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.

• Habib Arkady Ltd. vs Deputy Collector, Sales Tax Hub, Collectorate of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, Quetta2001 PTD 3948 · Balochistan High Court · 2001-06-18
  sales tax recoveryshow-cause noticelimitation periodwrit jurisdictionexhaustion of remediesinterlocutory orderscustoms hierarchy
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a show-cause notice issued by the Deputy Collector of Sales Tax for the recovery of sales tax, following a Supreme Court directive to issue a fresh notice. The petitioner contended that the notice was time-barred under the Sales Tax Act, 1951, and that the issuing officer lacked jurisdiction as the authority was vested in the Assistant Collector. The Court held that the limitation period was suspended during the pendency of the previous litigation due to a stay order, rendering the notice timely. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court found that administrative changes in the Customs service structure effectively empowered the Deputy Collector to exercise the functions previously designated to the Assistant Collector. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to exhaust efficacious alternative remedies available under Customs laws before approaching the High Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to challenge interlocutory orders or technicalities when statutory remedies remain unexhausted, particularly where no manifest injustice is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a show-cause notice be challenged in the High Court before exhausting alternative remedies under Customs laws?
  • Does a stay order granted by the Supreme Court suspend the limitation period for issuing a show-cause notice?
  • Can a Deputy Collector exercise powers previously vested in an Assistant Collector following a change in service structure?
  • Are directions in a Supreme Court judgment regarding the issuance of a notice within a specific timeframe mandatory or directory?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Khan vs The State2001 P Cr. L J 435 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-10-14
  murderdeath sentenceinterested witnessindependent corroborationretracted confessionrecovery of weaponbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arises from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sibi, convicting the appellant Ghulam Khan under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of Allah Dina. The core legal questions involved the reliability of interested eye-witnesses, the mandatory nature of recovery procedures under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the initial F.I.R. was against unknown persons, the eye-witnesses were related and had strained relations providing a motive for false implication, their testimony conflicted with medical evidence, the weapon recovery violated mandatory statutory procedures without independent witnesses or chemical analysis, and the retracted confession lacked corroboration. The court laid down that the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses cannot be relied upon without strong, independent corroboration, and that a retracted confession must be scrutinized minutely and accepted only if corroborated by clear, cogent, and independent material particulars.

  Questions settled

  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of interested and inimical eye-witnesses be relied upon to sustain a capital conviction?
  • Does the non-association of private independent witnesses during the recovery of a crime weapon violate the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 so as to render the recovery doubtful?
  • Under what circumstances can a retracted judicial confession form the basis of a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Whether material improvements made by a witness in court compared to a previous statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render their presence and testimony highly doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali and anothers vs Muhammad Azam and 11 others2001 YLR 3110 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-10-11
  criminal acquittal appealmaterial improvementsocular testimonycircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Kalat, whereby respondents were acquitted of charges under sections 337-H(ii), 427, 147, 148, 149, and 435 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular and circumstantial evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the ocular testimony suffered from substantial material improvements, contradictions, and lacked corroboration, while the circumstantial evidence appeared unnatural and planted. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the acquittal appeal in limine, reaffirming that an order of acquittal based on sound grounds and plausible reasons warrants no interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material improvements in the deposition of an ocular witness render their testimony untrustworthy without independent corroboration?
  • Can an order of acquittal be interfered with when the trial court has appraised the evidence in its true perspective?
  • Whether circumstantial evidence consisting of recoveries and a damaged transformer is sufficient to convict accused persons when the direct testimony fails?
  Read full judgment →
• Fouzia Rehman Khan vs Selection Committee and others2001 YLR 1820 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-10-30Read full judgment →
• Farzana Sarwar vs The State2001 YLR 1803 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-12-14
  child custodyhabeas corpusguardians and wardsjurisdictionminors
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a miscellaneous application filed by a mother under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the custody of her minor children from her former husband. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Section 491, Cr.P.C. to restore the custody of minors to a parent when the children are residing with their father, or if the matter fell exclusively within the domain of the Family Court under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The Balochistan High Court held that while proceedings under Section 491, Cr.P.C. and the Guardians and Wards Act are distinct and do not exclude each other, Section 491 is inapplicable where the minors are with their natural father and there is no illegal or improper detention. The Court ruled that the absolute authority to determine the final custody of minors rests with the Guardianship Court, keeping the welfare of the minors in view, and dismissed the application, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable for the custody of minors residing with their natural father?
  • Does the High Court exercise parental jurisdiction to determine the final custody of minors under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether proceedings under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Guardians and Wards Act exclude or overlap one another?
  Read full judgment →
• Duran Bibi vs Jehanzaib and others2001 PLD Quetta 103 · Balochistan High Court · 2001-03-19
  appeal against acquittalsole eyewitnessqatl-i-amdmisreading of evidenceinterested witnessappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court for the murder of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the complainant, the mother of the deceased, witnessed the respondent shooting the victim in their home. The trial court acquitted the respondent, citing discrepancies in the complainant’s testimony regarding the location of the incident and the identification of the accused. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the complainant was a natural witness whose testimony remained unshaken during cross-examination. Applying the principles from Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamraz Khan, the Court found that the trial court had misread the evidence and reached an impossible conclusion by discarding reliable testimony on minor inconsistencies. The Court held that the conviction of a sole eyewitness is permissible if the testimony is confidence-inspiring. Consequently, the acquittal was set aside. Since the accused was the husband of the deceased and a child was born of the wedlock, the Court convicted the respondent under Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness without corroboration?
  • What are the principles for interfering with an acquittal in a criminal appeal?
  • Does the relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render them an interested witness whose testimony must be discarded?
  • Under what circumstances is an offender guilty of Qatl-i-Amd liable to punishment under Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Noor Baloch vs Secretary, Health Deparmtent, Government of Balochistan, Quetta2001 YLR 1812 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-12-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hamid Khan and 14 others vs S.H.O., Police Station, Pashtoonabad, Quetta and 2 others2001 P Cr. L J 472 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-10-16
  registration of F.I.R.second F.I.R.constitutional petitioncognizable offencepolice investigationwrit jurisdictionprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking a direction to the police to register a second First Information Report (F.I.R.) regarding an incident involving a police raid on proclaimed offenders. The petitioners alleged that the initial F.I.R. registered by the police was factually incorrect and sought to register a new case against unknown persons, including law enforcement officials, alleging illegal search and theft. The core legal question was whether the court should direct the registration of a second F.I.R. for the same incident when an investigation and trial were already underway. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that there is no hard and fast rule requiring the registration of a second F.I.R. for the same incident. The Court emphasized that F.I.R. registration must be based on plausible information rather than surmises or conjectures. Since the investigation into the first F.I.R. was complete and the trial had commenced, the Court found no justification for interference, noting that the petitioners failed to provide solid grounds or evidence to support their claims.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a legal requirement to register a second F.I.R. for the same incident if the first F.I.R. is alleged to be factually incorrect?
  • Can a court direct the registration of an F.I.R. based on mere surmises and conjectures?
  • Does the pendency of a trial based on an initial F.I.R. preclude the registration of a second F.I.R. regarding the same occurrence?
  • Is a writ petition under Article 199 the appropriate remedy for seeking the registration of an F.I.R. when a private complaint is an available alternative?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs The State2001 PLD Quetta 5 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-08-21
  narcotic possessionrecovery of charasSection 103 Cr.P.C.police witnessesburden of proofControl of Narcotic Substances Actchemical analysis report
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the possession of 25 kilograms of Charas recovered from his house. The core legal questions were whether the non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, vitiated the recovery, whether the prosecution was required to produce the Magistrate and Chemical Expert as witnesses, and whether the appellant's shifting defense of being an 'informer' was credible. The Court held that the appeal lacked merit, affirming the conviction. The Court ruled that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is inapplicable to narcotic cases due to the specific provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Furthermore, it established that police officials are competent witnesses in the absence of proven animosity, and the prosecution is not obligated to produce every member of a raiding party, including the Magistrate or Chemical Expert, if the recovery is otherwise proven. The burden of proof regarding the innocence of the accused, once possession is established, rests on the accused under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to recoveries made under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce the Magistrate or the Chemical Expert as witnesses to prove a recovery of narcotics?
  • Can the testimony of police officials alone be sufficient to sustain a conviction for narcotics possession in the absence of public witnesses?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 once possession of narcotics is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashiran And Others vs Divisional Superintendent, 'Pakistan Railways, Zarghoon Road, Quetta And Other2001 CLC 1229 · Balochistan High Court · 2001-03-26
  railway land encroachmentunauthorized occupantskatchi abadiconstitutional petitionwrit of mandamusvested rightjudicial undertakingequal protection of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of constitutional petitions filed by unauthorized occupants and land grabbers, mostly former railway employees or their families, seeking to restrain Pakistan Railways from demolishing their structures and to compel the administration to sell the encroached railway land to them pursuant to a policy letter dated 24 January 2000. The core legal questions involved whether unauthorized occupants possess a vested or legal right to enforce a departmental policy for the purchase of state land, whether the policy applied to scattered and isolated encroachments, and whether a writ of mandamus could issue in favor of trespassers who had previously given solemn undertakings to vacate the property. The Balochistan High Court held that the petitioners were illegal encroachers whose scattered structures did not constitute clustered Katchi Abadis under the policy, that departmental guidelines without statutory backing confer no vested rights, and that equitable constitutional relief cannot be granted to trespassers with unclean hands who breached their judicial undertakings. The court established that equity does not protect trespassers, that no writ can issue to perpetuate an illegality, and that an executive policy cannot override the legal duty of authorities to clear public property from unauthorized occupations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unauthorized occupants of state or railway land acquire a vested right to purchase the land under an executive policy directive?
  • Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel public authorities to allow the continuation of an illegal encroachment?
  • Does an executive policy regarding the regularization of Katchi Abadis apply automatically to scattered and isolated unauthorized structures?
  • Are petitioners who have previously submitted judicial undertakings to vacate public land entitled to discretionary and equitable relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Khan vs Secretary, Health Department, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and 2 others2001 PLC (C.S) 794 · Balochistan High Court · 2001-03-17
  constitutional petitionservice tribunal jurisdictiondepartmental appealcivil servantreinstatementappellate authoritymandatory and directory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Balochistan High Court addresses a constitutional petition filed by a driver who was terminated from service by the Director Health (Respondent No. 3) and subsequently reinstated by the Director-General Health (Respondent No. 2) on appeal. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the competence of the appellate authority, and whether a subordinate authority is bound to implement a departmental appellate order. The Court held that since the final departmental order was in the petitioner's favor (reinstatement), the petitioner was not an aggrieved person before the Service Tribunal, making the constitutional petition maintainable. The Court ruled that the requirement to route an appeal through the head of the office is directory rather than mandatory when the appeal has already been considered and decided on merits, and that the subordinate authority is legally obligated under the rules to give effect to the appellate order. The key principle laid down is that a subordinate authority cannot refuse to implement a valid departmental appellate order favoring an employee, and the ouster under Article 212 does not apply when the final order is already in the civil servant's favor.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan when the final departmental order is in favor of the civil servant?
  • Is the requirement under Rule 5(3) of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1983, to submit an appeal through the head of the office mandatory or directory once the appeal has been decided on merits?
  • Whether a subordinate authority is legally bound to give effect to an order passed by an appellate authority under the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1983?
  • What constitutes an 'appellate authority' and 'authority' under the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1983?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bashir And Others vs Government of Balochistan Through Chief2001 CLC 1579 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-12-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bashir and 9 others vs Government of Balochistan through Chief2001 PLC (C.S.) 771 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-12-18
  quo warrantocivil service appointmentservice rulespromotional quotawrit jurisdictionstatutory complianceillegal appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the appointment of Excise and Taxation Inspectors in Balochistan, alleging that the appointments violated the Balochistan Excise and Taxation Department (Grade-1 to 15) Service Rules, 1982, and usurped the promotional quota of existing Sub-Inspectors. The core legal questions were whether the High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto regarding civil service appointments, and whether the appointments were legally valid. The Court held that it possesses jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to entertain quo warranto petitions challenging public office appointments, rejecting the contention that the Services Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction. The Court declared the appointments of the respondent-inspectors illegal, finding they were made in excess of the prescribed direct recruitment quota and against non-existent vacancies. The Court established that when a statute prescribes a specific procedure for an act, failure to strictly follow it invalidates the action. Furthermore, public appointments must adhere to statutory rules and quotas, and authorities are directed to ignore illegal directives from political figures that contravene established service regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto regarding the appointment of a civil servant, or does the matter fall exclusively under the Services Tribunal?
  • Can an appointment made in violation of a prescribed statutory quota and in the absence of available vacancies be declared illegal?
  • Does the failure to follow a specific procedure prescribed by a statute for public appointments invalidate the resulting action?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari vs Syed Abdul Naeem and another2001 YLR 3133 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-10-05
  Drugs Act 1976unlicensed drug salecoram non judicemere presenceDrugs CourtTask Force inspectionQuality Control Boardcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 31(7) of the Drugs Act 1976 was filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of the Drugs Court Balochistan, Quetta, convicting and sentencing him under Section 27(1) for violating Section 23(1)(c) of the Act for allegedly operating a medical store without a drug sale licence. The appellant contended that the Drugs Court's judgment was coram non judice due to the alleged participation of a court member in the raiding party, and that mere presence at the premises did not substantiate the charge of conducting an unlicensed drug business. The High Court rejected the coram non judice objection because official notifications showed the member was assigned solely to unregistered medical practitioners and had not participated in the raid. On the merits, the High Court held that the prosecution must prove the accused owned, operated, or was actively engaged in the sale of drugs; mere presence at the medical store without corroborating evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an individual inside a medical store during an inspection suffice to establish an offence under Section 23(1)(c) of the Drugs Act 1976?
  • Can a Drug Court judgment be deemed coram non judice absent evidence showing that a sitting member directly participated in the raid or inspection of the accused's premises?
  • What evidentiary burden must the prosecution satisfy to prove an accused was engaged in the illegal sale of drugs without a licence under the Drugs Act 1976?
  • How does the introduction of unsubstantiated and uncorroborated subsequent allegations by a complainant impact the credibility of prosecution evidence in a drug trial?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Khan Muhammad alias Khanoon and anothers2000 YLR 2861 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-06-13
  qatl-e-amdqisastazirtazkiya-tul-shahoodcommon intentiondying declarationpolice witnessesblood-stained weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased by the trial court, resulting in sentences of death as Qisas. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved its case through ocular testimony, a dying declaration, medical evidence, and recoveries, and whether a conviction under Section 302(a) for Qisas was sustainable without satisfying the evidentiary requirements of Tazkiya-tul-Shahood under Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance 1984. The Balochistan High Court held that while the ocular account of police officials and other evidence reliably proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, the absence of Tazkiya-tul-Shahood precluded a conviction under Islamic injunctions for Qisas. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence while converting the conviction from Section 302(a) to Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as death by way of Tazir.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can be relied upon as natural and independent witnesses when they have no prior enmity against the accused?
  • Does a conviction and sentence under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qisas require the fulfillment of Tazkiya-tul-Shahood under Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Ordinance 1984?
  • Can common intention be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the sudden concerted actions of multiple accused persons at the crime scene?
  • Whether the failure to conduct Tazkiya-tul-Shahood necessitates converting a conviction from Section 302(a) to Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Director-General, Anti-Norcotics Force, Balochistan vs Nasrullah and 8 others2000 PLD Quetta 19 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-10-14Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin vs Najamuddin2000 CLC 467 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-11-05
  civil revisionlimitationcondonation of delayvoid orderspecific performancedeclaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Pishin, which had dismissed his appeal against a trial court's dismissal of his suit as time-barred. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition, arguing that he was occupied with bail proceedings and that limitation does not run against an illegal order. The High Court of Balochistan dismissed the revision petition, holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 does not apply to revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court further ruled that even if an order is alleged to be illegal or void, a party adversely affected by it remains legally obligated to challenge it within the statutory period of limitation, and that a trial court is not required to decide every issue if its finding on a single issue (such as limitation) is sufficient to dispose of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to condone delay in filing a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the statutory period of limitation run against an order that is alleged to be illegal or void?
  • Is a trial court legally required to decide and discuss all framed issues if its finding on a single issue is sufficient to dispose of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Hassan Khan and others vs Shahzada and others2000 PLD Quetta 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-10-06Read full judgment →
• Shah Wali vs The State2000 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-09-14
  illegal armsarms ordinancerecovery witnesssection 103 crpcpolice testimonybenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Quetta, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case was based on a police raid during which a kalashnikov and live cartridges were allegedly recovered from the appellant's possession. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of police personnel in the absence of independent public witnesses, and whether the mandatory provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been violated. The Balochistan High Court held that the non-compliance with section 103 Cr.P.C. without a cogent explanation rendered the alleged recovery doubtful, and police testimony alone was insufficient to warrant conviction when public witnesses were available. The court laid down the principle that the requirement of associating public mashirs to a recovery is mandatory unless impossibility is shown, and failure to do so in cases where the recovered article constitutes the core offence results in an unsustainable conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement of associating two public mashirs under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory in recovery cases?
  • Can a conviction for possession of an unlicensed weapon under the Arms Ordinance be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of police personnel when public witnesses are available?
  • Does non-compliance with section 103 Cr.P.C. render the prosecution's evidence regarding recovery doubtful in the absence of a valid explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Dost Jan vs The State2000 PLD Quetta 26 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-11-10
  double jeopardyconstitutional petitionsmugglingProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) OrderCustoms Actdistinct offencesFederally Administered Tribal Areas
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the ongoing trial of the petitioner before a Sessions Judge, arguing that it violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The petitioner had previously been acquitted of charges under the Customs Act, 1969, and contended that his subsequent prosecution under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, based on the same facts, was unlawful under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the trial was lawful. It affirmed that the Customs Act, 1969, and the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, constitute distinct offences with different legal ingredients and objectives. Consequently, the bar against double jeopardy does not apply because the petitioner is not being prosecuted for the same offence. The Court further clarified that the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, extends to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The judgment reinforces that separate statutes creating distinct offences allow for simultaneous or successive prosecutions without violating fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal under the Customs Act, 1969, bar a subsequent prosecution under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the same set of facts?
  • Does the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply when the offences charged have distinct ingredients?
  • Does the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, extend to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas?
  • Is a trial for a distinct offence barred under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the accused was previously acquitted of a different offence arising from the same facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahib Sultan and 2 otherss vs Moula Muhammad Ramzan2000 PLD Quetta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-12-30
  civil revisiondeclaration and possessionadverse possessionlimitation actcause of actionplaint rejectionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from a suit for declaration, possession, and perpetual injunction. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs, but the appellate court reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, holding it to be barred by limitation, lacking a cause of action, and suffering from deficient court-fee. The core legal questions pertained to whether the suit could be dismissed as time-barred given the omission of adverse possession provisions, and whether a plaint could be rejected for lack of cause of action when its allegations, taken as true, grant relief. The High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for fresh decision. The High Court held that following the Supreme Court's Shariat Appellate Bench ruling declaring Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 unconstitutional and the subsequent omission of Section 28 and Article 144, adverse possession no longer extinguishes property rights or bars suits. Furthermore, a plaint cannot be rejected for lack of cause of action if its allegations, assumed true, entitle the plaintiff to relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for possession can be dismissed as time-barred on grounds of adverse possession after the omission of Section 28 and Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Under what circumstances can a court reject a plaint for non-disclosure of a cause of action?
  • Can a suit be dismissed for deficiency of court-fee without providing the plaintiff an opportunity to make up the deficiency?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Fayyaz, J Messrs Saddiq Sons Tin Plate Ltd. through Attorney vs Governemnt of Balochistan, Local Government Rural Development and Agricultural Department through Civil Secretariat, Quetta and another2000 MLD 68 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-06-14Read full judgment →
• Noorullah and 2 others vs The State2000 PLD Quetta 72 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-02-23
  post-arrest bailabscondencefurther inquirydelayed FIRcriminal proceduretentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This application arises out of a criminal matter where the accused applicants sought post-arrest bail in a case registered at Levies Thana, Zhob, involving multiple offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the accused committed non-bailable offences and if bail could be withheld based on alleged abscondence and delayed FIR registration. The Balochistan High Court held that the circumstances of the case, including delayed lodging of the FIR, belated challan submission, and questions regarding the applicability of scheduled offences, brought the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that mere accusation, suspicion, or abscondence without statutory proclamation proceedings does not disentitle an accused to bail when the case requires further inquiry or lacks reasonable grounds of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere accusation of a non-bailable offence is sufficient to disentitle an accused from being released on bail?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused on the ground of abscondence if no statutory proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were conducted against him?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and submitting the challan bring a criminal case within the ambit of further inquiry?
  • What is the extent of a court's duty when tentatively assessing the facts and circumstances of a case during a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Dewan Scrap (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan Through2000 P.C.T.L.R. 73 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
• Munawar Kashan and another vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Revenue, Balochistan Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 2 others2000 MLD 2015 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-04-21
  Constitutional petitionBoard of RevenueOccupancy tenantState landReview jurisdictionLand revenueFraudulent mutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition challenged an order by the Board of Revenue, Balochistan, which set aside a previous order declaring the petitioners as occupancy tenants of State land. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the Board’s review jurisdiction and whether the petitioners had acquired a lawful title to the land. The Court held that the Board of Revenue acted within its authority under the Board of Revenue Act 1957, to review and correct orders where 'sufficient reason' exists, particularly when the initial order was based on a misinterpretation of law and fraudulent record entries. The Court found that the petitioners’ claim to occupancy status was invalid, as they failed to meet the mandatory criteria of cultivating the land prior to 18-2-1977. Emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 cannot be invoked to protect titles obtained through fraud or the connivance of revenue staff, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that illegal land grabbing cannot be validated through hyper-technical legal arguments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Board of Revenue possess the authority to review its own orders under the Board of Revenue Act 1957?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 be invoked to protect titles acquired through fraudulent manipulation of land records?
  • Is the status of occupancy tenant available to individuals who were not cultivating the State land prior to 18-2-1977?
  • Can a review petition be entertained by the Board of Revenue to correct an order that was passed without proper scrutiny of the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 483 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-11-15
  Qatl-shibh-i-amdsudden fightDiyatmitigating circumstancescriminal appealintention to killcompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 316, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the death of the deceased resulting from a single brick blow during a sudden altercation. The core legal question was whether the act constituted Qatl-e-Amd (intentional murder) or Qatl-shibh-i-amd (unintentional homicide) given the lack of premeditation and the nature of the weapon used. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 316, P.P.C., finding that the accused lacked the specific intention to kill, as the incident arose from a sudden fight without prior enmity. The High Court upheld the conviction, agreeing that the absence of prior enmity and the solitary nature of the blow supported the classification of the offence as Qatl-shibh-i-amd. The appellate court further noted that the legal heirs had pardoned the appellant. Consequently, the court reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone and directed the appellant's release upon furnishing security for the Diyat amount, emphasizing that the ends of justice are met when mitigating circumstances, such as compromise and lack of intent, are balanced against the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single blow with a brick during a sudden fight without prior enmity constitute Qatl-e-Amd or Qatl-shibh-i-amd?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone if the legal heirs of the deceased have pardoned the convict?
  • Is a convict entitled to release on bail under Section 331, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, upon furnishing security equivalent to the Diyat amount?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and 3 otherss vs Abdul Qadir2000 PLD Quetta 42 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and 3 others vs Abdul Qadir2000 YLR 2673 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baqa alias Baqir vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 465 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-09-14
  criminal appealmurderconfessional statementretracted confessioninvestigating officerbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sibi Division, convicting the appellant under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a retracted confessional statement recorded by a Tehsildar who later conducted the investigation, the non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, and the standard of proof required in criminal cases. The Balochistan High Court held that a confession recorded by an officer who subsequently investigates the case and submits the challan is tainted, inadmissible, and causes prejudice to the accused, and that non-compliance with sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitutes an incurable illegality. Furthermore, the court held that one tainted piece of evidence cannot corroborate another and that moral conviction cannot substitute legal proof. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of the charge.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confessional statement recorded by an officer who subsequently conducts the investigation admissible in evidence?
  • Does non-compliance with the provisions of section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to a curable irregularity or an incurable illegality?
  • Can a retracted and delayed confessional statement alone form the basis of a murder conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can one tainted piece of evidence corroborate another tainted piece of evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Chughtai vs The State2600 P Cr. L J 1064 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-03-01
  post-arrest bailcorruptionpublic functionariesprohibitory clauserule of consistencyembezzlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed before the Balochistan High Court by the petitioner, Muhammad Ayub Chughtai, who was accused in an F.I.R. registered under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 concerning illegal excess payments to contractors for road construction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a Divisional Accountant alleged to have co-signed cheques and facilitated financial loss, was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry or the rule of consistency. The High Court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was connected with the offence, that corruption offences by public functionaries directed against society must be dealt with strictly, and that the probability of tampering with unrecovered cheques precluded bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused public functionary involved in financial corruption and offences against society is entitled to post-arrest bail even if the maximum sentence is less than ten years?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply for the grant of bail when the co-accused was granted bail under different circumstances prior to the restoration of the case?
  • Can bail be refused under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when incriminating statements and unrecovered evidence create reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Haji Mir Aziz Ahmed and 3 others2000 P Cr. L J 489 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-09-29
  constitutional petitiondismissal of complaintsupplementary challanrevisional jurisdictioninvestigating officer opinioncriminal breach of truststolen property
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed to challenge an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Khuzdar, which set aside a Magistrate's order dismissing a criminal complaint and directed the submission of a supplementary challan against the petitioner. The core legal questions involved the legality of ordering a supplementary challan and further inquiry after a complaint's dismissal, and the binding nature of a police investigating officer's opinion upon the court. The Balochistan High Court held that the Sessions Judge possesses the power under sections 435 and 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to direct further inquiry or set aside dismissals under section 203, and that an investigating officer's opinion is not binding on the court. The court dismissed the petition, establishing that courts can independently evaluate material to order further proceedings irrespective of police conclusions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Sessions Judge can order further inquiry and set aside the dismissal of a criminal complaint under section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the opinion of an investigating officer regarding the liability of an accused binding on a criminal court?
  • Does the dismissal of a complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts?
  • Can a court direct the submission of a supplementary challan disagreeing with the police report?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mariam Sultana vs The State2000 PLD Quetta 12 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-03-26
  private complaintpolice challancriminal procedurecognizance of offencejudicial inquirydismissal of complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the dismissal of a private complaint filed by Mst. Mariam Sultana against police officials and others, alleging false implication in a murder case. The petitioner contended that the trial court improperly dismissed her complaint solely because a police challan had already been submitted in the same matter, rather than evaluating the complaint on its own merits under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a private complaint can be dismissed merely because a police report (challan) exists for the same incident. The Court held that a private complaint is a distinct legal mode of initiating proceedings and must be disposed of independently based on the material presented, not by reference to police investigation reports. The Court set aside the dismissal, ruling that the trial court failed to follow the procedure under sections 200-204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The principle established is that a magistrate or judge must independently assess a private complaint based on the complainant's evidence and any inquiry report, regardless of the existence of a parallel police investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Sessions Court dismiss a private complaint solely because a police challan has been submitted in the same matter?
  • Is a private complaint required to be disposed of on its own merits independently of a police investigation report?
  • Does a Sessions Court have the authority to take direct cognizance of a private complaint without it being referred by a Magistrate?
  • Must a court follow the procedure under sections 200 to 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when dealing with a private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Moula Dad vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1096 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-02-22
  post-arrest bailfurther enquiryvicarious liabilitymurdercommon intentionaerial firing
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application arising from Crime No. 23 of 1999 registered under sections 324, 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Quetta, where the accused-applicant sought post-arrest bail after his previous application was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of further enquiry, considering that the fatal injury to the deceased was attributed to an absconding co-accused and the only role assigned to the applicant was ineffective aerial firing. The Balochistan High Court held that the case fell within the purview of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 since the question of the applicant's vicarious liability required further determination at trial and no specific fatal injury was attributed to him. The court laid down the principle that where reasonable grounds exist for further enquiry into the guilt of an accused person, bail cannot be withheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused assigned only the role of ineffective aerial firing in a murder case is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further enquiry?
  • Does the question of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bring a case within the scope of further enquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be withheld when reasonable grounds exist for further enquiry into the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Zubeda Qadus vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary2000 PLC (C.S.) 1353 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-07-11
  service matterconstitutional petitionjurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunaltermination of servicemaintainabilityArticle 212 bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the termination of the petitioner's services as a Drawing Mistress. The petitioner, who had been appointed on merit after a selection process, contested her termination, arguing that the order was passed without jurisdiction, lacked proper notice, and was mala fide, particularly because her appointment had previously been declared valid by the relevant authorities. The core legal question before the High Court was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a service termination order, given the constitutional provisions regarding the jurisdiction of Service Tribunals. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, concluding that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed the principle that, pursuant to the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in service matters, even where the impugned order is alleged to be mala fide or without jurisdiction, as such grievances must be addressed by the appropriate Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a service termination order in light of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a service order even if it is alleged to be mala fide or without jurisdiction?
  • Can a service grievance be adjudicated by the High Court if the petitioner has not approached the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Uzma Sabbir Qureshi and others vs Government of Balochistan2000 C.L.R. 175 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mir Shah Nawaz Marri, Ex-Director, Mineral Development Presently2000 PLC (C.S.) 533 · Balochistan High Court
  Officer on Special Dutycivil serviceadministrative discretiontransfer and postingconstitutional petitionservice structuregood governance
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Mining Engineer, challenged his prolonged status as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) and his subsequent posting to a position deemed unsuitable for his qualifications. The core legal question concerned the legality of the OSD practice and the scope of judicial review over administrative transfers. The Court held that while specific postings remain within the government's administrative discretion, the indefinite retention of civil servants as OSDs is extraneous to the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, and constitutes an abuse of executive power. The Court ruled that OSD status should not be used as a punitive measure or a means to sideline officers. It established the principle that civil servants have a right to be posted to positions commensurate with their rank and qualifications, and that OSD postings should generally not exceed 30 days. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that administrative discretion in transfers must be exercised judiciously, free from political pressure or extraneous considerations, and that secretaries must resist unlawful directives from political figures to maintain the integrity of the civil service structure.

  Questions settled

  • Is the designation of 'Officer on Special Duty' (OSD) recognized under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act 1974?
  • Can a civil servant be kept as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) indefinitely without specific duties?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with administrative transfer and posting orders of civil servants?
  • Are administrative authorities required to consider an officer's qualifications and rank when making posting orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Khan vs Nasibullah and 2 others2000 PLD Quetta 66 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-12-30
  civil revisionconcurrent findings of factrevisional jurisdictioninjunction against governmentSpecific Relief Actmutationrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration, injunction, and mandatory injunction regarding agricultural land. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of interference under revisional jurisdiction against concurrent findings of fact by courts below, the propriety of issuing injunctions against government officials conducting administrative inquiries, and the scope of relief under the Specific Relief Act 1877. The Balochistan High Court held that in civil revision, findings of fact concurrently reached by two lower forums cannot be interfered with unless there is a patent illegality, jurisdictional defect, or perverse approach to evidence. The Court further reiterated that under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, no injunction can be granted to interfere with public duties or stay criminal proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether an injunction can be issued against a government department or official to interfere with the performance of public duties under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Does an appellate court commit a fatal illegality under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by upholding a trial court judgment without restating all evidence?
  • Can a civil court stay ongoing administrative or criminal proceedings through a permanent injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh alias Abdul Karim and 2 others vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1402 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-03-24
  murder referencecriminal appealbenefit of doubttorchlight identificationcapital chargeappreciation of evidencedefence pleaacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a murder reference and criminal appeal challenging the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellants under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Sher Khan. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through ocular testimony, torchlight identification, and circumstantial evidence. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution case was fraught with serious doubts, noting that identification during a dark night by means of a torch was improbable, material witnesses were withheld, and recoveries were uncorroborated and unreliable. Reversing the trial court's judgment, the High Court laid down that the failure of an accused to prove a defence plea does not shift or reduce the heavy burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether identification of accused persons in a dark night by means of a torch is sufficient to sustain a capital conviction?
  • Does the failure of an accused to substantiate a defence plea relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is a conviction under a capital charge sustainable when the ocular account is inherently improbable and uncorroborated by forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad and 8 others vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1123 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-08-03
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyhostile witnesscross-firingcompromisescheduled offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by nine applicants detained in connection with a criminal case involving cross-firing between two tribes, resulting in two deaths. The applicants were charged under sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given that a co-accused in identical circumstances had already been granted bail and the complainant had turned hostile during the trial. The High Court observed that the complainant and other witnesses had failed to implicate the applicants, and the matter appeared to have been compromised between the parties. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court held that since a co-accused similarly situated had been granted bail and no specific incriminating role was attributed to the applicants, they were entitled to the same relief. The Court concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the applicants were guilty of the scheduled offence and consequently admitted them to bail, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency require the grant of bail to co-accused persons when another co-accused in identical circumstances has already been released?
  • Is a bail application maintainable when the complainant and prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and failed to implicate the accused?
  • Can bail be granted when there is evidence of a compromise between the parties in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameedullah vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 472 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-11-15
  criminal appealcontrol of narcoticsillegal convictionpenal sectionjudgment requirementsremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under section 6 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involve whether a conviction and sentence can be sustained under section 6 which is not a penal provision, and whether the trial court's judgment complied with the mandatory requirements of section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding reasoned judgments specifying the correct penal sections and subsections. The Balochistan High Court held that section 6 is not a penal clause and that the trial court failed to write a proper judgment under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by not specifying the appropriate penal section (such as section 9) and failing to provide adequate reasons. The court laid down the principle that judgments in criminal cases must strictly conform to section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, clearly specifying the penal provisions under which conviction is recorded, and cannot leave crucial sentencing details to presumption.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be legally convicted and sentenced under Section 6 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, given that it is not a penal section?
  • Does a judgment that fails to specify the correct penal section and omits detailed reasons for conviction comply with Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the appropriate appellate remedy when a trial court delivers a defective judgment that lacks proper compliance with Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Raz Muhammad and 9 others vs District Magistrate, Quetta2000 P Cr. L J 1702 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-03-08
  public nuisanceconditional orderconstitutional petitiontraffic hazardprocedural fairnessCode of Criminal ProcedureDistrict Magistrate
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notice issued by the District Magistrate, Quetta, under Sections 133 and 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which directed the petitioners to remove their car showrooms from residential areas due to alleged traffic hazards and public nuisance. The core legal question was whether the District Magistrate followed the mandatory procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the issuance of conditional versus absolute orders for public nuisances. The Court held that the impugned notice was legally flawed because it purported to be an absolute order rather than a conditional one. The Court clarified that under Section 133, a Magistrate must first issue a conditional order, which may only be made absolute after following the procedural steps outlined in Sections 134 to 137, including providing the affected party an opportunity to show cause. The key principle laid down is that the power to abate a public nuisance is a special jurisdiction that must be exercised with fairness, strictly adhering to the statutory sequence of a conditional order followed by an inquiry, rather than bypassing these requirements with an immediate absolute order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Magistrate empowered to issue an absolute order to abate a public nuisance without first issuing a conditional order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the use of private property for business purposes that creates a traffic hazard constitute a public nuisance subject to regulation under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the recording of evidence mandatory before a Magistrate issues a conditional notice under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate initiate proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on information other than a formal police report?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Muhammad vs The Union Council, Taftan through Administrator, District Chagai and another2000 CLC 503 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-10-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Bismillah vs Abdul Ali and anothers2000 P Cr. L J 495 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-10-05
  appeal against acquittalinjured eyewitnessinterested witnessdelayed FIRadditional evidenceplea of alibimurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal acquittal appeals filed against the trial court's judgment whereby the respondent was acquitted of charges under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the trial court correctly appreciated the ocular testimony, medical evidence, and whether the acquittal was based on sustainable grounds. The Balochistan High Court held that the trial court misread the evidence and wrongly discarded the testimony of injured eyewitnesses on the grounds of interest and delayed police recording without cogent reasons. The appellate court established that the presence of the eyewitnesses, who sustained injuries during the incident, was proved beyond a shadow of doubt through medical certificates brought on record as additional evidence under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down that mere relationship to the deceased does not render a witness inherently unreliable, especially when the witness is also an injured victim, and that delay in recording police statements does not vitiate testimony where the presence of the witness is independently established and the investigation was flawed. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal, convicted the respondent under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal when the trial court has misread the ocular and medical evidence?
  • Does the mere relationship of an eyewitness to the deceased render their testimony untrustworthy without independent corroboration?
  • Can the testimony of an injured eyewitness be discarded solely on the ground that police recorded their statement after a delay?
  • What are the parameters and principles for setting aside an acquittal judgment in criminal appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Assistant Commissioner, Ziarat and 8 others2000 MLD 1919 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-09-17Read full judgment →
• Gul Mir and others vs The State and others2000 PLD Quetta 79 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-12-09
  murderinterested witnessesrule of prudenceballistic evidencecompoundabilitycompromisemedical evidenceSection 382-B CrPCbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court of Balochistan considered a criminal appeal against convictions under Sections 302, 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a constitutional petition seeking enhancement of sentence. Five co-accused had already been acquitted under Sections 302 and 324 following a valid compromise, leaving their convictions under non-compoundable Section 148, and the complete convictions of the remaining appellants, for determination. The core issues were whether the uncorroborated ocular testimony of interested witnesses could sustain conviction, the effect of minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, the consequence of unproven motive, and whether statutory benefit under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be withheld without reasons. The High Court maintained the convictions of the non-compromising appellants, finding the natural eye-witness accounts credible and corroborated by ballistic recovery. The sentences under Section 148 for the compromising accused were reduced to time served, fine penalties were remitted, and Section 382-B benefit was extended to all convicted appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of interested or related eye-witnesses form the sole basis of a conviction without independent corroboration if found inherently reliable and confidence-inspiring?
  • Do minor discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of firearm injuries vitiate the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect on a conviction and sentence when the prosecution alleges a motive such as old enmity but fails to prove its specific details?
  • Can a trial court withhold the statutory benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording cogent reasons?
  • How should a court dispose of a conviction under a non-compoundable offence like Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where the underlying capital offences have been compounded?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Pakistan Public Works2000 YLR 2706 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-06-26Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan through Advocate-General, Balochistan vs Muhammad Murad Abro2000 MLD 1508 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-04-27
  acquittal appealhostile witnessrecalling witnesssuppression of terrorist activitieslimitation periodpublic prosecutor authorityremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This acquittal appeal was filed by the Government of Balochistan against the judgment of the Sessions Judge/Special Judge S.T.A., Quetta, acquitting the respondent of charges under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question centered on whether the trial court was justified in allowing an application under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall a material eye-witness who had turned hostile, and subsequently whether the order of acquittal passed under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after remand was sustainable. The Balochistan High Court held that the primary duty of a court is to discover the truth, and where evidence is essential for the just decision of a case, the powers under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be exercised irrespective of technicalities or concerns regarding filling gaps. The court laid down the principle that procedural law is enacted in aid of justice and fair play, and where a material witness resiles due to coercion or threats, the court is obligated to recall and re-examine such a witness to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was accepted, the acquittal order set aside, and the case remanded for retrial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against acquittal filed by the Additional Advocate-General is competently filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How is the period of limitation computed for filing an appeal when the copying agency fails to notify the applicant that the copy is ready?
  • Can a trial court recall and re-examine a hostile witness under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to unearth the truth?
  • Does the rule against filling gaps in evidence prevent a court from exercising its mandatory powers under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the just decision of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farooq alias Ghulam Qasim vs The State2000 MLD 1504 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-03-15
  joint trialsame transactionnarcotics possessionillegal joint trialremand for retrialindividual possessioncontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence 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 joint trial of the appellants for separate recoveries of different narcotics from their individual possession was legally sustainable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Balochistan High Court held that the independent recoveries of different narcotics from separate individuals did not constitute the same transaction, making the joint trial irregular. The court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanded the case for retrial, and directed that the appellants be released on bail subject to furnishing sureties. The key principle laid down is that distinct offences committed individually without a shared common intention or connection forming the same transaction cannot be legally tried together in a single joint trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether separate recoveries of different narcotics from individual accused persons constitute the same transaction allowing a joint trial?
  • Can a joint trial be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish a common intention or connection between the acts of multiple accused?
  • Does the possession of charas not exceeding one kilogram fall under section 9(b) instead of section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the legal consequence of holding an irregular joint trial for distinct offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghous Bakhsh alias Ghousa vs The State2000 MLD 618 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-09-29
  narcotic possessioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtexclusive possessionrecovery witnessburden of proofpolice contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's exclusive possession of the seized contraband beyond reasonable doubt, given significant contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The recovery witnesses contradicted the complainant, indicating that an unidentified companion, rather than the appellant, carried the bag containing the narcotics and subsequently escaped. Additionally, the failure to associate public witnesses despite their availability, the inability of a key recovery witness to identify the accused in court, and evidence of potential mala fide intent created substantial doubt. The Court emphasized the established principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt, as the prosecution failed to substantiate the charge of exclusive possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove exclusive possession of narcotics entitle an accused to an acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions between the statements of the complainant and the recovery witnesses?
  • Is the prosecution's case weakened by the failure to associate independent public witnesses during a narcotics recovery operation?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused if the defense plea is not fully substantiated?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Ayub, Manager, Government, Farm, Loralai vs The Province of Balochistan through the Secretary, Government of Balochistan Livestook and Dairy Development Department, Quetta2000 PLC (C.S.) 60 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-05-26
  transfer and postingmala fide transferconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalbar of jurisdictionbureaucracy rolerules of business
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a government official, challenged multiple transfer and posting orders issued by the department allegedly on the political directives of the Minister, arguing they were arbitrary, frequent, and mala fide. The core legal question was whether the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 could interfere with departmental transfer orders in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212 regarding terms and conditions of service. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petition was not maintainable under Article 199 read with Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 as the proper remedy lay before the Service Tribunal. The court laid down the principle that bureaucrats must act uprightly and not blindly succumb to unlawful political directives or ministerial whims regarding transfers, and that tenure and transfer rules framed under the Rules of Business must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against transfer orders of a civil servant in view of the bar contained in Article 212?
  • Are government servants and bureaucrats bound to comply with unlawful verbal or political directives regarding transfers issued by ministers or political figures?
  • What is the legal status and constitutional protection afforded to the Rules of Business of Government of Balochistan, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Haji Muhammad Soomro vs Principal, Balociiistan Residential2000 C.L.R. 1568 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-09-09
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitycivil servantmaster and servantservice tribunalstatutory regulationscompulsory retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an ex-Medical Officer of the Baluchistan Residential College, Loralai, challenged his compulsory retirement through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The primary legal question was whether the constitutional petition was maintainable or whether the petitioner's remedy lay before the Provincial Service Tribunal on the ground that he was a civil servant, and whether the principles of master and servant applied. The Balochistan High Court held that since the service affairs of the employees of the college are governed by statutory regulations framed under the Baluchistan Model Residential Secondary Schools Ordinance, 1983, the principle of master and servant does not apply. Furthermore, applying the test established by the Supreme Court, the petitioner was not a civil servant under the Baluchistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, because his appointment was not made by the Provincial Government, he did not hold office during its pleasure, and his terms and conditions were not governed by civil servant laws. Consequently, the court ruled that the constitutional petition under Article 199 is maintainable and directed the case to be fixed for regular hearing on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against the termination or retirement of an employee whose service is governed by statutory regulations?
  • Does an employee of the Baluchistan Residential College qualify as a civil servant under the Baluchistan Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Whether the principles of master and servant apply when statutory service and conduct regulations govern the employment of an educational institution's staff?
  • Does the Provincial Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain grievances of employees who are not civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Haji Muhammad Somro vs Principal, Balochistan Residential2000 PLC (C.S.) 21 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-04-25
  Constitutional petitionCivil servantTermination of serviceDisciplinary proceedingsStatutory bodyService tribunal jurisdictionBalochistan Residential College
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination and subsequent retirement of a Medical Officer from the Balochistan Residential College, Loralai. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, an employee of a body corporate established under the Balochistan Model Residential Secondary Schools Ordinance, 1983, qualified as a civil servant entitled to the protections of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, and the Balochistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1992. The Court held that the petitioner was not a civil servant, as his appointment was not made by the Provincial Government or through the Public Service Commission, but rather by the Board of Governors of a separate statutory entity. Consequently, the disciplinary procedures prescribed for civil servants were inapplicable. The Court emphasized that while the Principal could initiate disciplinary action, the authority for termination rested with the Board of Governors under the institution's specific regulations. The holding establishes that employees of autonomous bodies governed by specific statutes are not civil servants, and their service terms are regulated by their institution's specific rules rather than general civil service legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of the Balochistan Residential College, Loralai, qualifies as a civil servant under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Does the Balochistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1992, apply to employees of the Balochistan Residential College, Loralai?
  • Is the Principal of the Balochistan Residential College, Loralai, competent to terminate the services of a B-17 grade employee?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 be maintained when the petitioner is not a civil servant and the institution is governed by its own regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Arbab Ali Ahmad and anothers vs Sarwar Khan and others2000 MLD 87 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
• Dhadar Khan vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 478 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-10-25
  criminal appealunlicensed armssearch and seizuremashirnamarecovery of Kalashnikovindependent witnessesbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Quetta, convicting the appellant under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance 1965 and sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that law enforcement personnel raided the appellant's house based on spy information and recovered an unlicensed Kalashnikov with ammunition. The legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution had established the alleged recovery beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the total failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality under Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the non-production of a key supervising officer. The High Court held that where police possessed prior information and could have secured private witnesses from the locality, their admitted failure to make any effort under Section 103, Cr.P.C. was fatal to the prosecution. Relying solely on official witnesses under doubtful circumstances warranted the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is fatal to the prosecution when the police possessed prior information and had the opportunity to procure private witnesses?
  • Whether a conviction under the Arms Ordinance 1965 can be sustained solely upon the testimony of police officials when independent witnesses from the locality were not joined?
  • Whether the failure to produce a key supervisory police officer, against whom allegations of false implication are specifically made, causes material prejudice to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Dewan Chand and others vs Balochistan Local Council Election2000 MLD 1415 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-07-20Read full judgment →
• Balochistan vs Principal, Balochistan Residential College, Loralai2000 PLC (C.S.) 447 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-12-09
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitycivil servantmaster and servantcompulsory retirementservice tribunalstatutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an ex-Medical Officer challenging his compulsory retirement from the Balochistan Residential College, Loralai. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's service was governed by the principle of master and servant, whether he qualified as a civil servant under the relevant law barring jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, and consequently, whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 was maintainable. The court held that since the petitioner was not appointed by the Government of Balochistan, did not hold office during its pleasure, and his terms and conditions were governed by statutory regulations framed under the Balochistan Model Residential Secondary Schools Ordinance, 1983 rather than the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, he was not a civil servant. Therefore, the bar under Article 212 did not apply, and the constitutional petition against his compulsory retirement was maintainable for the enforcement of statutory service regulations. The matter was directed to be fixed for regular hearing on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of the Balochistan Residential College is a civil servant under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution apply to an employee whose terms and conditions are governed by regulations under the Balochistan Model Residential Secondary Schools Ordinance, 1983?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable for the violation of statutory service regulations by an educational institution employee who is not a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahauddin Bootwala vs M U H Am M Ad Afzal2000 YLR 2716 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-04-12
  eviction applicationpersonal requirementrelationship of landlord and tenantsuperstructure ownershipperpetual tenancyPagrisecurity deposit
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Quetta, on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The appellant-tenant challenged the eviction, denying the relationship of landlord and tenant by asserting that he had purchased the superstructure of the shop from the previous owner for Rs. 5,50,000, thereby establishing a perpetual tenancy where he only paid rent for the land underneath. The respondent-landlord contended that the payment was merely a security deposit (Pagri) and did not confer ownership of the superstructure. The High Court of Balochistan examined the evidence, including the mutation entries and the rent agreement, and concluded that the appellant failed to prove ownership of the superstructure, as the agreement explicitly characterized the payment as a security deposit. The Court held that the concept of Pagri is contrary to public policy and does not negate tenancy or affect eviction proceedings. Finding that the respondent's personal requirement was unrebutted, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the payment of a substantial sum as 'Pagri' or security deposit confer ownership rights over the superstructure of a rented property to the tenant?
  • Can a tenant claim perpetual tenancy and oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller based on an unproven claim of purchasing the superstructure?
  • Is the sole, unshaken testimony of a landlord sufficient to establish a bona fide personal requirement for eviction if it is not rebutted by the tenant?
  • Does the placement of common evidence in consolidated or parallel rent proceedings without formal consolidation constitute a fatal procedural illegality if both parties consented to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Azam Jan Zarkoon vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1621 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-04-03
  contempt of courtsuo motu contemptjudge in his own causejurisdictionstatutory interpretationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal preferred under Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 against a judgment passed by a learned Single Bench in a suo motu contempt case convicting the appellant. The core legal questions involved whether contempt proceedings are an exception to the rule against a judge acting in their own cause, and whether the mandatory procedure under Section 8(5) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 was violated when the initial cognizance was taken by the Chief Justice but the matter was referred to a Single Bench instead of two senior judges. The Balochistan High Court held that while contempt proceedings are indeed an exception to the general rule that the same person cannot act as prosecutor and judge, the statutory mandate of Section 8(5) requires that when cognizance is first taken by the Chief Justice, the functions must be performed by a bench of two senior judges. The court established the key principle that the mandatory procedural provisions of special statutes like the Contempt of Court Act must be strictly followed in letter and spirit, and non-compliance with jurisdictional requirements renders the proceedings void. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the appellant acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contempt of court proceedings constitute an exception to the general rule that the same person cannot act as both prosecutor and judge?
  • Does Section 8(5) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 mandatorily require that a case where cognizance is first taken by the Chief Justice be referred to a bench of two senior judges?
  • Can a learned Single Judge validly hear and decide a contempt matter where initial cognizance was taken by the Chief Justice?
  • Are the procedural provisions of the Contempt of Court Act to be construed strictly according to their plain grammatical sense?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmed vs Dr. Arbab Ali AhmedK.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 379 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-03-27Read full judgment →
• and Aman Ullah Khan Yasinzai, J Nasrullah and others vs Province of Balochistan through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and others2000 PLC (C.S.) 769 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-12-30
  public service commissionassistant engineer recruitmentpublic interestconstitutional petitionbypassing commissiontransparent examinationdelegation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by graduate engineers challenging the recruitment process initiated by the Government of Balochistan for Assistant Engineers (B-17) through a special committee and an outside consultant, bypassing the Provincial Public Service Commission. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government could lawfully withdraw posts from the purview of the Public Service Commission and delegate recruitment without establishing that such action was in the public interest and fulfilling the procedural requirements under the applicable rules. The Balochistan High Court held that the Government lacked lawful authority to withdraw the posts without expressly recording that the withdrawal was in the public interest and without specifying the required qualifications, experience, and manner of recruitment pursuant to Rule 5 of the Balochistan Public Service Commission (Function) Rules, 1982. The Court ruled that bypassing a constitutional institution like the Public Service Commission without cogent reasons or transparency—such as including candidates as committee members—renders the subsequent examination and results without legal sanctity, thereby granting the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Provincial Government has the lawful authority to withdraw posts from the purview of the Public Service Commission without explicitly determining that the withdrawal is in the public interest?
  • Can recruitment to Grade-17 posts be validly conducted through an ad-hoc committee and an outside consultant instead of the Public Service Commission without fulfilling the requirements of Rule 5 of the Balochistan Public Service Commission (Function) Rules, 1982?
  • Does the inclusion of candidates as members of a recruitment and recommendation committee vitiate the transparency of the examination process?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Dost vs The State2000 MLD 740 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-11-15
  arms ordinancerecovery of armspersonal searchofficial witnessescriminal appealsuppression of terrorist activitiesdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge for Suppression of Terrorist Activities convicting the appellant under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentencing him to four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the legality of the search and recovery, compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the effect of delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the credibility of official witnesses. The Balochistan High Court held that the mandatory requirements of Section 103 Cr.P.C. do not apply to the personal search of an accused, that official witnesses from law enforcement agencies are competent witnesses absent any proven animus, and that recovery from personal possession sufficiently establishes the offence under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The Court laid down that technicalities should be overlooked when the prosecution proves its case and that Section 103 Cr.P.C. relates to places rather than personal searches. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Do the mandatory search requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to the personal search of an accused person?
  • Can the testimony of official witnesses belonging to law enforcement agencies be discarded solely on the ground of their official status?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report vitiate the recovery of arms when the accused was hospitalized and weapons were already produced before the police?
  • Whether recovery of illicit arms from the personal possession of an accused is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Ali Jan and other2000 C.L.R. 981 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-10-29Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Ali Jan and 3 others2000 PLD Quetta 6 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-10-29Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan and 2 others vs The State2000 P Cr. L J 1665 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-04-19
  common intentionspur of the momentinterested witnessdelay in FIRalteration of sentenceSection 302(c) PPCdanda attack
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Quetta, which convicted the appellants under Section 302(b) and Section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (PPC). The incident originated from a sudden dispute over removing mud from land, during which the appellants, armed with dandas, allegedly attacked the deceased and complainant. The High Court evaluated whether common intention was present, whether the prosecution relied on interested witnesses, whether delay in lodging the FIR was fatal, and whether the conviction under Section 302(b) PPC was legally sustainable given the sudden nature of the fight.

  The High Court held that common intention can develop at the spur of the moment and that testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded without evidence of deliberate false implication. The delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the intervention of community notables. However, as the incident occurred spontaneously without a premeditated intention to cause death, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302(b) PPC to Section 302(c) PPC, reducing the sentence of life imprisonment to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the remaining conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code develop at the spur of the moment during the commission of an offence?
  • Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses to a deceased render them interested witnesses whose testimony must be discarded?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution when explained by the intervention of local notables?
  • When an fatal attack occurs without premeditation during a sudden flare-up, does the offence fall under Section 302(b) or Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Fateh vs Ali Ahmed and another2000 PLD Quetta 76 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-12-21
  appeal against acquittalpresumption of innocenceShajja HashimahArshcriminal appealappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 417(2)A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the judgment of the Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Quetta, which acquitted the respondent, Ali Ahmed, of the charge under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while convicting him under Section 337-A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing Shajja Hashimah. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the charge under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to warrant interference with the trial court's acquittal. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to provide evidence to substantiate the charge under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court affirmed the acquittal, emphasizing that an order of acquittal strengthens the initial presumption of innocence, and appellate interference is only permissible if the judgment is perverse to the evidence. Finding no such perversity, the court dismissed the appeal. Additionally, the court exercised its discretion under Section 337-X of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to allow the payment of Arsh in monthly installments.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does an acquittal strengthen the initial presumption of innocence of an accused person?
  • Can the payment of Arsh be ordered in installments under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Azizullah andothers vs Anjuman Asna Ashria and Heliyan.E-Nah2000 MLD 2007 · Balochistan High Court · 2000-07-07Read full judgment →
• Zahir Enterprises, Karachi vs Government of Baloch1stan FoodK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 396 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zahir Enterprises vs Government of Balochistan and others1999 MLD 3112 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-11-11
  constitutional petitionpublic contracttransparencyopen tendersfreedom of tradediscretionary powersjudicial reviewlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a firm of wheat dealers challenging the secret and non-transparent deal entered into by the Government of Balochistan through its Food Department to purchase a large quantity of imported wheat from a private respondent without inviting open public tenders. The core legal question was whether the government's awarding of a major supply contract to a single private party without open competitive bidding, bypassing the Finance Department and flouting established procedural rules, violated the constitutional rights of other traders and the principles of transparency and fairness in public contracts. The Balochistan High Court held that administrative authorities must exercise their discretion transparently, fairly, and in accordance with the law, and that awarding contracts without open tenders violates citizens' fundamental rights to freedom of trade and equality. The court declared the secret deal and related administrative orders unconstitutional and without lawful authority, laying down that openness, transparency, fairness, and justness are essential constitutional requirements for all government transactions and contract awards.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government's award of a supply contract to a private party without inviting open public tenders is a violation of constitutional rights to freedom of trade and equality?
  • Does a citizen engaged in the same business have sufficient locus standi to challenge a non-transparent government procurement contract under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are administrative authorities bound to structure their discretion and adopt a policy of openness and transparency when dealing with public property and funds?
  • Whether bypassing the Finance Department in transactions affecting the provincial finances violates the prescribed Rules of Business?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Uhammad Ibrahim1999 YLR 2360 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-08-16Read full judgment →
• The State through Additional AdvocateGeneral vs Gul Khan1999 YLR 2377 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-07-01Read full judgment →
• The Government of Balochistan through Secretary (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta and 3 others vs Haji Sawal Khan and 4 others1999 MLD 2087 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-09-25Read full judgment →
• Tafakhar Ali Asadi vs Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad1999 PLD Quetta 74 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-03-16Read full judgment →
• Tafakhar Ali Asadi vs Federal Public Service Commission, And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 91 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Home and Tribal Affairs, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1490 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Khatoon vs The State and 2 others1999 YLR 2308 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-07-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Hyder Ali vs Assistant Director, F.I.A. Commercial Circle Quetta1999 MLD 1527 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-08-05Read full judgment →
• Shamrez Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 75 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Shamraiz Khan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 128 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-07-17Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, Quetta and 2 others vs Abdullah and 2 others1999 MLD 2104 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-09-04Read full judgment →
• Sarvat Jamal Asmai And 2 Others vs Maj. Muhammad Ashraf1999 CLC 232 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-07-29Read full judgment →
• Sardar Fateh Ali Khan Umrani vs Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others1999 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
• Sardar Attaullah Khan Mengal vs Chief Election Commissioner And Another1999 CLC 1460 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
• Raz Muhammad vs Inspectorgeneral Frontier Corps, Balochistan, Quetta and others1999 MLD 3414 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-12-31
  Customs Actconfiscated goodsillegal disposalconstitutional jurisdictionauction procedureFrontier Corpsright to be dealt with in accordance with law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court seeking directions for the return or payment of market value for goods seized by the Pishin Scouts of Frontier Corps, exercising powers under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question concerned whether the authorities could lawfully dispose of confiscated goods during the pendency of an appeal and without adhering to mandatory statutory auction procedures. The Court held that the adjudicating and warehouse authorities acted without lawful authority in disposing of the non-perishable seized goods arbitrarily and without transparency, bypassing mandatory statutory rules and appellate outcomes that favoured the petitioner. The High Court laid down the principles that authorities clothed with statutory powers must act strictly in accordance with the law, that auction procedures and preference orders for disposing of confiscated goods must be transparently followed, and that citizens have a fundamental right under the Constitution to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to jointly arrange and return the exact seized goods to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can authorities lawfully dispose of confiscated goods during the pendency of an appeal without adhering to statutory auction procedures?
  • Whether the failure of a customs authority to provide an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation renders the subsequent proceedings illegal?
  • Is a statutory body permitted to bypass mandatory preference orders when disposing of confiscated consumer goods?
  • What relief can a High Court grant under constitutional jurisdiction when seized goods are arbitrarily sold in violation of the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Rais Abdul Wahab vs Mazar and 18 others1999 PLD Quetta 49 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
• M/s. Halcrow-Ulg, Engineering-Consultants, Pat Feeder CanalK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 109 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 520 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Kakar and another vs The State1999 PLD Quetta 95 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-05-27
  criminal breach of trustabetmentparallel bankingbank fraudentrustmentfalsification of accountsbanking courtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two criminal appeals filed by appellants Muhammad Hussain and Shuja Hussain against their conviction under sections 409 and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, passed by the Special Judge Banking Court, Balochistan at Quetta. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established entrustment of bank funds, criminal breach of trust, abetment, and falsification of accounts against the appellants who served as a machine operator and an officer respectively in a commercial bank. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove entrustment of money to the appellants, intentional aiding or abetment of the principal offender, or any actual loss sustained by the bank directly attributable to the appellants' alleged actions. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting both appellants of the charges. The key principle laid down is that proof of entrustment of property and a dishonest intention or knowledge are essential prerequisites to sustain a conviction for criminal breach of trust and abetment thereof under penal and anti-corruption laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bank employee working as a machine operator without dominion over cash can be convicted for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is proof of entrustment an essential ingredient to establish the offence of criminal breach of trust?
  • Does the mere operation of a bank account or opening of a minor's account constitute forgery and abetment of bank fraud without proof of dishonest intention and resulting loss?
  • Whether a conviction for criminal breach of trust can be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish that the accused was entrusted with the property allegedly misappropriated?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam and 5 Others vs Abdullah and 15 Others1999 CLC 200 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-08-06
  Lath-band Bazgarssecondary evidencecertified copyancient documentburden of proofland disputedeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Nushki, which dismissed the appellants' suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding land rights. The appellants claimed status as Lath-band Bazgars over both settled and unsettled lands, relying on an ancient Sanad document. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of this document as secondary evidence and whether the plaintiffs sufficiently identified the disputed unsettled lands. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to satisfy the conditions for secondary evidence under Article 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The court found that the tendered copies were not certified and lacked the necessary authentication. Furthermore, the court ruled that the presumption for thirty-year-old documents under Articles 100 and 101 could not be invoked for uncertified, unproven copies. Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to provide descriptions or measurements of the unsettled lands in their pleadings or evidence. The court affirmed that the burden of proof rested on the plaintiffs, which they failed to discharge, rendering the trial court's dismissal correct.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party rely on a document as secondary evidence without satisfying the statutory conditions for its production?
  • Does the mere signature or seal of an official on a photocopy constitute a certified copy under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can the presumption of a thirty-year-old document be applied to uncertified and unproven copies?
  • Is a plaintiff required to provide specific descriptions and measurements of disputed land to sustain a claim for declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs Mushtarka Mulazmin Action1999 PLC (C.S.) 1116 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-11-19
  civil servantsright to strikecompensatory allowancediscriminationequal protection of lawpublic interest litigationindustrial relationsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the legality of strikes by provincial government employees and their entitlement to a 40% Compensatory Allowance granted to employees in other districts but denied to those in Quetta District. The core legal questions were whether civil servants have a right to strike and whether the exclusion of Quetta-based employees from the allowance constituted unconstitutional discrimination. The Court held that while civil servants possess the right to form associations under Article 17 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, they have no legitimate right to strike, go-slow, or lock-out, as such actions violate service discipline and the Balochistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1992. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the government’s denial of the Compensatory Allowance to Quetta employees lacked a rational basis, violating the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that while the state may classify employees for benefits, such classification must be based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the legislation; arbitrary exclusion constitutes discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Do provincial civil servants have a constitutional right to resort to strike, go-slow, or lock-out to press for their demands?
  • Is the denial of a compensatory allowance to government employees in one district, while granting it to those in others, a violation of the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to declare a strike illegal in a public interest litigation?
  • Does the definition of 'misconduct' under the Balochistan Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1992, prohibit civil servants from resorting to strikes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubeda Naz vs Asif Rashid Minhas and anothers1999 PLD Quetta 29 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-10-12
  guardians and wardscustody of minorforum of appealfamily courtjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Balochistan High Court assailing an appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, which set aside a trial court order regarding the custody of a minor and remanded the case to be decided in accordance with Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an order passed under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act by a Civil Judge acting as a Family Judge lies to the High Court or to the District Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that pursuant to section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and binding pronouncements of the Supreme Court, an appeal against the order of a Family Judge who is not a District Judge or Additional District Judge lies to the District Court. The principle laid down is that section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 overrides conflicting provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 regarding forum of appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against an order passed by a Family Judge under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act lies to the High Court or to the District Court?
  • Does section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 override the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 regarding the forum of appeal?
  • What is the effect of a Supreme Court declaration of law under Article 189 of the Constitution upon a statutory amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ulas Bibi And 3 Others vs Muhammad Sham And Another1999 CLC 1427 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sultan Bib! and 25 others vs Gul Baran and others1999 PLD Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-10-23
  restitutionCode of Civil Procedurebona fide purchaserex parte decreereversal of decreecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil revision petitions challenging the rejection of an application for restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question is whether restitution of property can be ordered against subsequent transferees who acquired the property from the original decree-holder, particularly when the underlying ex parte decree was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court, and whether such transferees can claim protection as bona fide purchasers. The Court held that the doctrine of restitution aims to restore parties to the position they occupied prior to the erroneous decree. It ruled that the term 'party' in Section 144, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, extends to assignees and transferees from the decree-holder. Furthermore, the Court determined that because the transferees were aware of the ongoing legal challenges to the decree throughout the appellate process, they could not claim the status of bona fide purchasers. The key principle laid down is that restitution is a mandatory duty of the court to rectify wrongs caused by its own erroneous orders, and this obligation binds subsequent transferees who acquired interest with knowledge of the pending litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'party' in Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 include transferees from a decree-holder?
  • Can restitution of property be ordered against a subsequent purchaser who acquired the property from a decree-holder whose decree was later set aside?
  • Does a purchaser who acquires property with knowledge of pending litigation regarding the validity of the underlying decree qualify as a bona fide purchaser?
  • Is a party entitled to restitution of property if the possession was held by their tenants prior to the erroneous decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Shaista Jabeen Qureshi vs The Province of Balochistan through the Secretary, Health Department Civil Secretariat, Quetta and others1999 YLR 2353 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-08-02Read full judgment →
• Miss Lizma Sabir Qureshi and others vs Government of Balochistan1999 YLR 1326 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-07-20Read full judgment →
• Miss Gul Mahina vs Selection Committee through , Chairman, Selection1999 YLR 1586 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Miss Falsafa Jamal And Others vs Government of Balochistan Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Civil Secretariat, Quetta And Other1999 CLC 1547 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-06-07Read full judgment →
• Mir Taj Muhammad Khan Jamali vs Regional Development Finance1999 CLC 350 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-06-29Read full judgment →
• Mir Nabi Bakhsh Khan Khosa vs Province of Balochistan through Collector, Jaffarabad and 6 others1999 MLD 2077 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-09-04Read full judgment →
• Mir Gul vs Abdul Karim and 5 others1999 P Cr. L J 1507 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-11-07
  appeal against acquittalperson aggrievedhurt caseslocus standiIslamic criminal jurisprudenceQisas and Diyat
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an acquittal judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sibi, in a case under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. A larger Bench was constituted to examine whether the brother of an injured victim could be termed a 'person aggrieved' under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the presence of the injured victim. The Court held that following the legislative amendments conforming criminal laws to Islamic Injunctions, only the direct victim of hurt—or their specified legal guardians/heirs in cases of minority, insanity, or death—qualifies as a 'person aggrieved' competent to file an appeal against an acquittal order. Consequently, an informer or collateral relative such as a brother cannot maintain an appeal under Section 417(2-A) when the direct victim is alive, sane, and a major. The appeal was therefore dismissed as incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Who qualifies as a 'person aggrieved' to file an appeal against an acquittal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases involving hurt?
  • Can a brother of an injured victim file an appeal against an acquittal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the victim is alive and major?
  • Who is entitled to exercise the right of Qisas or file an appeal in cases of hurt if the victim is a minor or insane?
  • Does an informer who is not inter-related with the victim have the standing to file an acquittal appeal under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Halcrow-Ulg, Engineering Consultants, Pat Feeder Canal1999 PLC 362 · Balochistan High Court · 1999-05-26
  Constitutional jurisdictionAlternative remedyPayment of Wages ActWorkmen's Compensation ActJurisdiction of AuthorityStanding Orders OrdinanceDefinition of workmanWrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which awarded gratuity and bonus to former employees. The core legal question was whether the Authority possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims and whether the High Court could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal. The Court held that the impugned orders were passed without lawful authority. It established that the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate general claims for bonus or gratuity by living workmen, as such jurisdiction is limited to specific matters like group insurance or the allocation of gratuity among heirs. Furthermore, because the claimants failed to prove their status as "workmen" under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the forum lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court ruled that where an order is passed wholly without jurisdiction, a writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of alternative remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, have jurisdiction to adjudicate general claims for bonus and gratuity by living employees?
  • Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition against an order passed without jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternative statutory appeal?
  • Does the burden of proving 'workman' status under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, lie upon the claimant?
  • Is the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, empowered to grant relief for bonus and gratuity to employees who have not established their status as workmen?
  Read full judgment →