Latest Judgments

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

• Muhammad Anwar vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Health Department, Quetta and 3 others1991 PLD Quetta 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and another1991 PLD Quetta 70 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Rana Ahmed Ali1991 MLD 770 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Jamil Khan vs Selection Committee for EngineeringK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 250 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mohammad Ali vs Rana Ahmed AliK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 634 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
• Inayatuliah and others vs Principal, Balochistan Agriculture College1991 PLD Quetta 63 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• I. G. Frontier Corps, Baloch1stan, Quetta and Other vs The Superintendent, Central Jail, Mach and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Crimipal Cases 157 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad vs The State1991 MLD 6 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
• Haji Mir Ghulam Mustafa and 2 others vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior, Interior Division, Islamabad through its Secretary and 3 others1991 PLD Quetta 57 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
• Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Revenies vs Ghulam1991 CLC 2033 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
• DR. Fazlullah Pechuho vs The Federation of Pakistan and 3 Other(K.L.R 1991 Labour & Secvice Cases 237) · Balochistan High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Dr. Fazlullah Pechuho and others vs The Federation of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division and 3 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 960 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Balochistan Bar Association throughPresident Balochistan Bar1991 PLD Quetta 7 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-08-16
  independence of judiciaryseparation of judiciary from executivefundamental rightsequality before lawconstitutional petitioncriminal law special provisionsvires of statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated batch of constitutional petitions before the Balochistan High Court challenged the vires of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968, alleging that its provisions relating to trial by executive officers through a Council of Elders were repugnant to the fundamental rights of equality and non-discrimination, the Objectives Resolution, and the constitutional mandate for the separation of the judiciary from the executive. The core legal questions revolved around whether the special trial procedure and the application/withdrawal of the Ordinance across different regions violated Articles 2-A, 4, 25, and 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Court held that the Ordinance was inconsistent with Articles 2-A, 25, and 175(3) of the Constitution, as it lacked any rational classification and completely vested judicial powers in executive officers, frustrating the constitutional goal of judicial independence. Consequently, the Court declared the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 void, quashed pending proceedings, set aside convictions, and ordered cases to be transferred to courts of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 is void for being inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of separation of the judiciary from the executive under Article 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the application and selective withdrawal of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 violate the principle of equal protection of law under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the provisions of a statute be tested on the touchstone of the Objectives Resolution after its incorporation as a substantive part of the Constitution via Article 2-A?
  • Whether the administration of criminal justice by executive officers under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance II of 1968 violates the concept of the supremacy and independence of the judiciary?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Mohammad vs Assistant Political Agent and 5 OtherK.L.R. 1991, Criminal Cases 313 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-11-14Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State Through Pakistan Coast Guards, Karachi.PTCL 1991 CL. 311 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-08-05Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State through Pakistan Coast Guards, Karachi1991 MLD 228 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-08-05Read full judgment →
• Ainuddin alias Tooran vs The State1991 PLD Quetta 43 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 2 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manna N vs The State1991 MLD 2462 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-06-19
  hijackingattempt to hijackSpecial Court jurisdictionquantum of sentencedeath penaltyscheduled offencescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant by a Special Court for the attempted hijacking of a PIA flight, which resulted in injury to a security guard. The appellant challenged the Special Court's jurisdiction regarding offenses under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance 1965, and contested the imposition of the death penalty for an attempted offense. The High Court held that the Special Court possessed jurisdiction, as the offenses were committed during the same transaction as the hijacking, which is a scheduled offense. Regarding the sentence, the Court affirmed the conviction but modified the death sentence for hijacking under Section 402-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to life imprisonment. The Court established that while both hijacking and attempted hijacking are punishable by death or life imprisonment, the judiciary must exercise discretion. In this instance, because the attempt was foiled and the plane was not successfully hijacked, the Court determined that life imprisonment was the appropriate sentence, emphasizing that no hard-and-fast rule mandates the death penalty for attempts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities Act 1975 have jurisdiction to try offenses like attempted murder when committed in the same transaction as a hijacking?
  • Is the death penalty mandatory for an attempt to commit hijacking under Section 402-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court convert a death sentence to life imprisonment for an attempted hijacking offense based on the specific circumstances of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• A.F. Abadan and Another vs Government of Baluchistan and AnotherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 130 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
• (M/s) Manzoor Ahmad and Other vs Islamic Republic of PakistanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 337 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and anothers vs Inspectorgeneral, Frontier Corps, Balochistan, Que'tta and 2 others1990 MLD 2329 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-06-28Read full judgment →
• Usman Ltd vs The Collector of Customs (Appraisement) Customs1990 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-09-12
  Customs DutySurchargeIqra SurchargeExemption NotificationLegislative CompetencePith and SubstanceConstitutional PetitionFederal Legislative ListOrdinance Lapse
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions were filed challenging the validity and vires of the levy of 'surcharge' under Section 2 of the Finance Ordinance, 1982 and 'Iqra surcharge' under Section 5 of the Finance Act, 1985. The petitioners, having imported textile machinery, were granted customs duty exemption under relevant SRO notifications but were demanded to pay the surcharges as additional customs duty. The core questions were whether the Federal Legislature possessed legislative competence to enact these surcharges, whether general customs duty exemption notifications applied to them, whether earmarking funds for education invalidated the tax under the pith and substance doctrine, and whether the Finance Ordinance, 1982 had lapsed under Article 89(2) of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the surcharges constituted additional customs duties falling squarely within the Federal Legislative List. The Court ruled that express provisions in special finance statutes overriding exemptions prevail over general customs exemptions, that earmarking tax revenues does not alter the essential character of taxation, and that Ordinances promulgated under the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 were protected under Article 270-A and did not lapse under Article 89.

  Questions settled

  • Does an exemption notification issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 automatically apply to surcharges levied as additional customs duty under special finance enactments?
  • Does the earmarking of tax proceeds for a specific purpose like education invalidate a federal levy under the doctrine of pith and substance?
  • Does a presidential Ordinance promulgated under the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 lapse under Article 89(2) of the Constitution if not laid before the National Assembly within four months of its revival?
  • Is the Federal Legislature competent to levy additional customs duties by way of surcharge and Iqra surcharge under the Federal Legislative List?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Limited. vs The Collector Of Customs (Appraisement), Quetta And AnotherPTCL 1990 CL. 525 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sobedar vs Balochistan Labour Appellate Tribunal, Quetta and others1990 PLC 152 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-08-21Read full judgment →
• Naseem Ahmed vs Balochistan Development Authority through its1990 PLD Quetta 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali and 5 others vs Assistant Political Agent and another1990 PLD Quetta 51 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Ghulam Rasool1990 PLD Quetta 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-03-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Manzoor Ahmad & Brothers vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan1990 MLD 2140 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-06-27
  Order 17 Rule 3 CPCdismissal of suitcondonation of delaydecree sheetcontract interpretationpenal provisionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a trial court judgment dismissing a civil suit under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to the plaintiff's failure to produce evidence. The core legal questions concerned whether an appeal is maintainable when the decree sheet is filed after the limitation period, and whether a court can summarily dismiss a suit under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, when the dispute involves interpreting an admitted contract already on the record. The High Court held that the delay in filing the decree sheet was excusable as a bona fide mistake. Furthermore, the court ruled that Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is a penal provision that should be invoked only as an extreme measure for contumacious conduct. The court emphasized that even if evidence is closed, the trial court is obligated to decide the case on the merits based on the available record. Consequently, the dismissal was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on the merits after allowing the parties to address the contract's interpretation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit be dismissed under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, solely for failure to produce evidence when the core issue involves interpreting an admitted contract?
  • Is the filing of a decree sheet with the memorandum of appeal a mandatory requirement that, if delayed, necessitates the dismissal of the appeal?
  • Under what circumstances should a court exercise its discretion to condone the delay in filing a decree sheet with an appeal?
  • Does the closure of evidence by a trial court mandate the automatic dismissal of a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Agri Auto Industries Ltd. vs Employees Old-Age Benefit1990 PLC 21 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-05-23
  Employees' Old-Age Benefitsrecovery of arrearsland revenuestatutory authoritydue processinspection of recordsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a demand notice for arrears of contributions and subsequent recovery proceedings initiated by the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI). The core legal question was whether the EOBI could demand alleged arrears and initiate recovery proceedings as land revenue without first determining the actual amount due, and whether the EOBI could compel the production of documents beyond those specified in the statute. The Court held that the demand and recovery proceedings were unlawful and without jurisdiction because the amount due had not been properly determined. The Court established the principle that statutory authorities must determine the precise amount of arrears through a fair process, providing the affected party an opportunity to contest, before initiating coercive recovery measures like those under the Land Revenue Act. Furthermore, the Court ruled that authorities cannot compel the production of documents, such as Income Tax returns, that fall outside the scope of inspection authorized by the governing statute. Consequently, the impugned proceedings were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can an authority initiate recovery proceedings as land revenue without first determining the specific amount of arrears due?
  • Are statutory authorities empowered to compel the production of documents, such as Income Tax returns, that are not explicitly authorized for inspection under the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act 1976?
  • Is a demand notice for arrears of contributions valid if it fails to provide the basis for the calculation or the details of the alleged shortfall?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspectorgeneral, Frontier Corps, Balochistan, Quetta vs The Superintendent, Central Jail, Mach and 3 others1990 MLD 2258 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
• Elahi Bakhsh And Another vs Sher Muhammad1990 CLC 1762 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The State1990 PLD Quetta 63 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baqui vs Malik Mitha Khan and another1990 MLD 1960 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
• A.F. Abadan and others vs Government of Balochistan through its1990 PLD Quetta 70 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Tariq Farooq vs Nasruddin and anothers1989 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-08-25Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad And 6 Others vs Haji Sher Muhammad1989 CLC 202 · Balochistan High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sheen Gul And 6 Others vs Secretary (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Bolichistan And 3 Other1989 CLC 2431 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-08-02Read full judgment →
• Prof. Shaukat Hussain vs Sarfraz Hussain and 10 others1989 PLD Quetta 89 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-06-15Read full judgment →
• Noori Trading Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan through the Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1989 PLD Quetta 74 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-03-15
  excise dutyship breakingfiscal statute interpretationdefinition of manufacturetaxing statutewrit jurisdictionvires of ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the imposition of excise duty on ship plates and materials recovered from the dismantling of ships at Gadani, following the promulgation of the Central Excise and Salt Act (Amendment) Ordinance-III of 1988. The core legal question was whether the process of ship-breaking constitutes 'manufacture' or 'production' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, thereby attracting excise duty. The Court held that the process of dismantling a ship does not amount to 'manufacture' as defined in the Act, as it involves disintegration rather than the creation of a new, commercially distinct product. Consequently, the Court ruled that the ship plates and materials recovered were not liable to excise duty. The key principle laid down is that taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly; if a subject does not fall clearly within the letter of the law, tax cannot be imposed by inference, analogy, or intendment. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that where a statutory definition of 'manufacture' is not amended to include a specific process, the executive cannot expand the scope of taxation through administrative action.

  Questions settled

  • Does the process of dismantling or breaking a ship constitute 'manufacture' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  • Can excise duty be imposed on goods by implication or analogy if they do not fall within the strict letter of the taxing statute?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition against a fiscal statute when an alternative appellate remedy exists?
  • Is the material recovered from ship-breaking liable to excise duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act (Amendment) Ordinance-III of 1988?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and anothers vs Additional Chief Secretary Home, Government of Baluchistan, Quetta and anothers1989 PLD Quetta 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-12-26
  transfer of criminal casesspecial courts for speedy trialsprinciples of natural justiceright of hearingpublic interestoverriding effectcriminal law special provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Balochistan High Court addresses petitions challenging the transfer of criminal cases from forums under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 to Special Courts established under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987. The core legal questions involved whether the Government possessed the unhindered discretion to transfer pending cases without notice and whether principles of natural justice required a pre-transfer hearing. The Court held that while the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987 is a special central legislation that overrides earlier laws and empowers the Government to transfer cases involving gruesome or sensational offences in the public interest, such an administrative transfer severely prejudices the accused and deprives them of safeguards under normal procedure. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the appropriate Government must afford an opportunity of hearing to the accused and reflect objective considerations of public interest in the transfer order, setting aside the impugned orders for want of a pre-decisional hearing and remanding the matters for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987 override earlier local and special criminal legislations?
  • Is it mandatory for the Government to provide an opportunity of hearing to an accused person before transferring a pending criminal case to a Special Court?
  • Must the transfer order passed under Section 5 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Act, 1987 reflect objective considerations and guidelines of public interest?
  • Does an accused person have a vested right to select the forum for their trial once a challan has been submitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Durrani vs Province of Baluchistan through Chief Secretary and 10 others1989 PLD Quetta 25 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-01-30
  dissolution of assemblyvote of confidenceconstitutional interpretationjudicial reviewprovincial assemblychief ministerconstitutional supremacy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dissolution of the Provincial Assembly of Balochistan by the Governor, acting on the advice of the Chief Minister. The core legal question was whether a Chief Minister who had not yet obtained a vote of confidence as mandated by Article 130(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 possessed the legal authority to advise the Governor to dissolve the Assembly under Article 112(1). The Court held that the dissolution was unconstitutional and without lawful authority. It reasoned that the power to advise dissolution is reserved for a Chief Minister who has validly obtained a vote of confidence. The Court emphasized that constitutional provisions must be interpreted harmoniously and that the Governor, before accepting such advice, has a duty to ensure the Chief Minister commands the confidence of the majority. Consequently, the Court declared the dissolution void and ordered the restoration of the Provincial Assembly, asserting that judicial review is permissible where constitutional limits are transgressed, regardless of political implications.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Chief Minister who has not obtained a vote of confidence under Article 130(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 advise the Governor to dissolve the Provincial Assembly?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review the dissolution of a Provincial Assembly despite the immunity clauses in the Constitution?
  • Is the advice of a Chief Minister to dissolve the Provincial Assembly binding on the Governor if the Chief Minister has not yet secured a vote of confidence?
  • Can a dissolved Provincial Assembly be restored by a court order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad And 2 Others vs Mst. Banuk Naz Khatoon1989 CLC 1819 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-04-27
  revisionregistrationacknowledgement of rightbona fide purchaserdowerimmovable propertyMajlis-e-ShooraSection 115 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition before the Balochistan High Court arose from a suit filed by the respondent claiming possession of a specific parcel of immovable property known as 'Kalandar Wala'. The suit was initially dismissed by the trial Court (Qazi Turbat) on grounds of limitation and merits, but was subsequently decreed by the appellate Court (Majlis-e-Shoora Mekran) in favour of the respondent. The petitioners challenged the appellate decree, contending that a letter acknowledging the respondent's right was inadmissible for non-registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, and that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were bona fide purchasers entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The High Court affirmed the appellate decision and dismissed the revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. It held that a letter merely acknowledging or reaffirming an existing right does not require registration, and that protection under Section 41 cannot be claimed where the transferor lacked title to the property transferred.

  Questions settled

  • Does a document that merely acknowledges and reaffirms an existing right in immovable property require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act?
  • Can a transferee claim protection as a bona fide purchaser under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 if the transferor did not possess title to the land at the time of sale?
  • Under what circumstances will the High Court decline to interfere with an appellate court's decree in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs The State and 8 others1989 PLD Quetta 64 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taj Bibi vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 53 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taj Bibi vs The State1989 PLD Quetta 60 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Alam vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 628 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Manochar vs Mst. Sarwar Sultana And Another1989 CLC 2417 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
• Mahmeed Ltd. vs Collector of Customs, Quetta and another1989 PTD 1155 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
• Khudai Rahim and others vs Mst. Noor Jamal and 2 others1989 PLD Quetta 54 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-12-27Read full judgment →
• Irshad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 636 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Farooq And 11 Others vs The Deputy Commissioner, Quetta, District Quetta And 2 Other1989 CLC 1823 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs The State1989 PLD Quetta 62 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• G Ul K H a N vs Government of Baluchistan through Secretary, Education and 4 others1989 PLD Quetta 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-08-09
  admission policyengineering collegeconstitutional petitionequality of citizensbackward class of citizenseducational institution
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for admission to Baluchistan Engineering College, Khuzdar, by the Selection Committee pursuant to clause 2.12 of the Government's Admission Policy, which rendered ineligible candidates who passed Matriculation or F.Sc. from outside Baluchistan without satisfying the committee that the reasons were beyond their control. The core legal questions were whether clause 2.12 of the admission policy violated Article 22(4) and Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 by being discriminatory or unreasonable, and whether the Selection Committee's assessment of the petitioner's reasons could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that clause 2.12 is a permissible regional classification aimed at protecting students of backward regions and does not violate Articles 22(4) or 25, as it applies uniformly to all students studying outside the province. The Court further held that it cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the Selection Committee regarding the validity of the petitioner's reasons under constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether clause 2.12 of the Baluchistan Engineering College Admission Policy violates Article 22(4) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a policy restricting college admissions for students who studied outside the province violate the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the High Court substitute its own assessment for the Selection Committee's evaluation of the reasons given by a candidate for studying outside the province under constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Fareed Yaqub Ali vs Haji Muhammad Tahir1989 PLD Quetta 16 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
• Bara Khan vs Munir Ahmad1989 PLD Quetta 94 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-05-11Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs S.M. Khan1989 CLC 2287 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-07-06Read full judgment →
• Adeeb Javedani, Printer and Publisher Moon Digest, Lahore vs Yahya1989 PLD Quetta 21 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Butt vs Government of Baluchistan And 2 Other1989 CLC 1625 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hussain and Other vs Sardar Mohammad Usman JogezaiK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 16 · Balochistan High Court · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khan Achakzai vs Election Commissioner of Pakistan, Islamabad And 24 Of Hers1989 CLC 1833 · Balochistan High Court · 1989-05-14
  election disputevoid electionballot boxesfresh pollconstitutional petitionjurisdiction of Election Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan declaring the election results of constituency PB-9 Pishin IV entirely void and ordering fresh polls under Section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act 1976, following the forcible removal of ballot boxes from two polling stations. The core legal question was whether the Election Commission could invoke its general supervisory powers under Section 103-AA to annul the entire constituency's election when specific provisions under Section 27(1)(b) catered directly to the disruption of polling at specific polling stations and the final result remained determinable. The Balochistan High Court held that the Election Commission acted unlawfully and in excess of jurisdiction by invoking the general power under Section 103-AA when an express specific remedy was available, and that an innocent candidate cannot be penalized for the misconduct of miscreants where the election result is otherwise clearly ascertainable from the remaining polling stations. The court laid down the principle that general or supervisory statutory provisions cannot be resorted to when express provisions provide a convenient mode of rectifying mischief, and that statutory bars on jurisdiction do not protect arbitrary or excess exercises of power.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Election Commission invoke general supervisory powers under Section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act 1976 when specific statutory provisions exist to deal with the removal or destruction of ballot boxes at specific polling stations?
  • Whether the Election Commission can declare an entire constituency's election void when the final result remains determinable from the remaining polling stations?
  • Does a constitutional petition remain maintainable against an order passed by the Election Commission in excess of its jurisdiction despite a statutory bar?
  • Can a winning candidate be penalized for the unlawful removal of ballot boxes committed by third-party miscreants?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Bahadur And Another1987 P Cr. L J 1689 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Sher Jan Shah vs Union Council, Sanjavi1987 PLD Quetta 30 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Azeem Shah vs The State1987 PLD Quetta 96 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-02
  murderocular evidencejudicial confessionretracted confessionrecovery of weaponcriminal appealbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Quetta, under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Mian Masood Ahmed. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on ocular testimony, a judicial confession, and the recovery of the weapon. The High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court discarded the ocular evidence, noting that the witnesses were not mentioned in the FIR, their presence at the scene was not established, and their conduct was highly suspicious. Furthermore, the recovery of the alleged murder weapon was deemed unreliable as it relied on chance witnesses rather than independent local residents. The court also rejected the confession, citing an unexplained five-day delay in recording it before a magistrate, which raised significant doubts regarding its voluntariness. The court affirmed the principle that motive alone cannot sustain a conviction when the substantive evidence is weak, inconsistent, and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in recording a confession before a magistrate render the confession unreliable?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of motive when the ocular evidence and recovery of the weapon are found to be doubtful?
  • Is the testimony of chance witnesses who were not mentioned in the FIR sufficient to prove a criminal charge?
  • Does the absence of blood traces at the alleged scene of occurrence cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Allah Dost vs Haji Muhammad Alam and 12 Others1987 PLD Quetta 235 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
• Sirajud Din vs Noor Muhammad1987 PLD Quetta 165 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• Sher Aslam And Other vs Ahmed Khan And Other1987 PLD Quetta 235 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
• Sardar Pir Muhammad vs Abdul Wahid And Another1987 PLD Quetta 204 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sardar Pir Muhammad vs Abdul Wahid and another1987 PLD Quetta 204 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-21Read full judgment →
• Samundar vs Lal Muhammad and 9 Others1987 PLD Quetta 209 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad vs The State1987 PLD Quetta 94 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
• S Am U N D a R- vs Lal Muhammad And 9 Other1987 PLD Quetta 209 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
• Rahm Din vs Collector of Central Excise & Land Customs and two others.PTCL 1987 CL. 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
• Province of Baluchistan vs Sardar Muhammad Usman Khan1987 PLD Quetta 33 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-04
  arbitration awardad valorem court feelimitation actreturn of plaintinterest on awardmisconduct of arbitratorcivil procedure code
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses four connected civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the Province of Baluchistan against the decrees passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Quetta, making arbitration awards rules of the court. The core legal questions involve the proper forum and valuation for filing appeals arising from arbitration decrees, the requirement of ad valorem court fees under the Court Fees Act 1870, the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 for condonation of delay resulting from prosecuting appeals in an incorrect forum, and the validity of the arbitrator's appointment and award including the grant of interest. The Balochistan High Court held that proceedings resulting in a decree based on an arbitration award are contentious and subject to ad valorem court fees, that the appeals were wrongly filed before the District Judge and subsequently presented to the High Court with deficient court fees and without sufficient cause under Section 14 or Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that new questions of fact cannot be raised for the first time in appeal. The appeals were dismissed with a modification regarding interest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against a decree passed in terms of an arbitration award requires ad valorem court-fee under Schedule I of the Court Fees Act 1870?
  • Can time spent in prosecuting an appeal before an incompetent forum be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the appellant acted with gross negligence?
  • Whether new questions of fact regarding the validity of an arbitration agreement can be raised for the first time at the appellate stage?
  • Does an arbitrator have the authority to award interest, and can an appellate court modify an award in this regard under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Niazi And 3 Others vs Ghulam Dastigir And Another1987 P Cr. L J 1432 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and another vs Abdul Ghafoor and 3 Others1987 PLD Quetta 141 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad And Another vs Abdul Ghafoor And 3 Other1987 PLD Quetta 141 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad And 2 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1754 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-01-12
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayhardened criminalconfessional statementspeedy trialbail as of right
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in two criminal cases involving charges under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The primary legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the delay in their trial, or whether they were excluded from this benefit under the fourth proviso as hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminals. The Court held that the trial court's classification of the petitioners as hardened criminals based solely on a retracted confessional statement, without independent material or evidence, was insufficient. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to bail as a matter of right under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a court's opinion regarding an accused being a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' must be based on tangible, independent material rather than mere allegations or sub judice confessional statements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court classify an accused as a hardened or desperate criminal for the purpose of denying bail based solely on a retracted confessional statement?
  • Does the mere existence of pending criminal cases against an accused, without previous convictions, justify classifying them as a hardened or habitual offender?
  • Is the opinion of a court that an accused is a hardened or dangerous criminal required to be based on tangible and independent material?
  • Does the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grant bail as a matter of right upon the expiry of the specified statutory period?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs Government of Baluchistan and 4 others1987 CLC 23 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
• Musa and others vs Asan Das and others1987 MLD 479 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-12-29Read full judgment →
• Mursaleen vs Ghulam Sarwar and Another1987 PLD Quetta 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Labour Appellate Tribunal, Baluchistan, Quetta1987 PLC 430 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The Divisional Superintendentpakistan Railway, Quetta Division, Quetta And 2 Others1987 PLC 790 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1758 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim- vs Nabi Dad And Another1987 PLD Quetta 194 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim vs Nabi Dad and another1987 PLD Quetta 194 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hadi vs The Secretary, Government of Baluchistan, Agricultural and Cooperative Department, Quetta and 2 others1987 CLC 74 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 5 Others vs The State1987 PLD Quetta 77 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 5 Other vs The State1987 PLD Quetta 77 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shami Bai vs Ajmiri Khan1987 CLC 868 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-06-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina and others vs Muhammad Iqbal and others1987 CLC 1015 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-09-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naz Bibi vs Mst. Roz Khatoon1987 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-08-30Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Qasim, Ghulam Dastagir, vs The State, and The State,PTCL 1987 CL. 30 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-06-21Read full judgment →
• Miss Touqir Bibi vs Government of Baluchistan1987 PLD Quetta 216 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
• Miss Touqir Bibi vs Government of Baluchistan through Secretary, Health Department and 3 Others1987 PLD Quetta 216 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad Nawaz Khoso vs The State through The Deputy1987 P Cr. L J 2350 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hafeezan Coal Company and 4 others vs Abdul Qayyum1987 PLD Quetta 197 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hafeezan Coal Company And 4 Other vs Abdul Qayyum1987 PLD Quetta 197 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Agriautoindustries Ltd. vs The Government of Baluchistan1987 PLD Quetta 103 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• MESSRs Agriauto Industries Ltd, vs The Government of Baluchistan1987 PLD Quetta 103 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →