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.

• Ghagai Tribal Transport Co. vs The Secretary, Regional Transport1986 PLD Quetta 264 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
• Dummar Coal Company vs Akbar Khan1986 CLC 2458 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Noor Muhammad vs Additional Commissioner And Others1986 P Cr. L J 1145 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-12-17Read full judgment →
• DR. Behram Khan vs Naseer Ahmad alias Bacha Khan1986 PLD Quetta 72 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-18Read full judgment →
• Dilbar Hussain vs Muhmoodul Hassan and 3 Others1986 PLD Quetta 198 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-25
  adverse possessionlicenseetransfer of propertyregistration of documentsevictioncivil appealBalochistanlandlord-tenant relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two appeals arising from a suit for possession of property and a suit for declaration and injunction. The core legal questions were whether the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies to Quetta, whether a registered sale deed is mandatory for property transfer in that jurisdiction, and whether a licensee can claim adverse possession against the licensor. The Court held that the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not extend to Quetta, and therefore, a registered sale deed is not strictly required for a valid transfer. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 regarding registration only apply to documents that exist; they do not mandate that all transactions must be in writing. Regarding the appellant's claim of adverse possession, the Court held that a licensee, having entered the property under an employment arrangement, cannot claim adverse possession against the licensor. The appellant’s status was that of a licensee, and upon the termination of the license, he became a trespasser. The Court affirmed the decree for possession, emphasizing that equity does not assist those who enter property as licensees and later attempt to deny the owner's title.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 apply to Quetta?
  • Can a licensee claim adverse possession against the licensor?
  • Do the registration requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 apply to a transaction where no written document was executed?
  • Does a mutation entry in revenue records create title to property?
  Read full judgment →
• Da. Munir AHMADConvict vs The State1986 PLD Quetta 26 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
• Bolan Textile Mills vs Labour Union Bolan Textile Mills And 2 Others1986 PLC 751 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-04
  collective bargaining agentindustrial relationsindividual grievancelabour court jurisdictionconstitutional petitionhouse rent deductionSection 34 IROSection 25-A IRO
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had allowed a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) to maintain an application under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, regarding the deduction of house rent for employees. The core legal question was whether a CBA is competent to invoke Section 34 for the enforcement of rights guaranteed to individual workmen, or if such enforcement must strictly follow the procedure under Section 25-A of the Ordinance. The Court held that Section 34 cannot be invoked by a CBA to enforce rights guaranteed to individual workmen, as the statute provides a specific mechanism for such grievances under Section 25-A. The Court affirmed that the CBA's role under Section 34 is limited to matters of collective bargaining and does not extend to individual grievance redressal, which is governed by the specific conditions and limitations of Section 25-A. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared without lawful authority, and the Court directed the return of the application to the respondent for presentation to the proper forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Collective Bargaining Agent maintain an application under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the enforcement of rights guaranteed to individual workmen?
  • Does the exclusion in Section 22(12)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, preclude a Collective Bargaining Agent from enforcing individual worker rights under Section 34?
  • Must grievances regarding rights guaranteed to workmen under any law, award, or settlement be enforced through the procedure prescribed in Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is a Collective Bargaining Agent authorized to represent workmen in proceedings under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjuman-E-Islamia, Baluchistan vs Qari Yar Muhammad1986 PLC 909 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-12-29Read full judgment →
• Amanatullah And Another vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 523 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-01Read full judgment →
• Ali vs Additional District Judge 1, Quetta And Another1986 CLC 27 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-23
  constitutional petitionres judicataoption of pubertyKhularestitution of conjugal rightsdissolution of marriagewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the judgments of the lower courts which dissolved a marriage on the grounds of option of puberty and Khula, despite a prior decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the husband. The core legal questions were whether the prior decree constituted res judicata against the subsequent dissolution suit and whether the High Court could reappraise evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the prior decree for restitution of conjugal rights did not constitute res judicata because the subject matter of the two suits was distinct. Furthermore, the Court ruled that its constitutional jurisdiction does not permit it to act as an appellate court to re-evaluate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of a competent tribunal, provided the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and did not misread the evidence. The key principle laid down is that a prior restitution decree does not bar a subsequent dissolution suit, and constitutional interference is limited to jurisdictional defects or clear misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a decree for restitution of conjugal rights constitute res judicata against a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage?
  • Can a High Court in constitutional jurisdiction reappraise evidence to substitute its own findings for those of a competent tribunal?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a subordinate court or tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad And Other vs Chief Mining Engineer_Incharge, Baluchistan Collieries P.M.D.C. Regional Office And 3 Others1986 PLC 540 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
• Aleem Ahmad Ansari and 2 Others vs M. V. Ashar and 3 Others1986 PLD Quetta 54 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-16Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Muhammad vs Haji Faiz Muhammad And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 2994 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
• Actg. C Mir Shahbaz Khan vs Mir Ibrahim Khan and 73 Others1986 PLD Quetta 246 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-13Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid and 2 Others vs Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan1986 PLD Quetta 280 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and 2 Others vs Khuda-E-Dad-Petiti oner1986 PLD Quetta 11 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-20
  revision petitionex parte decreerendition of accountscoram non judicecourt-feeexecution of decreenatural justicecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the proceedings and subsequent ex parte decree passed by a Qazi in a suit for rendition of accounts and possession of a shop, as well as the appellate proceedings before the Majlis-e-Shoora. The core legal questions concern the validity of the ex parte decree, the necessity of a formal decree for an appeal to be competent, and the legality of the execution proceedings. The Court held that the Qazi’s proceedings were a nullity (coram non judice) because the defendant was denied a fair opportunity to participate, and the decree failed to conform to the mandatory requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an appeal filed without a formal decree is incompetent under Order XLI, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principles laid down are that a court must avoid snap decisions, a defendant cannot be made ex parte for the entire trial due to absence on a single date, and a decree must be distinct from a judgment, adhering strictly to the prescribed forms.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant be precluded from participating in proceedings solely due to absence on a single date?
  • Is an appeal filed without a formal decree competent under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a judgment in a suit for accounts require a preliminary decree before a final decree can be passed?
  • What are the requirements for a valid decree under Order XX, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq vs Collector. Lasbella District1986 PLD Quetta 86 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim Warsi vs Chief Executive, Independent Newspapers1986 PLC 760 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-03
  resignationworkman statuslabour court jurisdictionnewspaper employeeindustrial relationsgrievance petitioncivil court remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of the petitioner's claim for financial benefits by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, a former employee who had voluntarily resigned, sought recovery of various dues under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether a former employee who has resigned retains the status of a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, or a 'newspaper employee' under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a resigned employee is neither a 'workman' nor a 'newspaper employee' for the purposes of these statutes. The court established the principle that the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, specifically includes dismissed or discharged persons but excludes those who voluntarily resign. Consequently, such individuals cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 25-A. The court clarified that while the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction, the petitioner may pursue claims for dues not covered by the Payment of Wages Act in a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a former employee who has voluntarily resigned qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can an ex-employee invoke the jurisdiction of a Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to claim financial benefits?
  • Does the definition of 'newspaper employee' under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, include individuals who have resigned from their employment?
  • Is a civil court the appropriate forum for an ex-employee to claim dues not covered by the Payment of Wages Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baqi and 3 Others vs The State1986 PLD Quetta 193 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-12-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdullah Shah and 3 Others vs Abdul Ghaffar Khan and 2 Others1985 PLD Quetta 152 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
• Shalay and 7 Others vs The Member II, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, Quetta and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Quetta 94 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-12-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs Haji Abdul Ghaffar and 3 Others1985 PLD Quetta 167 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin Khan and 10 Others vs Member, Board of Revenue III and 181985 PLD Quetta 192 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-07Read full judgment →
• Sahib Dad vs Inam and 4 Others1985 PLD Quetta 69 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
• Reham Din vs The State1985 PLD Quetta 272 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-06Read full judgment →
• Rais Tayyab and 2 others vs Raza Muhammad and another1985 CLC 2600 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-12
  appointment of receiverinterim injunctiondiscretionary powerpossessionirreparable losscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, defendants in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, sought to have the suit land and crops placed in official custody (Mianji Khana) to secure alleged Haq-e-Malikana. The trial court and the Majlis-e-Shoora rejected the application, finding that the plaintiffs were in possession and had cultivated the crops, and that placing the property in custody would be unjust and inconvenient. The petitioners challenged this in revision, arguing the application was effectively under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the appointment of a receiver is a harsh remedy to be exercised only in extreme cases to prevent waste or irreparable mischief. The Court emphasized that the appointment of a receiver is discretionary, intended to preserve the subject matter of litigation, and should not be used to deprive a party in possession of the fruits of their labor without substantial grounds. As the petitioners failed to demonstrate a risk of waste or irreparable loss, the trial court's refusal to appoint a receiver was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appointment of a receiver considered a harsh remedy that requires extreme caution?
  • Does the failure to cite a specific provision of law automatically invalidate an application for the appointment of a receiver?
  • What is the primary criterion for a court to exercise its discretion in appointing a receiver under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Baluchistan and ANOTHERs vs Messrs Saleem Brothers1985 PLD Quetta 48 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
• Nek Muhammad and ANOTHERs vs The Member, Board of Revenue1985 PLD Quetta 63 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-10-10Read full judgment →
• Nawab Abdur Rehman Sherwani and 7 Others- s vs Mir Abdul Ghias1985 PLD Quetta 121 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan and ANOTHERs vs Muhammad Asif Ahmed1985 PLD Quetta 100 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-12-10
  workmanback benefitsgrievance petitiondismissal from servicedomestic enquiryindustrial relationsconstitutional jurisdictionpresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 challenged orders passed by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the dismissal of a bank employee (clerk/assistant) for alleged financial shortage without holding a proper domestic enquiry. The core legal questions involved whether a bank employee invoking guaranteed service rules qualifies as a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A, whether the Labour Court's decision on limitation can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction, and whether back benefits can be withheld pending the outcome of a criminal trial. The court held that a bank clerk performing clerical duties qualifies as a workman entitled to enforce statutory/rule-based rights under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, that limitation findings by lower tribunals generally should not be interfered with, and that an illegally dismissed employee is automatically entitled to back benefits unless gainfully employed elsewhere, as withholding them based on a pending criminal trial violates the presumption of innocence. The petition was dismissed and the original order of reinstatement with back benefits was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bank employee performing clerical duties qualifies as a workman to maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction interfere with a finding on limitation rendered by a Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal?
  • Whether an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to back benefits as a natural corollary of reinstatement in the absence of proof of gainful employment elsewhere?
  • Is it lawful to withhold back benefits of a reinstated employee merely on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him before a Special Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Mahmood Khan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 159 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-08-11
  post-arrest bailsodomyrule of consistencyconfessionheinousness of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes on remand from the Supreme Court following a bail-granting order in favor of the petitioner, Nasir Mahmood, who stands accused alongside others under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 12 of the Hudood Ordinance, 1979 for sodomy. The core legal question is whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the incriminating photographs, confession, and the principle of consistency with co-accused who were already enlarged on bail. The Balochistan High Court held that the heinousness of an offense alone does not warrant withholding bail as punishment, particularly where co-accused facing similar allegations have been released and the prosecution's evidence requires thorough trial scrutiny. The court reaffirmed that bail should not be refused as a punitive measure when unjust incarceration is irreparable, maintaining the earlier order releasing the accused on bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused solely on the ground of the heinousness of the alleged offence?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused charged with the same allegations have already been granted bail?
  • Should an accused be kept in pre-trial detention when the prosecution's evidence requires thorough trial scrutiny?
  Read full judgment →
• Mullah Ghulam Muhammad and 4 Others vs Assist Ant Commissioner1985 PLD Quetta 139 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mujeeb Ahmed Ansari vs Fazal Khan alias Khan1985 PLD Quetta 249 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1310 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Khan and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1324 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sulleman vs The State1985 PLD Quetta 228 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs State through Deputy Commissioner, Nasirabad1985 PLD Quetta 217 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 3 Others vs Khan Bibi and 3 Others1985 PLD Quetta 105 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Assistant Commissioner, Mastung and 3 Others1985 PLD Quetta 255 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and 5 Others vs Mows' Muhammad Hassan and 41985 PLD Quetta 210 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharaf Khatoon vs Abdul Majeed1985 PLD Quetta 54 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabira Begum and Others vs Mst. Fahmida Begum and Others1985 PLD Quetta 247 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rozi and ANOTHERs vs Muhammad Jaffar Khan Achakzai1985 PLD Quetta 263 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-13Read full judgment →
• Mirza Khan vs Hooro and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Quetta 268 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-06Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad Ali vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 Others1985 PLD Quetta 222 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Kamal Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue and 8 Others1985 PLD Quetta 161 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Din vs Manzoor Ali1985 PLD Quetta 142 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
• Khuda1 Rehm vs Hazrat Noor1985 CLC 802 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
• Khan Badshah vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2609 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-12Read full judgment →
• Karim Dad vs Member III, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan and 5 Others1985 PLD Quetta 252 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-01
  constitutional petitionquorumtribunal proceedingsvoid ordersrevenue suitcoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, which set aside concurrent revenue court orders and directed a fresh trial of a civil suit regarding property entries and partition. The core legal questions involved whether proceedings conducted by a newly constituted tribunal without the statutory quorum and in the absence of parties were valid, and whether subsequent orders built upon such void proceedings could be sustained. The Balochistan High Court held that since the tribunal failed to meet the quorum requirement under Section 7 of Ordinance I of 1968 and violated the mandatory hearing provisions under Section 8, the entire proceedings were coram non judice and void. The Court ruled that any superstructure of rights and obligations built upon a void order must collapse. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the Board of Revenue's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Are proceedings conducted by a statutory tribunal without the mandatory quorum legally valid?
  • Does a decree based on a tribunal report made without hearing the parties violate mandatory statutory provisions?
  • What is the legal effect of a void foundational order on subsequent orders and proceedings built upon it?
  Read full judgment →
• Kadir Bakhsh vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2375 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1313 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Khan and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2611 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-08
  criminal revisionHudood casesFederal Shariat Court jurisdictionconstitutional bardirect challanoffence of zina
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Quetta, which overruled the petitioners' objection regarding the taking of cognizance on a direct challan under section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerns the competence of the High Court to entertain a revision petition against an order relating to a Hudood matter in light of constitutional bars. The Balochistan High Court held that by virtue of Articles 203-DD and 203-G of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, exclusive jurisdiction to examine the record and proceedings of any criminal court under any law relating to the enforcement of Hudood vests in the Federal Shariat Court, ousting the jurisdiction of High Courts. The court established the principle that revision petitions against orders passed in Hudood cases must be filed before the Federal Shariat Court and consequently directed that the revision petition be returned to the petitioners for presentation before the proper forum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against an order passed by a criminal court under a law relating to the enforcement of Hudood?
  • Does Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from exercising revisional jurisdiction in Hudood matters?
  • What is the proper forum for filing a revision against an order passed in a case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Imdad vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lasbella1985 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-07-04
  land acquisitioncompensationjurisdictioncoram non judiceremandDistrict Judgestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several land acquisition appeals arising from the acquisition of agricultural land in District Lasbella for an industrial estate. The primary legal questions involved the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 versus the Acquisition of Land (Housing and Development Schemes) in the Rural Areas Act 1974, the necessity of notice to the beneficiary department under Section 20 of the 1894 Act, and the competency of the forum that adjudicated the compensation claims. The Court held that the Land Acquisition Act 1894 governs the acquisition. Crucially, the Court determined that the proceedings were void ab initio because the officer who adjudicated the compensation, the Sessions Judge-cum-President, Majlis-e-Shoora, lacked the legal status of a District Judge at the time of the adjudication, rendering the orders coram non judice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases for a fresh trial before a competent District Judge. The judgment affirms that jurisdictional defects regarding the authority of the adjudicating forum are fatal to the validity of the proceedings, regardless of procedural technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Acquisition of Land (Housing and Development Schemes) in the Rural Areas Act 1974 supersede the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for industrial land acquisition?
  • Can an order passed by an officer lacking the legal status of a District Judge under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be sustained?
  • Does a jurisdictional defect regarding the authority of the adjudicating forum render proceedings coram non judice?
  • Is a jurisdictional objection regarding the adjudicating forum maintainable if raised for the first time at the appellate stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Wali Khan vs Muhammad Hanif1985 CLC 827 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
• Farid Rizvi vs S. T. Aoun Allah and 3 Others1985 PLD Quetta 115 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
• Doran Khan vs The State1985 PLD Quetta 188 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-04
  jurisdiction of sessions courtCriminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968scheduled offenceappellate jurisdictionvoid convictionHudood Ordinancede novo trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by an Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta, following an initial charge under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions were whether the Sessions Judge possessed jurisdiction to convict the appellant for an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, given the applicability of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, in the area, and determining the appropriate appellate forum. The Court held that the Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction, as the offence was a scheduled offence exclusively triable by a tribunal under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. Consequently, the conviction was declared void, and the matter was referred to the Deputy Commissioner for de novo proceedings. The judgment establishes that a Sessions Court lacks original jurisdiction over offences not assigned to it by law and must stay proceedings upon identifying a scheduled offence under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. Additionally, appellate jurisdiction is determined by the law under which the conviction is actually recorded, not the initial charge.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to convict an accused under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the offence is a scheduled offence under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Is a conviction void if the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the specific offence for which the accused was convicted?
  • Does an appeal lie to the Federal Shariat Court or the High Court when an accused is charged under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, but convicted under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the duty of a court when it discovers that an offence before it is a scheduled offence under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Accounts Officer, Pakistan Railways and Anothers vs Fariduddin, U. D. C., Divisional Accounts Officer, Pakistan Railways, Quetta and 2 Others1985 PLD Quetta 234 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-23Read full judgment →
• Dawood and 3 OTHERss vs Jamilur Rehaman1985 PLD Quetta 29 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-09-15Read full judgment →
• Bhar00 vs Civil Judge/Family Judge and another1985 CLC 806 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ahmad Khan and OTHERSs vs M. v. Azhar and 3 Others1985 PLD Quetta 278 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-16
  admiralty jurisdictionmaritime lienaction in remship dismantlingseamen's wagesexchange rateAdmiralty Jurisdiction of the High Courts Ordinance 1980
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs, crew members of the vessel "m. v. Ashar," filed admiralty suits for the recovery of unpaid wages. The defendants contended that the vessel, being partially dismantled at Gadani Beach and delisted, ceased to be a "ship" under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Courts Ordinance, 1980, thereby ousting the court's jurisdiction. The Court held that a maritime lien attaches to the res and remains valid until the total destruction of the vessel; partial dismantling does not extinguish the lien or the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the suits were maintainable against the vessel and its purchaser. Regarding the merits, the Court rejected claims for "shorthand wages" due to lack of evidence. It determined that the exchange rate for converting U.S. Dollars to Pakistani Rupees should be the rate established by the parties' employment agreement rather than the market rate. The Court decreed the suits for the unpaid wages, calculated up to the date of discharge, while dismissing claims for leave wages where the service period was incomplete.

  Questions settled

  • Does a maritime lien on a vessel survive the partial dismantling of that vessel?
  • Is a vessel that is partially dismantled and delisted still considered a 'ship' for the purposes of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Courts Ordinance, 1980?
  • Can an action in rem be maintained against a vessel in the hands of a purchaser if a maritime lien attached to the vessel prior to the sale?
  • In the absence of specific contractual provisions, what rate of exchange governs the conversion of foreign currency wages into local currency?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan and ANOTHERs vs The State1985 PLD Quetta 133 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Muhammad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1118 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-12-25Read full judgment →
• Air Commodore Muhammad Yamin vs Military Estate Officer and 21985 PLD Quetta 202 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
• Aidoo and 4 OTHFRSs vs Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Lasbella,1985 PLD Quetta 205 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
• Agricultural Devlopment Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Noor Muhammad1985 PLD Quetta 74 · Balochistan High Court
  condonation of delaylimitationbona fide mistake of counseltermination of servicemisconduct inquirygrievance noticelabour court jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan challenging the concurrent orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which reinstated respondent No. 1 with full back benefits. The employee's services were terminated without inquiry upon allegations of extending loans to undeserving parties, which the employer claimed was a termination simpliciter under Regulation 13 of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Staff Services Regulations, 1961. The petitioner also argued that the grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was time-barred.

  The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower forums' decisions. It held that Section 65-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 empowers the Labour Court to condone delay by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, guided by the principles of Section 14, where time was lost pursuing proceedings before a wrong forum due to counsel's mistaken advice. Furthermore, termination based on allegations amounting to misconduct requires mandatory adherence to the inquiry procedure under Regulation 95, which cannot be bypassed via termination simpliciter under Regulation 13.

  Questions settled

  • Can delay in filing a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 be condoned where the applicant acted upon mistaken advice of counsel by filing in a wrong forum?
  • Does the dismissal of an internal departmental review petition communicate a fresh cause of action for serving a grievance notice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Can an employer resort to termination simpliciter under service regulations when the underlying reason for termination consists of allegations of misconduct?
  • Does an erroneous finding of fact or law by a Labour Appellate Tribunal acting within its jurisdiction justify interference in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Muhammad vs Superintendent Of Police, Sibi And Two OtherPTCL 1985 (CL) 62 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed vs MRS. Haziq and 5 Others1985 PLD Quetta 108 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Haji Syed Ainullah1985 PLD Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs Mst. Bibi Amina1985 PLD Quetta 85 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Salahuddin and 4 others1985 CLC 2594 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid and Others vs Pais Karim Dad and Others1985 PLD Quetta 112 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Member Board of Revenue and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Quetta 145 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The Commissioner, Sibi Division and Another1984 CLC 552 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam Muhammad and 2 Others Accused1984 P Cr. L J 1228 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-03-24Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Samad and Another1984 PLD Quetta 72 · Balochistan High Court · 1980-04-19
  Acquittal appealApprover's statementPardonWitness competencySection 342 Cr.P.C. examinationOaths ActRemandCriminal procedureMurderUnnatural offense
  Summary & questions settled

  This acquittal appeal arose from a murder case where the trial court acquitted the accused. The High Court addressed preliminary objections regarding the maintainability and limitation of the appeal, holding that an appeal against an acquittal order passed by the High Court in its original jurisdiction is maintainable under Section 411-A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the appeal was filed within the six-month period prescribed by Article 157 of the Limitation Act. The core legal issues concerned the trial court's exclusion of an approver's statement, improper examination of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C., and the non-administration of oath to a minor witness. The High Court held that a witness, even if wrongly granted pardon, remains a competent witness, and their statement cannot be disallowed solely on that ground. It further ruled that the failure to put all incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. and the non-examination of a 15-year-old witness on solemn affirmation constituted material illegalities. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case to the Sessions Judge for retrial with specific directions for proper examination of witnesses and the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal against an acquittal order passed by the High Court in its original criminal jurisdiction maintainable?
  • What is the prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal?
  • Can a person to whom pardon has been granted, but who is later found not to be connected with the offence, be examined as a witness?
  • Does the failure to put all incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code vitiate the trial?
  • Is it mandatory to administer an oath or solemn affirmation to a witness aged 15 years?
  • Can a trial court refuse to treat an approver as a witness if it believes the pardon was improperly granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharbat Khan and 9 Others vs Haji Lal Gul and 3 Others1984 P Cr. L J 411 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-10-30
  cancellation of bailstatutory bailtribal areasArticle 247Criminal Law Special Provisions Ordinance 1968President of Tribunalappeal maintainabilityPATA
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the order of the Member Board of Revenue affirming the decision of the Additional Commissioner, who had set aside an order of the President of the Tribunal (Assistant Commissioner) granting them post-arrest bail under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. The petitioners argued that no appeal lay against the Assistant Commissioner's bail order, that separate cancellation appeals were required for each accused, that disputed facts demonstrated their innocence, and that they were entitled to statutory bail as of right under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, introduced via Ordinance LXXI of 1979.

  The High Court held that under Section 16(2) of the Ordinance, the President of the Tribunal exercises the powers of the Deputy Commissioner when granting bail, making such orders appealable under Section 23 to the Commissioner. The Court rejected technical objections regarding a joint appeal and refused to evaluate disputed facts at a pre-trial stage. Crucially, the Court held that under Article 247(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, statutory amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure do not automatically apply to Provincially Administered Tribal Areas unless specifically extended by notification or regulation. Consequently, Ordinance LXXI of 1979 did not apply, and statutory bail could not be claimed. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a bail order passed by the President of a Tribunal under Section 16 of the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 appealable to the Commissioner under Section 23?
  • Does an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically extend to Provincially Administered Tribal Areas without a specific notification or regulation under Article 247(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can an accused person in a Tribal Area claim statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as introduced by Ordinance LXXI of 1979 if the amending Ordinance has not been extended to that area?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaman and 2 Others vs The State1984 PLD Quetta 144 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
• Samad vs Muhammad Jamal and 6 Others1984 PLD Quetta 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-09-23Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad vs Abdul Manan and Another1984 CLC 3321 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →
• Raz Muhammad vs Member (Judo,) Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, Quetta and Others1984 PLD Quetta 138 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
• Oriental Shipping Company Ltd. vs M. V. Monte Cristo and Others1984 CLC 2265 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-05-01
  admiralty jurisdictionmaritime lienshipping agentdisbursementssupply of necessariesaction in remchange of ownershiplimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an admiralty suit filed by a shipping agent for the recovery of disbursements made on behalf of a vessel against the ship and subsequent purchasers. The core legal questions relate to whether a shipping agent's claim for disbursements creates a maritime lien that travels with the ship upon a change of ownership, whether the suit is maintainable under the Admiralty Court Act 1861, and whether the plaintiff successfully proved the incurred expenses. The court held that claims for building, equipping, repairing, or supplying necessaries to a ship under sections 4 and 5 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 do not confer a maritime lien, particularly when the ship is not under arrest at the institution of the cause and the owner is domiciled within jurisdiction. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove the disbursements through admissible evidence and account books. The suit was consequently dismissed as not maintainable against the contesting defendants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a claim for necessaries or repairs supplied to a ship create a maritime lien under the Admiralty Court Act 1861?
  • Whether a suit in rem under the Admiralty Court Act 1861 is maintainable against a ship that has changed ownership when the cause of action accrued against the previous owner?
  • Can unverified bills and documents be admitted as proof of disbursements without producing account books and the primary makers of the documents?
  • Does the limitation period for a shipping agent's recovery suit fall under Article 61 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate and1984 CLC 537 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-12-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hasham Khan vs Government of Baluchistan through Chief Secretary to Government of Baluchistan and 4 Others1984 PLD Quetta 153 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez and Another vs Muhammad Azeem and 9 Others1984 CLC 1083 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-02-11
  evictionbona fide requirementdemolition and reconstructionnon-residential buildingtenant's right of re-entryrent restrictionpleadings and proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected first appeals directed against a common judgment of the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Quetta, which had ordered the eviction of the appellants from commercial shops on the ground of reconstruction. The core legal questions involved whether the landlords established a reasonable and bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction, and whether non-residential premises could be evicted for residential use or to defeat the tenant's right of re-entry under the rent laws. The Balochistan High Court held that the landlords failed to prove any bona fide personal or reconstruction requirement, and that a non-residential building cannot be evacuated for residential purposes. Furthermore, the Court held that a reconstruction scheme designed to bypass the mandatory right of the tenant to regain possession under statutory provisions lacks good faith. The appeals were accordingly allowed, the eviction orders were set aside, and the eviction applications were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a non-residential building can be ordered to be vacated for the residential use of the landlord?
  • Does a reconstruction scheme aimed at ousting the tenant and defeating statutory re-entry rights constitute a bona fide requirement?
  • Can a landlord succeed on a ground of eviction not pleaded in the ejectment application?
  • What is the effect of linking an application for demolition and reconstruction with an unproved personal residential need?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia Begum vs Mian Khan Talwala1984 PLD Quetta 99 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Chaghi and 4 Others vs Bachoo1984 PLD Quetta 92 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allah Jiwai vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 129 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-10-22
  post-arrest bailzinaadulterydisputed marriagepolice statementfemale accusedsurety conditions
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was filed by a female applicant facing trial under Sections 10 and 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, while married to the complainant, eloped and cohabited with the co-accused. The applicant contended that she was legally married to the co-accused, disputing the validity of her alleged marriage to the complainant. The High Court observed that the Sessions Judge erred in relying on the applicant's police statement to establish an admission of marriage, as such statements are inadmissible in evidence. The Court held that a claim of living together as husband and wife under a disputed marriage does not constitute an admission of adultery under Section 7 of the Ordinance. Furthermore, as a woman, the applicant's case fell within the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which favors the grant of bail to women in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted bail, subject to the condition that no relation or friend of the co-accused stand as surety.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement made by an accused to the police be relied upon by a court to determine a bail application?
  • Does a claim by an accused woman that she is living with a co-accused as his legally wedded wife amount to an admission of adultery under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • What is the scope of the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the grant of bail to female accused persons?
  • Can a court impose conditions restricting who may stand as surety for a female accused to prevent her exploitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad Hamza vs Election Authority for Baluchistan Local1984 CLC 318 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mir Aimal Khan vs Selection Committee and 2 Others1984 PLD Quetta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mir Abdus Samad Badini vs Political Agent and Returning1984 CLC 564 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
• Malik Abbas Raza vs Government of Baluchistan and 3 Others1984 PLD Quetta 163 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmed vs Muhammad Nawaz Ahmed, Advocate1984 CLC 1067 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
• Khushnood Ahmed vs President, Cantonment Board, Quetta Cantt1984 PLD Quetta 117 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs The Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Baluchistan, Quetta and 2 Others1984 PLD Quetta 113 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hizbullah vs The State1984 MLD 1510 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-07-31Read full judgment →
• Hizbullah vs The State And AnotherPTCL 1984 (CL) 192 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-08-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Seth Wali Muhammad and 4 Others s vs Member III, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, Quetta and 5 Others1984 PLD Quetta 131 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Khan and 4 Others vs Collector, Quetta1984 PLD Quetta 11 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-10-30
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuereference under Section 18administrative inquiryburden of proofpotential value
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal challenged a District Judge's decision regarding compensation for land acquired by the Provincial Government of Baluchistan. The appellants contested the acquisition's validity and the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Collector. The core legal questions concerned the scope of the Court's jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the Collector’s inquiry constitutes a judicial proceeding. The Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 18 is strictly limited to the specific objections regarding compensation or apportionment raised by the interested parties; it does not extend to challenging the legality or validity of the acquisition proceedings themselves. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Collector acts as an administrative agent of the government, not a judicial officer, and is entitled to use external information in determining compensation. The key principles laid down are that claimants in a reference are in the position of plaintiffs and bear the burden of proving the inadequacy of the Collector's award through legal evidence, and that potential land value must be based on concrete evidence rather than speculation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the validity of acquisition proceedings be challenged in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Is the inquiry conducted by a Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a judicial proceeding?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the claimant to demonstrate that the Collector's award of compensation is inadequate?
  • Is the Collector entitled to use information obtained outside the formal inquiry to determine the market value of acquired land?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul MUHAMMADs vs Jaro and 3 Others1984 PLD Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1983-08-26Read full judgment →