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.

• Abdul Ghaffar vs Selection Committee through Director of Education (Colleges) Balochistan, Quetta And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Services Cases 120 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1998 MLD 1057 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
• Zareen Shah vs Superintendent, Central Jail, Machh and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1185 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-02-25
  consecutive sentencesconcurrent sentencesbenefit of section 382-Binherent powersnarcotics smugglingconstitutional petitionexecution of sentences
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed seeking the release of the petitioner from jail, claiming his imprisonment had expired after accounting for the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in two separate convictions for narcotics and customs offenses. The core legal questions involved whether sentences imposed in separate trials for a single transaction run concurrently by default under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if no direction is given, whether inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be exercised to make them concurrent, and whether the benefit of Section 382-B applies separately in both convictions. The Balochistan High Court held that under Section 397, sentences run consecutively unless expressly directed to run concurrently by the trial or appellate court, and declined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A to order concurrency given the gravity of transporting a large quantity of heroin. The Court further held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B separately in both convictions. The petition was ultimately dismissed as the petitioner's unexpired sentence period had not yet lapsed.

  Questions settled

  • Do multiple sentences of imprisonment run concurrently by default if the trial or appellate court fails to give a specific direction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct separate sentences to run concurrently in narcotics cases?
  • Is a convict entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 separately in multiple convictions arising from related proceedings?
  • What constitutes legal custody when a prisoner is undergoing consecutive sentences imposed by different courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Yar MUHAMMAD/Accused vs The State1997 PLD Quetta 31 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-09-09
  post-arrest bailrecovery of armssearch and seizureSection 103 Cr.P.C.police witness credibilityfurther inquirytrial expedition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Yar Muhammad, who was charged under the Arms Ordinance for the recovery of pistols, magazines, and ammunition during a police raid on his residence. The core legal question was whether the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during the search, as contemplated by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiated the recovery and entitled the accused to bail. The Court held that while Section 103 provides essential safeguards against arbitrary action, non-compliance does not ipso facto render a search illegal or devoid of authority. The Court emphasized that the testimony of police officials remains admissible, provided there is no evidence of mala fides. Given that the raid was conducted under the supervision of a Magistrate and the accused was named in the initial report, the Court found reasonable grounds to connect the accused to the offense. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate local inhabitants during a search under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render the search illegal?
  • Is the testimony of police officials inadmissible in a criminal trial merely because they are law enforcement officers?
  • What factors should a court consider when evaluating the validity of a search conducted without independent witnesses?
  • Does the existence of a press report exonerating an accused create sufficient grounds for 'further inquiry' to justify the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Wazir Khan and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1673 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-05-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Pirak1997 P Cr. L J 1900 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-05-29
  appellate jurisdictionFederal Shariat CourtHudood Ordinancesame transactionmurder referencecriminal appealjurisdictional competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a conviction and death sentence passed by an Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 17, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court possessed the requisite appellate jurisdiction, given that the trial involved offences under the Hudood Ordinance. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It determined that when an offence under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 is charged and tried by a Court of Session, the appellate jurisdiction vests exclusively in the Federal Shariat Court, irrespective of whether the final conviction was recorded under the Ordinance or the Pakistan Penal Code, provided the offences were committed in the same transaction. The Court established that the appellate forum is determined by the nature of the trial order rather than the specific section of conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, and the murder reference was directed to the Federal Shariat Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appellate jurisdiction for a trial involving offences under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 lie with the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court?
  • Does an acquittal under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 divest the Federal Shariat Court of its appellate jurisdiction if the trial was conducted under that Ordinance?
  • What criteria determine whether multiple offences form the same transaction for the purpose of joint trial and appellate jurisdiction?
  • Can a High Court hear an appeal against a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code if the accused was also charged under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 in the same trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Khair vs Syed Jan Muhammad And Another1997 CLC 403 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-08-06
  personal bona fide requirementgood faithevictionburden of proofrent controllandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Civil Judge-cum-Controller, Quetta, directing the eviction of the appellant from a shop on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement by the respondents' sons. The core legal question was whether the respondents sufficiently established the 'good faith' requirement for eviction under the relevant rent control legislation. The High Court held that the respondents failed to substantiate their claim, noting that witnesses contradicted the eviction application regarding which specific sons required the premises, and the intended occupants failed to testify. The Court set aside the eviction order, ruling that the burden of proof lies squarely on the landlord to establish 'good faith' through convincing evidence. The key principles laid down are that a landlord seeking eviction for a child's use must provide specific particulars of that child, disclose the nature of the intended business, and ideally produce the child as a witness to demonstrate the honesty and sincerity of the claim, thereby ensuring the eviction is not based on fraud or misrepresentation.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a landlord to produce the child for whom the premises are required as a witness in an eviction proceeding?
  • What constitutes the burden of proof on a landlord to establish 'good faith' for personal use under the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can an eviction application based on personal requirement succeed if the landlord fails to specify the nature of the business the child intends to run in the premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Senator Dr. Abdul Hayee vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and 3 others1997 PLD Quetta 37 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-10-10
  constitutional petitionoriginal jurisdictionexclusive jurisdictionres sub judicegas development surchargecouncil of common interestslocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a senator from Balochistan challenging the federal government's issuance of a No-Objection Certificate allowing Burmah Castrol plc to sell its shares in Pakistan Petroleum Limited (PPL) to Hashoo Holdings, and the disposal of PPL's share in the Qadirpur Gas Field, arguing it would adversely affect national and provincial economic interests, gas supplies, and the Gas Development Surcharge, and required approval from the Council of Common Interests. Preliminary objections were raised regarding maintainability, inter alia, on the ground that the Balochistan Provincial Government had subsequently filed a civil suit under Article 184(1) of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, ousting the High Court's jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that while Article 184(1) vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court for disputes between governments to the exclusion of other courts, it does not bar private parties who lack standing to invoke Article 184 from seeking remedies under Article 199. Furthermore, because the high court petition was prior in time and involved private parties not arrayed in the Supreme Court suit, the proceedings did not abate or terminate, and the preliminary objection was overruled.

  Questions settled

  • Does the institution of a suit by a Provincial Government under Article 184(1) of the Constitution before the Supreme Court automatically terminate or oust a prior constitutional petition filed by a private party under Article 199?
  • Can private persons invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(1) of the Constitution?
  • What is the scope and effect of the exclusionary clause in Article 184(1) of the Constitution regarding disputes between governments?
  • Does a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 abate under the principle of res sub judice merely because another court of concurrent or superior jurisdiction is subsequently seized of a matter involving similar questions?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Jaffar Khan Leghari And Others vs Balochistan1997 MLD 1934 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-08
  constitutional petitionland reformsjagirala maliksadna maliksproprietary rightsindian independence act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged orders of land resumption passed under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) concerning lands situated in Tehsil and District Barkhan known as Berun-e-Burjiyat Barkhan Leghari. The core legal questions involved the effect of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 on excess lands held as Ala-Maliks, whether the disputed lands constituted a 'Jagir' under the Abolition of Jagir and Intermediary Interest Regulation, 1974, and the impact of Section 7(1)(c) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 on historical agreements with the British Government. The Balochistan High Court held that the 1976 amendment nullified prior resumption orders concerning such lands, that the lands were not a Jagir since they originated from the petitioners' ancestral proprietary rights rather than a state grant, and that historical agreements lapsed under the Indian Independence Act, 1947. The court consequently declared the resumption orders void and without lawful authority, confirming the petitioners' full proprietary rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 nullified prior land resumption orders passed in respect of lands held under Aala Malkiyat rights?
  • Does ancestral land managed through an agreement with the former British administration fall within the definition of a 'Jagir' under the Abolition of Jagir and Intermediary Interest Regulation, 1974?
  • What is the effect of Section 7(1)(c) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 on treaties and agreements entered into between His Majesty's Government and persons having authority in tribal areas?
  • Whether failure by land authorities to finalize proceedings before the Supreme Court's decision declaring certain land reform provisions void leaves the matters open and pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Dost Muhammad vs Malik Dost Muhammad And 4 Other1997 CLC 546 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-10-14
  special damagesgeneral damagesillegal dispossessiontortious actmental agony and defamationrule of thumbjoint and several liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a suit filed by the appellant seeking special and general damages totaling Rs. 300,000 against police officials and school management for his unlawful dispossession from a residential property, demolition of the superstructure, and harassment of his family during night hours while a civil suit for possession was pending. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court dismissed it on technical grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties. The High Court, with the consent of all parties, heard the matter on its merits. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the respondents acted unlawfully by taking the law into their own hands instead of awaiting judicial determination. In assessing damages, the High Court held that special damages require strict proof for each claimed item, while general damages for defamation, mental torture, and disgrace are assessed under the 'Rule of Thumb' based on judicial discretion and attending circumstances. The appellant was awarded Rs. 60,498 in special damages and Rs. 150,000 in general damages against respondents jointly and severally.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required to claim special damages in a civil tort action?
  • How are general damages for mental torture, agony, and defamation calculated by a court?
  • Can defendants be held jointly and severally liable for damages when they take the law into their own hands to dispossess an occupant while a civil ejectment suit is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Jan and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1646 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-04-15
  murderdelay in FIRinterested witnessescontradictory evidencemedical evidencebenefit of doubtacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the complainant's father following an altercation. The core legal questions involve whether unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report and recording eye-witness statements renders the prosecution case doubtful, and whether contradictions between ocular and medical testimony vitiate the conviction. The Balochistan High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions among witnesses, unexplained delays in the First Information Report and police statements, lack of independent corroboration for interested witnesses, deficiencies in medical evidence, and unproved motive. The court laid down the principle that in the presence of contradictory evidence, unexplained procedural delays, and unreliable testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration, it is unsafe to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions between ocular accounts and medical evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Does a failure by the prosecution to examine key medical witnesses and original medical records create fatal flaws in proving the cause of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Labour Union Through Its1997 PLC 81 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-10-29Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Paperback Corporation vs Federation of Pakistan1997 CLC 1929 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad vs The State1997 PLD Quetta 17 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-07-11
  QisasTazirMuslim Personal LawCompounding of offenceInheritanceResiduarySection 311 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pishin, which required the brother and sisters of a deceased person to confirm a compromise regarding the murder of their relative, despite the father having already relinquished his right of Qisas. The core legal questions concerned whether a father, under Muslim Personal Law, is competent to compound an offence of murder to the exclusion of other heirs, and whether a trial court retains discretion to initiate proceedings under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite a valid compromise. The Court held that, under Islamic law of inheritance, a father of a childless deceased acts as a residuary and is solely competent to compound the offence, excluding brothers and sisters. Consequently, the trial court's order requiring confirmation from other heirs was set aside. The Court further clarified that while a court has discretion to punish an accused under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, even after a compromise, such discretion must be exercised judiciously, particularly in cases involving brutality or habitual offenders, and requires cogent reasoning.

  Questions settled

  • Is a father of a childless deceased person competent to compound a murder offence to the exclusion of the deceased's brothers and sisters?
  • Does the acceptance of a compromise by the legal heirs of a deceased automatically entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Does a trial court have the discretion to proceed against an accused under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite the compounding of the offence by the legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Nek Muhammad vs Sardar Abdul Karim and 11 others1997 P Cr. L J 1231 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
• M/s. E.F.U. General Insurance Limited And Others vs Fahimul Haq1997 CLC 1441 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-04-07
  insurance policylimitation periodclaim rejectionstare decisisjurisdictionchoice of forumsecond appealcontract Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower appellate court and the trial court, which decreed a suit for recovery of insurance money filed by the respondent against the appellant insurance company. The core legal questions involved whether a contractual clause limiting the time to file a suit upon rejection of an insurance claim is void under the Contract Act, whether a suit filed by only one beneficiary (the insured) in the absence of a co-beneficiary bank is maintainable, and whether a choice of forum clause restricting jurisdiction to a specific city is legally enforceable. The Balochistan High Court held that following the doctrine of stare decisis, a clause in an insurance policy requiring a suit to be filed within three months of claim rejection is valid and does not violate sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act. The court found the respondent's suit to be time-barred and not maintainable. Furthermore, the court affirmed that parties can legally agree to restrict jurisdiction to a competent court where two or more courts possess jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the lower courts' judgments were set aside, dismissing the respondent's suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contractual clause in an insurance policy limiting the time to file a suit to three months after the rejection of a claim is void under sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Is a suit for recovery under an insurance policy maintainable when filed by the insured alone without joining a co-beneficiary bank as a party?
  • Can parties mutually agree by contract to restrict the institution of legal proceedings to a specific court having territorial jurisdiction?
  • Does an agreement between contracting parties to select one of multiple competent courts for dispute resolution violate section 28 of the Contract Act 1872 or public policy?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s N.S. Enterprises, Karachi vs Government Of Pakistan Through MinistryPTCL 1997 CL. 146 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And Another vs Dr. Edgar Nathenial1997 CLC 2041 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shareef vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1195 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Rashid And 2 Others vs Dr. Muhammad Anwar Saeed1997 CLC 2012 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-06-30
  Muslim Lawinheritancebequest to heirrevocation of willappellate powerpartition suitconsent of heirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a suit for declaration and partition concerning the estate of the late Malik Muhammad A.I. The core legal questions were whether a registered will in favor of one heir was validly revoked by a subsequent unregistered letter, and whether a bequest to an heir is enforceable under Muslim Law without the consent of other legal heirs. The Court held that the will was effectively revoked by the subsequent document, as the law does not mandate registration for such revocation. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the established principle of Muslim Law that a bequest to an heir is invalid unless consented to by all other heirs after the testator's death. The Court also clarified that under Order XLI, Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, an appellate court possesses the authority to pass necessary orders in favor of all parties, even if an appeal is filed against only part of a decree or excludes certain parties. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the property was ordered to be distributed according to Sharia.

  Questions settled

  • Is a bequest to an heir valid under Muslim Law without the consent of other legal heirs?
  • Does an appellate court have the power under Order XLI, Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to pass orders affecting parties not specifically included in the appeal?
  • Is a registered will invalidated by a subsequent unregistered document of revocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1775 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hazan and 2 others vs Government of Balochistan, Board of Revenue, Balochistan through Secretary and 13 others1997 PLD Quetta 104 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-12-23
  Jagir abolitionconstitutional petitionlachesrevenue recordabatementself-executory statuteland reformsindivisible cause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged various revenue orders issued between 1983 and 1995, which cancelled the petitioners' land ownership entries in District Bolan, Balochistan, based on the abolition of 'Jagirs' under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (MLR-64). The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a petition filed against deceased respondents and whether the abolition of 'Jagirs' under MLR-64 required specific administrative action or was self-executory. The Court held that while a petition may be amended to implead legal heirs of deceased respondents where the cause of action is indivisible, the instant petition was barred by laches due to an unexplained 12-year delay in challenging the revenue entries. On merits, the Court ruled that the provisions of MLR-64 were self-executory, meaning 'Jagir' rights were extinguished automatically upon the Regulation's promulgation. Consequently, the revenue authorities acted lawfully in correcting the records. The key principle laid down is that 'Jagir' abolition statutes operate automatically, and equitable relief in constitutional jurisdiction is unavailable where a petitioner fails to explain significant, unreasonable delay.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition filed against deceased respondents maintainable if the cause of action is indivisible?
  • Does the abolition of 'Jagirs' under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 require a specific administrative order or is it self-executory?
  • Can a petitioner claim equitable relief in a constitutional petition after an unexplained delay of twelve years?
  • Does the term 'Jagir' under the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 include any grant of land by way of assignment or release of land revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Gul And Another vs Mst. Khor Bibi And 4 Other1997 MLD 2964 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-05-26Read full judgment →
• Moulvi Allah Moor vs Munshi Noor Muhammad And 8 Other1997 CLC 1432 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
• Miss Zubia Bugti vs Selection Committee for Admission in First Year1997 PLD Quetta 92 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mir Ghulam Nabi vs Central Board of Revenue through Its Chairman, Islamabad and 2 Others1997 P.C.T.L.R. 193 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Military Estate Officer, Quetta Circle Quetta Cantt. vs Assistant1997 CLC 556 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-10-23
  land acquisitionright of appealFederal GovernmentShariat Appellate Benchmaintainability of appealcompensation awardMilitary Estate Officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns preliminary legal objections regarding the maintainability of an appeal filed by the Military Estate Officer, representing the Federal Government, against a land acquisition award. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government possessed the statutory right to file a reference or appeal against compensation awards, given the restrictive proviso to Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court examined the conflict between earlier Supreme Court rulings denying such rights and the subsequent Shariat Appellate Bench judgment, which declared the bar on such appeals repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. The Court held that by virtue of Article 203-D(3)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ceased to have effect as of September 30, 1991. Consequently, the Federal Government acquired the right to appeal after this date. As the present appeal was filed in 1995, it was deemed maintainable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the Military Estate Officer's authority to file the appeal based on S.R.O. 1013(K)/71.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government have the right to file an appeal against a land acquisition compensation award after September 30, 1991?
  • Is the Military Estate Officer authorized to file an appeal on behalf of the Federal Government in land acquisition matters?
  • What is the effect of the Shariat Appellate Bench's judgment on the statutory bar against appeals by the Federal Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Usman Enterprises vs Federation of Pakistan And 2 Other1997 MLD 3161 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tariq Sultan & Co vs Government of Pakistan And 2 Other1997 MLD 3153 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ozone International (Pvt.) Ltd. And Others vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1997 MLD 3142 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs N.S. Enterprises And Others vs Government of Pakistan Through Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad And Other1997 CLC 106 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-07-01
  regulatory dutycustoms dutyship-breakingdelegated legislationfiscal policyexemption notificationpromissory estoppelconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the imposition of a 10% regulatory duty on imported vessels for ship-breaking, arguing that an existing exemption notification under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, precluded the levy of such duty. They further contended that the regulatory duty was unreasonable, lacked a rational nexus with its stated objective, and violated the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the regulatory duty imposed under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, is a distinct fiscal charge from the customs duty levied under Section 18(1). Consequently, an exemption granted under Section 19 does not automatically extend to regulatory duties unless specifically provided. The Court affirmed that the Federal Government possesses the delegated authority to impose regulatory duties to balance market fluctuations and generate public revenue. Furthermore, the Court ruled that fiscal policy decisions and the reasonableness of such levies, when within statutory limits, are not subject to judicial interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was found inapplicable against the government's statutory power to levy duties.

  Questions settled

  • Does an exemption notification issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, automatically exempt an importer from paying regulatory duty imposed under Section 18(2) of the same Act?
  • Can the High Court interfere with the imposition of a regulatory duty on the grounds of unreasonableness in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is the imposition of a regulatory duty by the Federal Government a valid exercise of delegated legislative power?
  • Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel prevent the Federal Government from imposing a regulatory duty on goods for which letters of credit were opened prior to the notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ittehad Cement Industries Ltd. vs Government of Balochistan1997 CLC 562 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-03-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hitec Metal Plast (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chairman, Hasan Pervaiz1997 PLD Quetta 87 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-10-28
  banking litigationliquidated damagesmark-upbreach of contractletter of creditbanking tribunalproof of loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Banking Tribunal decree directing the appellants to pay a sum including mark-up and liquidated damages following a default on a Letter of Credit facility. The core legal question was whether a bank is entitled to liquidated damages without proving actual loss, and whether it can simultaneously claim both mark-up and liquidated damages. The High Court held that under Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act 1872, liquidated damages are not automatically payable upon breach of contract; the claimant must prove the quantum of actual loss suffered. The Court further determined that a creditor cannot simultaneously recover both mark-up, representing expected profits, and liquidated damages for the same breach. Consequently, the Court modified the trial court's decree, disallowing the claim for liquidated damages while maintaining the award for mark-up and costs. The principle established is that liquidated damages require proof of actual loss, and double recovery through simultaneous claims for mark-up and liquidated damages is legally impermissible.

  Questions settled

  • Can a creditor claim liquidated damages for breach of contract without proving the actual loss suffered?
  • Is it legally permissible for a bank to simultaneously claim both mark-up and liquidated damages for the same breach of contract?
  • Does a stipulation for liquidated damages in a contract automatically entitle the claimant to that amount without evidence of loss?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gatron (Industries) Limited through Director vs The Federation1997 PTD 1077 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-11-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bela Automotives Limited through Company Secretary, Mauza1997 PLC 39 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bela Automotives Limited Through Company Secretary At Mouza1997 PLC 39 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bela Automotives Limited through Company Secretary at Mouza1997 PLC 89 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bela Automotives Limited Through Company Secretary At Mouza1997 PLC 89 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
• Maqsood vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1803 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• Khudai Dad alias Mama and others vs The State and others1997 PLD Quetta 69 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-12-23
  appellate jurisdictionimplied repealnarcotic substancesstatutory interpretationspecial courtscriminal appealprohibition laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a batch of criminal appeals filed before the Balochistan High Court, questioning whether the Court possesses appellate jurisdiction under Section 45 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995, where appellants were convicted under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, rather than by Special Courts established under the Ordinance. The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction in these cases. It determined that the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, was not impliedly repealed by the Ordinance, as both statutes can coexist. The Court emphasized that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be assumed by consent or convenience. It laid down a four-fold test for invoking Section 45 jurisdiction: the case must be registered under the Ordinance, investigated by the competent agency, tried by a Special Court established under Section 43, and the conviction must be recorded under the Ordinance. Since the appellants were tried under the 1979 Order, their appeals were deemed not entertainable by the High Court, and the files were returned for presentation before the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995, impliedly repeal the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • What are the criteria for the High Court to exercise appellate jurisdiction under Section 45 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995?
  • Does a decision of the Federal Shariat Court returning an appeal for want of jurisdiction have a binding effect on the High Court under Article 203-GG of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a High Court assume appellate jurisdiction over a case tried by a court that lacked jurisdiction, simply because the trial court acted without authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamal Khan and another vs The State1997 PLD Quetta 65 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah vs Altaf Hussain And Another1997 CLC 149 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-06-04Read full judgment →
• Hitce. Motal Plast (Pvt.) Ltd. and Others vs Habib Bank Limited, a Banking Co1997 P.C.T.L.R. 34 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hakim Malik Muhammad Akram vs Hakim Muhammad Zubair Hameed And 6 Other1997 CLC 1961 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Pir Jan vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 9 others1997 P Cr. L J 1236 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• Haji Bismillah Khan and others vs Abdul Zahir and others1997 P Cr. L J 1421 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Central Board of Revenue through Chairman and 21997 PLD Quetta 22 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Asadullah Khan Tareen And Another Pe4itioners vs Government of Balochistan Services and General1997 CLC 406 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-08-27Read full judgment →
• Dil Muhammad vs The District Magistrate, Quetta and 3 others1997 P Cr. L J 1203 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-03-25
  remandpolice custodyjudicial custodypersonal libertyconstitutional petitioncriminal proceduremagisterial duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition challenged the legality of remand orders issued by the District Magistrate, Quetta, against two detenues who were transferred from judicial custody to police custody for investigation in multiple cases. The petitioner contended that the remand orders were issued mechanically, without lawful authority, and in violation of the detenues' fundamental rights. The Court examined the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding remand and the necessity of judicial oversight. The Court held that while there is no absolute legal bar to transferring an under-trial prisoner from judicial custody to police custody for investigation in a different case, such power must be exercised with strict compliance to the law. The Court emphasized that remand cannot be a mechanical exercise; Magistrates must scrutinize police diaries, record reasons, and ensure that remand is granted only when necessary and for the shortest possible period. The Court reiterated strict guidelines for Magistrates, emphasizing their accountability to the High Court for ensuring that personal liberty is not infringed upon by unjustified or excessive remand orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can an under-trial prisoner in judicial custody be remanded to police custody for the investigation of a different case?
  • Is a Magistrate required to record reasons when granting a remand order under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the law permit a Magistrate to grant remand in a mechanical manner without examining police case diaries?
  • What is the maximum duration for which a Magistrate can authorize police custody under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Begum Saida Qazi Isa and 2 others vs Quetta Municipal Corporation1997 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-07-11Read full judgment →
• Al Hamza Ship Breaking Co., Karachi vs Government of Balochistan1997 MLD 635 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-08-22Read full judgment →
• Agha Gas Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue and others1997 PTD 269 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-06-12
  constitutional petitioncustoms duty exemptionsales taxPetroleum Policylocally manufactured goodsCentral Board of Revenuealternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a private limited company challenging the imposition of customs duty and sales tax on the import of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders with valves from Iran, and seeking the benefit of duty exemption under S.R.O. 367(1)/94 dated 9th May 1994 and the Petroleum Policy of 1994. The core legal questions involved whether the imported items were exempt from duties as goods not manufactured locally, whether recommendations of the Ministry of Petroleum were binding upon the Central Board of Revenue, and whether disputed questions of fact could be resolved in writ jurisdiction when an adequate alternate statutory remedy existed. The Balochistan High Court held that LPG cylinders are manufactured locally, making the exemption inapplicable, that recommendations of the Ministry of Petroleum are not binding on the Central Board of Revenue, which is the sole authority for statutory interpretation, and that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve controversial questions of fact or to circumvent alternate statutory remedies available under the Customs Act 1969. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can resolve controversial questions of fact regarding local manufacture of goods under its constitutional jurisdiction pursuant to Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are the recommendations issued by the Ministry of Petroleum binding on the Central Board of Revenue regarding the interpretation and application of customs duty and sales tax exemptions?
  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an adequate alternate remedy is provided under sections 193, 194, and 195 of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Does the exemption under S.R.O. 367(1)/94 apply to imported goods that are locally manufactured?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim And Another vs Revising Authority under Electoral Rolls1997 CLC 1988 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-06-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Selection Committee Through Director Of Education1997 CLC 2030 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-06-12Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali vs Sheikh Abdul Hameed and another1996 P Cr. L J 586 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-04Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali vs Shaikh Abdul Hameed And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 112 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs Gulab1996 MLD 2036 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-05-23Read full judgment →
• The State Through Deputy Director.(FIA) Of Pakistan At Quetta vs Zahid1996 MLD 506 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• The State through Deputy Director (FIA) of Pakistan at Quetta vs Zahid1996 MLD 506 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Zainuddin And 9 Others vs Assistant1996 MLD 731 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-03-21
  land acquisitionaward finalitypublic purposederequisitioningcivil court jurisdictionreference to courtpossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the dismissal of a suit for declaration, possession, and injunction concerning land acquired for WAPDA. The core legal questions involved whether land acquisition proceedings and the consequent award dated 2-11-1985 became void due to subsequent inter-departmental correspondence suggesting the dropping of the acquisition, whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge the award instead of seeking a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and whether a change in the specific public purpose vitiates the acquisition. The Balochistan High Court held that once an award is finalized and possession of the acquired land is taken by the government, the acquisition cannot be withdrawn except through the exclusive mechanism under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and inter-departmental correspondence cannot override statutory finality. The Court laid down the principles that ordinary civil courts have no jurisdiction to reopen matters disposed of under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 where no jurisdictional defect, fraud, or nullity is established, that failure to invoke the statutory remedy of reference under section 18 bars subsequent collateral challenges, and that land validly acquired for a public purpose may be utilized for any other legitimate public purpose without invalidating the acquisition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finalized land acquisition award can be rendered void by subsequent inter-departmental correspondence suggesting the dropping or abandonment of the acquisition?
  • Does a civil suit lie to challenge a land acquisition award when the aggrieved party fails to seek a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 within the stipulated time?
  • Can the government or acquiring agency withdraw from land acquisition under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 after taking physical possession of the land?
  • Does an alteration or diversification in the specific public purpose for which land was acquired vitiate the original land acquisition proceedings and award?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Sabir Construction Company, Karachi and 3 others1996 PLD Quetta 28 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and 8 others vs Ismatullah and 3 others1996 CLC 206 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-08-16
  malicious prosecutionlimitationexclusion of timeterritorial jurisdictionbona fide litigationcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, where the core legal question concerned the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 regarding the exclusion of time spent in a court lacking jurisdiction, specifically when no formal application for condonation was pleaded in the plaint. The Court held that the benefit of Section 14 is available even without a specific application in the plaint, provided the parties were aware of the facts and the prior litigation was pursued in good faith. However, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded because the lower court failed to record a specific finding on whether the prior proceedings were conducted in good faith. The key principle laid down is that Section 14 is intended to protect bona fide but infructuous litigation, and a court may grant its benefit if the necessary conditions—that the suit was filed in a wrong forum due to a bona fide mistake of law or procedure—are satisfied.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 without having filed a formal application for condonation in the plaint?
  • Does the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply when a plaint is returned for lack of jurisdiction and refiled in a competent court?
  • What are the necessary conditions for a court to grant the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 regarding the exclusion of time spent in a court lacking jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Jaffar Khan Leghari And Other vs Baloch1stanK.L.R 19% Revenue Cases 167 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saeed Muhammad vs Mehrullah and another1996 PLD Quetta 48 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-05-20
  bona fide personal requirementPugreeeviction proceedingslandlord and tenantrent restrictionlease in perpetuityjurisdiction of Rent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to vacate a shop in favor of the respondent-landlords, who sought possession for bona fide personal use. The core legal questions were whether the payment of 'Pugree' (a premium or goodwill payment) created a lease in perpetuity that barred eviction, and whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain the application despite such payments. The Court held that the payment of 'Pugree' does not create a tenancy in perpetuity nor does it oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, as such payments are often contrary to public policy and do not supersede statutory rent laws. The Court affirmed that the landlord has the exclusive right to choose which of their properties is suitable for their personal business needs. Consequently, the eviction order was upheld, as the respondents established their bona fide requirement, further evidenced by their offer of alternative accommodation or compensation to the tenant. The principle established is that 'Pugree' payments do not alter the statutory relationship of landlord and tenant or bar eviction proceedings for personal bona fide need.

  Questions settled

  • Does the payment of 'Pugree' create a lease in perpetuity that bars a landlord from seeking eviction for personal bona fide use?
  • Does the payment of 'Pugree' or extra consideration oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to entertain an eviction application?
  • Can a tenant challenge the landlord's choice of premises for personal use when the landlord has demonstrated bona fide need?
  • Is a landlord's offer of alternative accommodation or compensation relevant to establishing the bona fide nature of their personal requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Employees' Union, Balochistan, Quetta1996 PLC 49 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-06-22
  Collective Bargaining AgentIndustrial Relations OrdinanceTrade UnionSecret BallotConstitutional PetitionNIRCLabour Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the issuance of a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) certificate to a rival union by the Registrar, National Industrial Relations Commission, while the petitioner union already held a valid, uncancelled CBA certificate for the same establishment. The core legal questions concerned whether two CBA certificates could coexist, whether the Registrar acted without lawful authority by bypassing mandatory secret ballot procedures, and whether an adequate alternate remedy existed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Court held that the issuance of the new CBA certificate was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It established that two CBA certificates cannot simultaneously function within the same establishment. The Court emphasized that where multiple registered trade unions exist, the Registrar is legally obligated to follow the mandatory provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which requires determining the CBA through a secret ballot. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an existing CBA holder cannot be deprived of its status without due process, and the Registrar’s failure to adhere to these statutory requirements rendered the certificate void.

  Questions settled

  • Can two Collective Bargaining Agent certificates be issued for the same establishment simultaneously?
  • Is the issuance of a Collective Bargaining Agent certificate by the Registrar an appealable decision under Section 22-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does the Registrar have the authority to certify a new Collective Bargaining Agent without conducting a secret ballot when multiple registered trade unions exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Baloch vs Eastwest Insurance Company through its General1996 PLD Quetta 16 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
• M/s. Metco Ship-Breakers And Other vs Pakistan Through The Secratery,PTCL 1996 CL. 70 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Euro Ceramics Limited vs Registrar of Trade Union and others1996 PLC 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-12-22
  trade union registrationcontractor workersworkman definitionindustrial relationsconstitutional petitionemployer right of hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition was filed by the petitioner employer challenging the registration of a trade union, Euro Ceramic Limited Employees Union, by the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether workers engaged through a contractor for the establishment can form a valid trade union and whether the employer has a right of hearing before the registration of such a union. The Balochistan High Court held that workers engaged through a contractor who perform duties connected with the regular production and affairs of the establishment fall within the definition of workmen, and their union is lawfully registered. The Court further held that the employer has no legal right to a hearing at the time of the registration of a trade union by the Registrar under the Ordinance, as the employer is not a necessary party to that administrative stage. The petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether workers engaged through a contractor for an establishment's regular affairs qualify as workmen entitled to form a trade union?
  • Does an employer have a legal right of hearing before the Registrar of Trade Unions issues a certificate of registration to a trade union?
  • Can an employer challenge the registration of a trade union on the ground that its members are employed through an independent contractor?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiullah Khan and 127 others vs Messrs Fauji1996 PLC 442 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Dawi vs Speaker, Balochistan Provincial Assembly1996 PLC (C.S.) 969 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Chairman, Provincial Transport Authority, Civil1996 CLC 1630 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim Kurd vs Assistant Commissionercumreturning1996 CLC 1772 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-08
  election disputewrit jurisdictionfugitive from justicenomination papersconstitutional petitiondisqualificationelection tribunalabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenged the rejection of the petitioner’s nomination papers by an Election Tribunal. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a writ petition during the ongoing election process and whether a proclaimed offender, acting as a fugitive from justice, possesses the standing to seek judicial relief. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 creates an independent, exclusive jurisdiction for election disputes, thereby barring High Court intervention under Article 199 during the election process. The Court further ruled that the petitioner, having failed to surrender to the law and ignoring tribunal directions for personal appearance, was a fugitive from justice. Consequently, he was disentitled to seek equitable relief. The judgment affirms that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not available to those who flout the legal process or come to court with unclean hands. Furthermore, the Court held that such conduct may also constitute disqualification under Article 63(1)(g) for bringing the judiciary into ridicule.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere in election matters while the election process is ongoing?
  • Is a fugitive from justice or a proclaimed offender entitled to seek relief from the High Court?
  • Does Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in election disputes?
  • Can a candidate be disqualified for bringing the judiciary into ridicule under Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim Kurd vs Assistant Commissioner-Cum-ReturningK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 428 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and anothers vs The State1996 PLD Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-22
  murdercompromisewaiver of qisasta'zirdiscretionary powercompoundable offencessocietal interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a murder trial where a compromise was reached between the appellants and the legal heirs of the victim. The core legal question was whether a trial court retains the discretionary power to award punishment by way of Ta'zir under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, notwithstanding the waiver of Qisas and the submission of a compromise by the legal heirs. The Balochistan High Court held that Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 confers an unfettered judicial discretion on the court to award punishment by way of Ta'zir even after the waiver or compounding of Qisas, particularly when the society or public right is affected by brutal crimes. The court established that the provisions of Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are interdependent, meaning the court's permission is mandatory for compounding an offence, and the court may refuse such permission or impose Ta'zir to safeguard societal interests.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can award punishment by way of Ta'zir under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after the waiver of Qisas and the execution of a compromise between the parties?
  • Is the permission of the court mandatory for the compounding of an offence under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the waiver of Qisas by the legal heirs of a victim take away the trial court's discretion to punish an offender under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Gulla vs Abdul Hamid and 4 others1996 PLD Quetta 31 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mistri Manzoor Armed vs The State1996 MLD 199 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Mistri Manzoor Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 84 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Metco Shipbreakers and others vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and others1996 MLD 144 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Metco Shipbreakers and otherss vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and others1996 PTD 214 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Metco Shipbreakers And Others vs Pakistan Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad And Other1996 MLD 144 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Hamza Ship Breaking Company and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance & Economic Affairs (Revenue Division), Islamabad and others1996 PTD 347 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-12-11Read full judgment →
• Kashif-Ur-Rehman and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1689 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-03-05
  dying declarationproximate cause of deathmurderrecovery of crime weaponpolice witnesscriminal appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Quetta, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Rana Ejaz. The core legal question involved the reliability of the deceased's dying declaration contained in the Fard-e-Bian, the evidentiary value of police testimonies without independent private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the death was a direct proximate result of the initial gunshot wounds given that the victim survived for approximately two months before dying of peritonitis and toxemia. The Balochistan High Court held that the dying declaration was voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by medical evidence, the ballistic report, and the recovery of the crime weapon, and that the death was the natural and probable consequence of the initial gunshot injuries. The High Court established that a dying declaration does not mandatorily require independent corroboration if found reliable, that the mandatory requirements of Section 103 Cr.P.C. are not absolute in emergent situations, and that the testimony of police officials cannot be discarded merely due to their official status.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration can form the sole basis of a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render a search and recovery automatically illegal?
  • Whether an accused can be held responsible for murder when the death occurs months later due to intervening complications arising from the original gunshot wounds?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely due to the absence of private independent witnesses during an investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Jumma Khan vs The State1996 PLD Quetta 37 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
• Jalaluddin vs The State1996 MLD 204 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-07-31Read full judgment →
• Jaial Ud Din vs The State1996 MLD 204 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-07-31Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Qasim and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 452 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Qasim And Another vs The State1996 MLD 452 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Alias Peeran vs The State1996 MLD 2029 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Ghafoor And 2 Others vs Muhammad Ibrahim1996 MLD 138 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Hussain vs Abdul Qayyum1996 PLC (C.S.) 622 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-12
  quo warrantopublic officelocus standiinitial recruitmentDepartmental Selection Committeeconstitutional petitionservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeking a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent No. 1 as a Mechanical Foreman in the Inspectorate of Mines Balochistan. The petitioner contended that the respondent lacked the requisite educational qualification of a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, was appointed without fulfilling mandatory formalities such as written tests and interviews by the Selection Committee, and bypassed relevant service rules. The core legal questions revolved around the locus standi of a petitioner to file a quo warranto petition without being an aggrieved person, the validity of an appointment made by a Minister in violation of statutory rules, and the scope of judicial review in testing the legality of public office appointments. The Balochistan High Court held that any citizen can challenge the usurpation of a public office through quo warranto irrespective of being an aggrieved party, and that appointments made in disregard of prescribed service rules and without recommendations from the Departmental Selection Committee are illegal. The court laid down the principle that discretionary powers of authorities or Ministers cannot be exercised whimsically to bypass statutory rules and recruitment procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner must be an aggrieved person to maintain a constitutional petition for a writ of quo warranto?
  • Can an appointing authority or Minister make initial appointments to public offices without the recommendation of the Departmental Selection Committee?
  • What is the extent of judicial scrutiny permissible when examining the validity of an appointment to a public office?
  • Whether an appointment made in violation of prescribed service rules and requisite qualifications is null and void?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Haq Nawaz vs Balochistan Public Service Commission through Chairman and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 872 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-07-13Read full judgment →
• Doda Khan vs Government of Balochistan through its Secretary, Department of Education, Civil Secretariat, Quetta and 4 others1996 CLC 156 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
• Dad Muhammad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 164 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-09Read full judgment →
• Dad Muhammad and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 487 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• Dad Muhammad And Another vs The State1996 MLD 487 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Wariah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1683 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
• Alhamza Ship Breaking Company and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance & Economic Affairs (Revenue Division), Islamabad and Others1996 CLC 608 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-12-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir and 4 others vs Assistant Commissionercumcollector, Quetta and anothers1996 MLD 1608 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir And 4 Others vs Assistant Commissionercumcollector, Quetta And Another1996 MLD 1608 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs SadarudoinK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 59 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-09-12Read full judgment →