselection committeere-advertisement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking the withdrawal of the appointment of respondent No. 6 as an English lecturer and the appointment of the petitioner in his place. The core legal questions involved the legality of appointing a candidate on the basis of a 'hope certificate' without possessing the requisite educational qualification at the time of application, and whether a candidate who applied for a post at one institution could claim appointment to a vacancy at another institution. The Court held that the petitioner could not claim appointment to a post at Cadet College Panjgur when he had originally applied for a post at Balochistan Residential College Turbat, and that the decision of the Selection Committee to re-advertise the post was lawful. The Court laid down the principle that educational qualifications required for a post must be possessed at the time of application, strongly deprecating the unlawful practice of accepting 'hope certificates' by government or statutory bodies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate can claim appointment to a post at a particular institution when he had originally applied for a vacancy at a different institution?
  • Does a selection committee's decision to re-advertise a post after terminating an ineligible candidate's appointment warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can a candidate be appointed to a post requiring specific educational qualifications on the basis of a 'hope certificate'?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs Government of Balochistan, through Secretary Board of Revenue and 2 others2013 YLR 2500 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-06-28Read full judgment →
• Mussa Kaleem vs State2013 PLJ Quetta 111 · Balochistan High Court · 2011-07-21Read full judgment →
• Musa Khan vs The State2013 MLD 1774 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-06-20
  post-arrest bailnarcotics traffickingrecoveryfurther inquiryescorting co-accusedControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail application filed by Musa Khan seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that 200 kilograms of charas was recovered from a car driven by the applicant's co-accused brother, while the applicant was allegedly driving a separate vehicle escorting him. Nothing was recovered directly from the applicant or his vehicle. The core legal question was whether the applicant's alleged role as an escort in narcotics trafficking warrants further inquiry, entitling him to bail. The Balochistan High Court held that since no contraband was recovered from the applicant and the question of whether he was escorting the co-accused requires determination at trial, his case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under a tentative assessment. The court laid down the principle that where no direct recovery is effected from an accused and culpability regarding an alleged escort role depends on further evidence, the accused is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused from whom no narcotics were recovered can be granted bail when alleged to be escorting a co-accused?
  • Does the allegation of escorting a vehicle carrying narcotics fall within the scope of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
  • Whether prolonged detention without active recovery warrants the grant of bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and 32013 CLC 1335 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and others through Attorney vs Secretary Forest2013 CLC 1902 · Balochistan High Court · 2013-07-19Read full judgment →