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.

• Vasdev vs General Public and Another1979 PLD Quetta 35 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-07
  Letter of administrationTerritorial jurisdictionReturn of plaintCivil procedureMiscellaneous proceedingsSuccession ActLimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order by the Senior Civil Judge, Quetta, dismissing an application for a letter of administration due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a court, upon determining it lacks jurisdiction over such an application, is empowered or obligated to return the application for presentation to the proper forum under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rather than dismissing it. The Court held that the dismissal was improper. It established that by virtue of Section 141, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the procedural rules governing plaints apply to miscellaneous proceedings like applications for letters of administration. Consequently, where a court determines it lacks jurisdiction before adjudicating the matter on its merits, it is legally obligated to return the application for presentation to the competent court. This principle ensures that litigants are not deprived of relief on technical grounds, particularly when a fresh application would be time-barred. The impugned order was set aside, and the application was ordered to be returned to the appellant for presentation to the proper court.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to applications for the grant of a letter of administration?
  • Can a court return an application for presentation to the proper court after determining it lacks jurisdiction, rather than dismissing it?
  • Does Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 make the procedure for plaints applicable to miscellaneous proceedings?
  • Is a court required to return a plaint or application if the lack of jurisdiction is discovered before the case is decided on its merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad and 2 Other/ vs The State and Another1979 PLD Quetta 172 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-04-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Gul Muhammad and Another vs Ulus Killi Nasozai and Anoter1979 PLD Quetta 154 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Essa Noori vs Deputy Commissioner, Turbat and 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 188 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-04-25
  constitutional petitionmilitary courttransfer of criminal casesmartial law orderno evidencedue processspecial tribunalcriminal law special provisions ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the transfer of criminal proceedings from a tribunal under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 to a Military Court, as well as the convictions of certain detainees by a Summary Military Court under Martial Law Regulation 8 and Martial Law Order 2. The core legal questions involved whether a tribunal under the said Ordinance constitutes an ordinary criminal court whose cases are transferable under Martial Law orders, whether proper statutory prerequisites and competent authority mandates were fulfilled for case transfers, and whether convictions rendered without evidence, cross-examination, or opportunity for defense are sustainable. The Balochistan High Court held that a tribunal under the 1968 Ordinance is not an ordinary criminal court under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that case transfers to Military Courts require strict compliance with statutory pre-requisites and competent authority which were lacking, and that convictions based on no evidence and in violation of due process are without lawful authority. The court laid down principles governing the strict interpretation of Martial Law transfer powers and the protection of citizens against arbitrary military trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tribunal constituted under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968 is an ordinary criminal court?
  • Can a case pending before a special tribunal be transferred to a Military Court without fulfilling the pre-requisites prescribed in Martial Law orders?
  • Whether a conviction by a Summary Military Court recorded without affording an opportunity of cross-examination and defense can be sustained in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a trial and conviction by a Military Court on the same facts where others were tried constitute double jeopardy under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad Tariq vs Chief Martial Law Administrator1979 PLD Quetta 213 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Majid vs Member II, Board of Revenue and 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 75 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-10-30Read full judgment →
• Sardar Bahadur Khan vs THR Chief Martial Law Administrator & Chief1979 PLD Quetta 176 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-03-14Read full judgment →
• Raza Muhammad and 5 Other vs Member, Borad of Revenue1979 PLD Quetta 106 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
• Rahat Talkies through Managing Partner--- vs Province of Baluchistan through the Secretary, Excise & Taxation Cum Member. Board of Revenue II, Quetta and 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 198 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
• Quetta Cooperative Store Ltd. vs Province of Baluchistan and 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 60 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
• Province of West Pakistan vs Mst. Hassan Bang and 8 Other1979 PLD Quetta 63 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-04Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mine Owners' Association and 2 Other vs District Magistrate, Quetta and 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 160 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-04-11
  constitutional petitionprice controlstatutory interpretationpublic safetycoal minesdistrict magistrate powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenged a notification issued by the District Magistrate, Quetta, under section 8(2)(b) of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation of 1947, compelling coal companies to open coal depots at specified places and fixing the maximum sale price of coal. The core legal questions involved whether the power to prescribe conditions and fix maximum prices under subsection (2)(b) is dependent upon the fulfillment of the prerequisite information-gathering procedure under subsection (2)(a), and whether price fixation by Martial Law authorities rather than the designated functionary is lawful. The Balochistan High Court held that subsection (2)(a) is a mandatory prerequisite for taking action under subsection (2)(b), and that price fixation by unauthorized Martial Law authorities is unlawful and without legal sanction. The court ruled that failure to observe the statutory prerequisites renders the impugned order illegal and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the power to prescribe conditions and fix maximum prices under subsection (2)(b) of section 8 of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation of 1947 is dependent upon compliance with the prerequisite information-gathering provisions of subsection (2)(a)?
  • Can Martial Law authorities fix maximum prices or exercise powers specifically vested in a designated statutory functionary under the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation of 1947?
  • Whether a constitutional petition becomes infructuous and ceases to be adjudicated on merits solely because the impugned temporary order has expired by efflux of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasar Trading Company and 6 Other vs Provincial Transport1979 PLD Quetta 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-10-09
  constitutional petitiontransport authorityroute permitstime-tableprinciples of natural justicejurisdictionalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated constitutional petitions challenge transport authority orders modifying time-tables for bus routes without providing an opportunity of hearing to affected transporters and in violation of quorum requirements. The core legal questions involve whether the Chairman of the Provincial Transport Authority can unilaterally alter transport policies or time-tables sitting singly, whether principles of natural justice require a hearing prior to such modifications, and whether statutory appeal provisions bar constitutional remedies where orders are wholly without jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that policy decisions and modifications affecting route time-tables outside the specific appealable provisions of section 66 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance must be made by the Provincial Transport Authority as a body meeting the required quorum, rather than by the Chairman acting alone. Furthermore, any administrative or quasi-judicial order adversely affecting a party's rights violates natural justice if passed without notice and hearing. The Court laid down that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 where the impugned order is ab initio void for lack of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chairman of the Provincial Transport Authority exercise original powers singly to alter policy or time-tables without the statutory quorum?
  • Does the failure to afford a hearing to affected transporters render a time-table modification illegal and void?
  • Does the availability of an alternative remedy bar the High Court from granting relief under Article 199 against an order that is wholly without jurisdiction?
  • Whether more than one appeal is envisaged under section 66 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed vs University of Baluchistan through the Controller1979 PLD Quetta 131 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-09-24
  constitutional petitionnatural justiceaudi alteram partemlocus poenitentiaecancellation of resultvested rightsfraud vs irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed to challenge the cancellation of the petitioner's Intermediate (F.Sc.) examination result and subsequent admission to the Bolan Medical College by the University of Baluchistan. The core legal questions involved whether the University could rescind a declared result and certificate after they had been acted upon, and whether the impugned orders violated principles of natural justice by not affording a pre-decisional hearing. A difference of opinion arose among the original bench members regarding the doctrine of locus poenitentiae and whether the petitioner acted fraudulently, leading to a reference to a third judge. The majority held that once the certificate had been acted upon and rights accrued (admission to medical college), the University could not recall it under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, and that the petitioner's omissions constituted a bona fide irregularity rather than actionable fraud. The court laid down that executive and quasi-judicial authorities cannot exercise powers of rescission to the detriment of accrued rights once a decisive stage is reached, and that administrative authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an educational university can cancel an examination result after it has been acted upon and has created consequential rights for the student?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae preclude an authority from withdrawing an order once a decisive stage in its implementation has been reached?
  • Whether the cancellation of an examination result without affording a show-cause notice or personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice?
  • Whether the submission of an examination form containing technical rule violations without deliberate concealment amounts to fraud or a mere irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad, Niaz vs Martial Law Administrator, Zone `D', Quetta and 41979 PLD Quetta 179 · Balochistan High Court
  Martial Law jurisdictionSpecial JudgeCriminal Law Amendment ActGeneralia specialibus non derogantExclusive jurisdictionScheduled offencesConcurrent jurisdictionMilitary Courts
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of a Summary Military Court to try him for scheduled offences under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether a Military Court, established under Martial Law Order No. 4, could assume jurisdiction over offences exclusively triable by a Special Judge under the Act, in the absence of any act of resistance to Martial Law. The Court held that the Military Court lacked jurisdiction. It determined that the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, is a special law with overriding provisions granting exclusive jurisdiction to the Special Judge for scheduled offences. Martial Law Order No. 4, being a general law, does not implicitly repeal or override the Act. The key principle laid down is the application of generalia specialibus non derogant, meaning general legislation cannot override specific legislation without explicit intent. Consequently, ordinary citizens cannot be tried by Military Courts for offences under ordinary laws unless such offences were committed while resisting Martial Law itself. The Court declared the cognizance taken by the Military Court to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Military Court have jurisdiction to try an ordinary citizen for scheduled offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
  • Does the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant apply to the conflict between Martial Law Order No. 4 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
  • Can a Military Court try an ordinary citizen for an offence under ordinary law if the offence was not committed while resisting Martial Law?
  • Does the absence of a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for submitting a challan to a Military Court invalidate the cognizance taken by such a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Bugti vs Chief Secretary, Baluchistan and 3 Other1979 PLD Quetta 233 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-07-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Butt vs Ghulam Raza1979 PLD Quetta 157 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-03-02
  landlord-tenant relationshipeviction proceedingsrent restrictionstatutory noticedefault in payment of rentlocus standitransfer of ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge against the appellant-tenant. The core legal questions were whether the respondent, claiming to be the successor of the deceased original landlord, qualified as a "landlord" under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether eviction proceedings for default were maintainable without serving a notice under Section 13-A. The Court held that the respondent failed to establish his status as a landlord, as the mere collection of rent on behalf of another does not confer the legal entitlement to receive rent. Furthermore, the Court ruled that even if ownership had transferred, the failure to serve a mandatory notice under Section 13-A of the Ordinance precluded the initiation of eviction proceedings on the ground of default. The judgment establishes that the definition of "landlord" requires an independent entitlement to receive rent, not merely the act of collection, and that Section 13-A is a mandatory procedural requirement for new owners to initiate default-based eviction proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere act of collecting rent on behalf of a property owner make a person a 'landlord' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Is a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, a mandatory prerequisite for initiating eviction proceedings based on default?
  • Does the definition of 'landlord' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, require proof of independent entitlement to receive rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rahima vs Abdul Khaliq1979 PLD Quetta 32 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-10-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid vs Haji Abdul Hadi and 4 Other1979 PLD Quetta 39 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-12-14
  relationship of landlord and tenantjurisdiction of rent controllerframing of issuessummary ejectmentstriking off defencedefault of renturban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under section 15 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of 1959 challenged an appellate order confirming the summary ejectment of the appellant from rented premises. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller is bound to frame an issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant when that relationship is disputed before ordering the deposit of rent or striking off a defense. The Balochistan High Court held that the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Rent Controller to entertain or proceed with an ejectment application. The Court ruled that whenever such a relationship is disputed by either party, the Rent Controller must frame a specific issue and determine it upon evidence before issuing provisional rent orders under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, and failure to do so renders subsequent orders void for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh determination in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Rent Controller has jurisdiction to order the deposit of rent without first determining the disputed relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Is it incumbent upon the Rent Controller to frame an issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant when such relationship is contested by the parties?
  • What is the legal effect of orders passed by a Rent Controller without establishing the foundational relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Can a Rent Controller proceed with an ejectment application and strike off a defense when the preliminary question of tenancy remains unadjudicated?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Safia Hameed vs The Chairman, Selection Committee, Medical1979 PLD Quetta 66 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-10-15
  educational admissiondomicilie certificatebona fide residenceselection committeeconstitutional petitionreserved seatspublic document
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was brought by an unsuccessful candidate challenging the refusal of her admission to the Bolan Medical College, Quetta, for the academic session of 1978 against a reserved seat for District Pishin. The Selection Committee refused admission on the ground that the petitioner's father had previously possessed two domicile certificates simultaneously, rendering her bona fide residence doubtful. The core legal question was whether the Selection Committee had the authority to question or cancel a domicile certificate issued by a competent District Magistrate and doubt the applicant's bona fide residence on such grounds. The Balochistan High Court held that the Selection Committee has no power or authority to disturb or cancel a domicile certificate issued by a District Magistrate, which carries the sanctity of a public document and provides presumptive proof of permanent residence. The Court ruled that the refusal of admission was without legal authority and directed the petitioner's admission, laying down that selection bodies cannot look behind valid statutory domicile certificates to determine residency.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Selection Committee have the power or authority to disturb or cancel a domicile certificate issued by a District Magistrate?
  • Does a domicile certificate carry the sanctity of a public document providing presumptive proof of permanent residence?
  • Can an applicant be refused admission to a medical college on the ground of simultaneous possession of previous domicile certificates when one has been validly cancelled?
  • Whether an order refusing admission to a candidate on fallacious and arbitrary grounds is passed without legal authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss S. Mall vs Abdul Razzaq and Another1979 PLD Quetta 90 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
• Masood Ali Khan vs Muhammad Aslam and AnotherPLD 1979 Quetta 84 . · Balochistan High Court · 1978-12-20Read full judgment →
• Khial Akbar vs The State1979 PLD Quetta 96 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-01-19
  post-arrest bailtaking of cognizanceouster of jurisdictionCriminal Law Special Provisions Ordinanceillegal detentionconstitutional safeguardsmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application arose from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Khial Akbar, a Sepoy in the Pishin Scouts accused of murdering a fellow Sepoy under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court's jurisdiction was ousted by the purported taking of cognizance by the Assistant Commissioner under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, whether a valid legal cognizance was established, and whether the prolonged detention without sufficient evidence or compliance with remand provisions justified granting bail. The Balochistan High Court held that the purported cognizance by the Assistant Commissioner was merely a camouflage and a mala fide attempt to oust the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, as referring a case for inquiry or investigation amounts to deferring or declining immediate cognizance. The Court further ruled that prior to valid cognizance under the Ordinance, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply, and prolonged incarceration without incriminating evidence or adherence to constitutional safeguards under Article 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan entitles the accused to bail. The petition was allowed and bail granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order by a Deputy Commissioner referring a case for inquiry or investigation constitutes the valid taking of cognizance under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the taking of cognizance by the Deputy Commissioner under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, bar the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts and the High Court?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to the investigation or inquiry of scheduled offences before the Deputy Commissioner takes formal cognizance?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when continuously detained for months without any incriminating evidence being collected or a challan submitted?
  • Does a Deputy Commissioner have the power to order an investigation into scheduled offences under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, after taking cognizance rather than referring the case to a tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• K. A. Marker,Director, A. D. Marker & Sons, Quetta vs WAPDA through Its Chairman, Lahore1979 PLD Quetta 20 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-10-15Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs Nabi Bakhsh and 11 Other1979 PLD Quetta 14 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Sheikh Meraj-Ud-Din And Another vs Haji Seth Abdul Ghafoor Rishi1979 PLD Quetta 118 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-12-08Read full judgment →
• Haji Kamal Khan vs Muhammad Naeem and 4 Other1979 PLD Quetta 69 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-03
  criminal revisiondischarge of accusedsessions trialcognizance of offencecomplaint caseforgerypreliminary inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Quetta, discharging respondents in a complaint case regarding forgery under sections 465, 466, 469, 471, and 474 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned the correct procedure to be followed by magistrates and sessions courts in handling complaints for offences exclusively triable by a Court of Session following amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the legality of discharging accused persons based on non-production of documents and physical appearance. The Balochistan High Court held that while the complaint should have been initially filed before a magistrate rather than directly in the Court of Session, the procedural defect caused no prejudice and did not vitiate the proceedings. The High Court further held that a court cannot discharge accused persons based on their physical appearance or the non-production of documents allegedly in the possession of the accused. The impugned order of discharge was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge for a fresh hearing.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct procedure for instituting and processing a complaint for an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Does the filing of a complaint directly in the Court of Session instead of before a Magistrate vitiate the trial if no prejudice is caused?
  • Can a court discharge an accused person on the basis of his physical appearance or the non-production of a document allegedly in the possession of the accused?
  • What is the scope and applicability of taking cognizance and holding a preliminary inquiry under sections 190, 193, and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Aurangzeb vs Tae State1979 PLD Quetta 148 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-01-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 3 Other vs The Sate1979 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-21
  bail confirmationCriminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968taking cognizanceouster of jurisdictionprivate complaintpolice investigationscheduled offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for confirmation of bail in a case involving allegations of attempted land occupation and injury. The core legal question was whether a Deputy Commissioner’s order directing an inquiry into a private complaint, filed while a police investigation was already pending, constituted "taking cognizance" under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary courts. The Court held that such an order does not constitute cognizance. It ruled that the private complaint was merely a miscellaneous application and could not independently trigger the Ordinance’s provisions while a police investigation was ongoing. The Court established that "taking cognizance" requires a conscious application of the judicial mind to facts with the intent to initiate proceedings. It further laid down the principle that the Ordinance’s jurisdiction is only triggered upon formal cognizance, typically following the submission of a police challan or equivalent material. Consequently, the Court confirmed the bail, rejecting the argument that the Deputy Commissioner’s order had ousted its jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a private complaint filed during a pending police investigation constitute 'taking cognizance' under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968?
  • At what stage does the jurisdiction of ordinary courts cease in cases triable under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968?
  • Can a Deputy Commissioner use a private complaint to oust the jurisdiction of ordinary courts while a police investigation is already underway?
  • What constitutes 'taking cognizance' of an offence under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Farid vs Allah Wasaya1979 PLD Quetta 156 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-03-15
  original jurisdictioncognizance of offenceSessions Courtcriminal complaintprocedural lawcommittal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the competency of a Sessions Court to take direct cognizance of a case exclusively triable by it upon a direct complaint. The core legal question is whether a Court of Session possesses original jurisdiction to entertain such complaints directly or if it is restricted to cases committed to it by a Magistrate. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that a Court of Session is not a court of original jurisdiction and cannot take direct cognizance of a case. The ratio decidendi establishes that for cases exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, a complaint must first be filed before a Magistrate for the purpose of taking cognizance under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Only after the Magistrate takes cognizance and subsequently sends the case to the Sessions Court can the latter become seized of the matter. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the Sessions Judge, Sibi, and directed the complainant to file the complaint before a Magistrate of competent territorial jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Court of Session competent to take direct cognizance of a case exclusively triable by it on a direct complaint?
  • Does a Court of Session possess original jurisdiction to entertain criminal complaints?
  • What is the correct procedure for a complainant to initiate a case exclusively triable by a Court of Session?
  Read full judgment →
• Durrani vs Muhammad Jan and 2 Other1979 PLD Quetta 17 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-04Read full judgment →
• Baz Muhammad vs Commissioner, Quetta Division, Quetta and Another1979 PLD Quetta 113 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-04-14Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan Kakar vs Province of Baluchistan1979 PLD Quetta 168 · Balochistan High Court · 1979-04-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghazi and 2 Other Accused/S1978 PLD Quetta 191 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-07-02Read full judgment →
• The Quetta Co-Operative Store Ltd., Quetta vs Province of Baluchistan through the Secrfstary, Agriculture and 2 Other1978 PLD Quetta 174 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-24Read full judgment →
• The Commerce Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Habib Bakhsh and Another S1978 PLD Quetta 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-09-23
  civil appealplaint signaturelimitation periodimplied agencyratification of contractadmissibility of judgmentsprocedural defectlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges a decree for the recovery of rent passed by the District Judge, Quetta. The core legal questions were whether a plaint not signed by one of the joint plaintiffs at the time of presentation is valid from the date of filing, whether previous inter-parties judgments in rent proceedings are admissible in evidence, and whether the appellant-Bank is liable for a lease agreement entered into by an official whose authority was disputed. The Court held that procedural defects like the omission of a signature on a plaint are curable and do not affect the original date of filing. It further held that while inter-parties judgments are not conclusive, they are admissible to prove admissions or the nature of prior pleadings. Finally, the Court found that the Bank’s subsequent conduct and negotiations constituted implied ratification of the agent's actions. The principle laid down is that procedural rules regarding pleadings should be liberally construed to advance substantive justice, and an agent's authority can be implied through the principal's conduct and failure to disown the agent's actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the subsequent signing of a plaint by a plaintiff cure the defect of an unsigned plaint filed earlier?
  • Can inter-parties judgments from previous litigation be admitted in evidence in a subsequent suit?
  • Does a principal's failure to disown an agent's actions during negotiations constitute implied ratification of the agent's authority?
  • Should procedural rules regarding the signing and verification of plaints be construed strictly or liberally?
  Read full judgment →
• Tauheed-UN-Nisa vs Chief Settlementcommissioner, Baluchistan and AnotherPLD 1978 Quetta74 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Yakub Shah- vs The State1978 PLD Quetta 158 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-11-07
  bail bond forfeituresurety liabilityshow-cause noticecriminal procedurepenal provision interpretationmagistrate powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This Revision Application challenges a Magistrate's order forfeiting a bail bond and directing the surety to pay the penalty without first issuing a show-cause notice. The core legal question is whether, under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a Court can order a surety to pay the penalty immediately upon bond forfeiture, or if it must first provide the surety an opportunity to either pay or show cause against the forfeiture. The Court held that the Magistrate erred by failing to issue the requisite notice. The ratio is that before a Court can enforce the payment of a penalty or proceed to attachment, it must provide the surety with a notice offering the alternative to either pay the penalty or show cause against it. The Court emphasized that while bond forfeiture may occur upon an accused's default, the imposition of a penalty requires the Court to be satisfied that the default was not justified, a determination that necessitates an inquiry following a show-cause notice to the surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to order a surety to pay a forfeited bond amount without first issuing a notice to show cause?
  • Must a Court provide a surety the alternative to either pay the penalty or show cause against the forfeiture of a bond?
  • Is the satisfaction of a Court regarding the lack of sufficient cause for a default a prerequisite for ordering the attachment of a surety's property?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Umaid Ali Shah vs The State and Another1978 PLD Quetta 185 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-21Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Saeed vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 716 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-07-29Read full judgment →
• Shau Kat Saeed vs The State1978 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-07-29
  judicial confessionadmissibility of confessionpolice custodydelay in recording confessionvoluntariness of confessioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before a Full Bench of the Balochistan High Court to resolve a legal uncertainty regarding the admissibility of judicial confessions recorded after a delay of 24 hours. The core question was whether a delay exceeding 24 hours in recording a judicial confession is fatal, rendering the confession automatically inadmissible. The Court answered the question in the negative. It held that there is no inflexible rule of law mandating the rejection of a confession solely because it was recorded more than 24 hours after the accused's arrest. The Court established that while prolonged police custody may cast suspicion on a confession, the admissibility of such a statement depends on the surrounding facts and circumstances rather than a rigid time limit. The Court emphasized that judicial scrutiny must focus on whether the confession was voluntary and free from inducement, threat, or promise, rather than applying a mechanical rule based on the duration of detention. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judicial confession automatically inadmissible if it is recorded more than 24 hours after the arrest of the accused?
  • Does the mere fact of an accused remaining in police custody for a period exceeding 24 hours render a subsequent judicial confession involuntary?
  • What is the legal effect of a delay in recording a judicial confession on its admissibility in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Seth Pehlaj Rai vs Member, Board of Revenue (III) Baluchistan and 51978 PLD Quetta 146 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
• Saeed Muhammad Khan vs University of Baluchistan and 4 Others1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 55 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
• Rasul Bux vs Mst. Gul Bibi and Another1978 PLD Quetta 162 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-06-13Read full judgment →
• Qamaruddin vs Province of Baluchistan1978 PLC [C. S. TA 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-25Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh Nausherwani vs Government of Baluchistan through Chief Secretary1978 PLC IC. S. T.] 80 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Province of Baluchistan1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 38 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar and 3 Other vs Munshi Yar Muhammad1978 PLD Quetta 107 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhry vs Province of Baluchistan through Secretary, Food Department, Government of Baluchistan, Quetta1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 88 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasim Usmani vs Chief Secretary, Goverment of Baluchistan and 2 Others1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 35 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Mehdi vs Dr. Habibur Rehman and 2 Other1978 PLD Quetta 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-09-26
  pending proceedingsrevisional jurisdictionadministrative powersevacuee propertyjudicial functionscompetent authoritystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, which treated a respondent's application as a "pending proceeding" under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether an application filed on the administrative side before an authority lacking revisional jurisdiction constitutes a "pending proceeding" capable of being transferred for final disposal under the Repealing Act. The Court held that the application did not constitute a pending proceeding. It reasoned that the Chief Settlement Commissioner lacked revisional powers at the time the application was filed, and administrative powers under Section 9(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, could not be used to initiate or adjudicate judicial matters. The Court established the principle that "pending proceedings" saved by the Repealing Act must refer to proceedings that were competently initiated and pending before an authority with the legal jurisdiction to grant the relief sought at the time of filing; an application filed before an incompetent authority cannot be treated as a pending proceeding.

  Questions settled

  • Does an application filed before an authority lacking revisional jurisdiction constitute a 'pending proceeding' under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  • Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner exercise judicial powers under the administrative authority granted by Section 9(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • What is the legal requirement for a proceeding to be considered 'pending' for the purposes of transfer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Secretary, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan and 51978 PLC [C. S. T.] 41 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Daud vs The State and Another1978 PLD Quetta 187 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-06-28
  territorial jurisdictioncriminal trialsuo motu powersscheduled offencesCriminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinanceconclusion of trialreference to Deputy Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the orders of an Additional Sessions Judge who, during a dacoity trial, suo motu questioned his territorial jurisdiction and subsequently referred the case to the Deputy Commissioner under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. The petitioner contended that the court could not raise the jurisdiction issue suo motu and that, as the trial had effectively concluded with the closing of evidence, the court lacked the authority to make such a reference. The High Court held that a court has a primary, independent duty to ensure it possesses jurisdiction before proceeding, and it may raise this issue suo motu at any stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a trial does not terminate until the pronouncement of judgment; therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge retained the authority to refer the case. The Court established the principle that a trial conducted without jurisdiction is legally void, and the statutory power to refer a case to the Deputy Commissioner remains exercisable until the final judgment is rendered.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court suo motu raise the question of its own jurisdiction to try an offence?
  • Does a criminal trial conclude before the pronouncement of judgment?
  • Can a court refer a case to the Deputy Commissioner under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, after the evidence has been closed but before judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Jaffar vs Government of Baluchistan1978 PLC (C. S. T.) 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tauheed-UN-Nisa vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, Baluchistan1978 PLD Quetta 103 · Balochistan High Court
  contempt of courtunconditional apologyviolation of superior court ordersquasi-judicial authoritysettlement commissionermitigating circumstance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves contempt proceedings initiated under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act against Captain Saleh Mohammad Khan, the then Member, Board of Revenue and Chief Settlement Commissioner, Baluchistan, for flagrantly ignoring and violating the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court regarding the transfer of property. The core legal question was whether a contemner can claim the discharge of a contempt notice as a matter of right upon tendering an unconditional apology, and whether such an apology completely purges the contempt. The court held that an unconditional apology does not entitle a contemner to a discharge as a matter of right and merely serves as a mitigating circumstance, and that the respondent was guilty of deliberate contempt of court. The key principles laid down are that superior court orders must be strictly obeyed by inferior and quasi-judicial authorities, that the acceptance of an apology is at the discretion of the court depending on its sincerity and the gravity of the offense, and that deliberate defiance of judicial verdicts by public functionaries warrants penal consequences.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unconditional apology entitle a contemner to a discharge from contempt proceedings as a matter of right?
  • Can the disobedience of a superior court's judgment by a quasi-judicial functionary constitute contempt of court?
  • Is an apology considered a complete purging of contempt or merely a mitigating circumstance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Munira Bibi and 7 Other vs Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan1978 PLD Quetta 121 · Balochistan High Court
  evacuee propertynon-evacuee certificateconstitutional petitionmortgage redemptionsettlement authoritiesjurisdictionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan acting as Chief Settlement Commissioner, which reopened a long-standing property dispute and declared a residential house in Quetta to be evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the authorities could treat a property as evacuee after the statutory cut-off date of 1st January 1957, when it had previously been declared non-evacuee and no proceedings were pending. The Balochistan High Court held that under Section 3 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957, no person or property not treated as evacuee immediately before 1st January 1957 could be treated as such thereafter, save for pending proceedings or unauthorized occupations. The court ruled that the impugned orders declaring the property as evacuee were passed without lawful authority, coram non judice, and void ab initio. The key principle laid down is that the statutory bar against treating properties as evacuee after 1st January 1957 is absolute unless saved by active pending proceedings or unauthorized possession as contemplated by the statute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a property not treated as evacuee immediately before the 1st day of January 1957 can be declared as evacuee property thereafter?
  • Does a Deputy Custodian possess inherent jurisdiction to recall a final non-evacuee order suo motu beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
  • Whether an order passed by a special tribunal without jurisdiction is void and non-existent in the eyes of the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid vs Haji Abdul Hadi and 4 Other1978 PLD Quetta 68 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gul Bibi- vs Muhammad Saleem and Another1978 PLD Quetta 117 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
• Miss Saleema Hamid Ali vs Province of Baluchistan through the Secretary, Education1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 84 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Miss Nasreen Fatima Awan, Miss Naila Rashid ,Miss Rukhsana Malik vs _f9d2c2981978 PLD Quetta 17 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-08-23
  medical college admissionrural quotadomicile certificatepermanent residence certificateCouncil of Common Interestsadministrative tribunaljudicial reviewnatural justiceaudi alteram partem
  Summary & questions settled

  Four constitutional petitions were heard together before the High Court of Balochistan concerning admissions to Bolan Medical College, Quetta, under the quota allocated for rural areas of Quetta District for the 1977–78 academic session. The core legal issues centered on the evidentiary value of domicile and residence certificates, the scope of judicial review under Article 199 over administrative selection tribunals, the validity of policy resolutions issued by the Council of Common Interests on provincial educational matters, and the adherence to natural justice in modifying residential statuses. The High Court held that a domicile certificate issued under statutory inquiry provides strong presumptive proof of permanent residence and cannot be arbitrarily disregarded by administrative committees. It further ruled that the High Court retains authority to intervene where administrative bodies act arbitrarily, misread, or ignore material evidence. Moreover, any adverse alteration of a person's residential certificate requires notice and a fair hearing. Consequently, Petition No. 77 of 1977 succeeded, while the remaining three petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a domicile certificate issued under Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 constitute presumptive evidence of a candidate's permanent residence for admission purposes?
  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution interfere with factual determinations of an administrative selection committee if the decision is arbitrary or overlooks material evidence?
  • Does the Council of Common Interests possess constitutional authority under Article 154(1) of the Constitution to regulate admission policies for provincial professional colleges?
  • Can a statutory authority cancel or adversely amend a candidate's residence certificate without providing a prior show-cause notice and hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Gul Hassan and 2 Other vs Malik Haji Ismatullah and 6 Other1978 PLD Quetta 164 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-06-16Read full judgment →
• Khudiadad vs Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Zone `D', Baluchistan1978 PLD Quetta 177 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-09
  Martial Law Order No. 4Military Courtslaw of necessityjudicial reviewconstitutional petitionLaws (Continuance in Force) Orderjurisdiction of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This full bench judgment of the Balochistan High Court addressed constitutional petitions challenging the validity of Martial Law Order No. 4 of 1977, which established Special and Summary Military Courts. The core legal questions concerned whether Martial Law Order No. 4 was a valid piece of legislation under the extra-constitutional regime and the extent of the High Court's jurisdiction to review orders of Military Courts. The Court held that Martial Law Order No. 4 is a valid piece of legislation and that the Chief Martial Law Administrator possesses both executive and legislative authority, including the power to amend the Constitution or enact sub-constitutional legislation under the law of necessity as recognized in Begum Nusrat Bhutto's case. Furthermore, the High Court held that while Military Courts are not inferior tribunals subject to appellate or revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can grant relief and correct findings in cases where there is non-compliance with or misapplication of mandatory provisions of Martial Law Orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Martial Law Order No. 4 is a valid piece of legislation?
  • What is the extent and the nature of jurisdiction that a High Court can exercise while dealing with constitutional petitions challenging orders, findings, and judgments of Military Courts?
  • Does the Chief Martial Law Administrator possess the power to promulgate Martial Law Orders of a sub-constitutional nature?
  • Whether the establishment of Military Courts is in conflict with the supremacy of the 1973 Constitution as declared by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Jia Ram vs Smt. Kundana Wanti and 4 Other1978 PLD Quetta 91 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-04-04
  succession certificateprincipal civil courtjudicial powerconcurrent jurisdictionKalat DivisionDastur-ul-Amal Diwani KalatWest Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for a succession certificate filed directly in the High Court for the Kalat Division, where the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, was not enforced. The core legal questions were whether the Deputy Commissioner under the Dastur-ul-Amal Diwani Kalat constitutes a "principal civil court of original jurisdiction" and whether the High Court possesses concurrent jurisdiction to grant succession certificates under the Succession Act, 1925, in the absence of a District Judge. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner, lacking the essential judicial power to render binding and definitive judgments, does not qualify as a "Court." Consequently, no principal civil court of original jurisdiction exists in the former Kalat Division. However, the Court ruled that it possesses concurrent jurisdiction under Section 300 of the Succession Act, 1925. It established that the phrase "all the powers" in Section 300 encompasses the entire Act, not merely Part IX. Invoking the principle ubi jus ibi remedium, the Court affirmed that it must provide a remedy where a statutory right to a succession certificate exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Deputy Commissioner under the Dastur-ul-Amal Diwani Kalat constitute a 'Court' of original civil jurisdiction?
  • Does the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to grant a succession certificate under the Succession Act, 1925, in areas where no District Judge is appointed?
  • Does the phrase 'all the powers' in Section 300 of the Succession Act, 1925, restrict the High Court's concurrent jurisdiction to matters under Part IX of the Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Bashi R vs Special High Powered Committee through Secre1978 PLD Quetta 131 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-04-11
  medical college admissionjudicial reviewdiscretionary powerarbitrary actionlocus standiconstitutional petitionprospectus rules
  Summary & questions settled

  These two consolidated constitutional petitions related to the refusal of admission to the petitioners, Imtiaz Bashir and Miss Farida Naz, in the first-year MBBS course at Bolan Medical College, Quetta, for the 1977 academic session, despite their high merit rankings. Ten additional seats were created by the Federal Government at the request of the Chief Secretary of Baluchistan for first divisioners and hardship cases, with selection left to the discretion of the Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'D', Baluchistan, who constituted a Special Committee. The Committee rejected the petitioners on the ground that they had sought alternative admission in a Bachelor of Dental Surgery course, while granting admissions to respondents who allegedly lacked proper domicile or were otherwise less meritorious. The core legal questions involved the scope of judicial review over executive and administrative actions under Martial Law, the justiciability of discretionary allocations, and the binding nature of the college prospectus rules. The Balochistan High Court held that the superior courts possess the power of judicial review to scrutinize arbitrary and discriminatory administrative decisions, that discretionary powers must be exercised judiciously in accordance with the established rules and prospectus, and that the rejection of the petitioners on fallacious grounds while favoring ineligible candidates was an abuse of jurisdiction. The court directed that the petitioners be admitted to the ensuing academic session.

  Questions settled

  • Whether superior courts have the jurisdiction to review administrative decisions and discretionary acts of the Martial Law authorities under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does an applicant who has secured an alternative admission in another course lose their preferential right to admission on merit against additional seats?
  • Whether the selection committee or authorities are bound by the rules laid down in the college prospectus when allocating additional seats created for hardship cases and first divisioners?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikram-Ul-Haque vs Province of Baluchistan and 2 Others1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 44 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-09-28Read full judgment →
• Hassan Khan vs Hazoor Bakhsh and 2 Other1978 PLD Quetta 52 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-04Read full judgment →
• Hasan Khan vs Hazoor Bakhsh and 2 Other1978 PLD Quetta 4 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Wali Muhammad and Another vs The State and Another1978 PLD Quetta 114 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-12
  revision petitiondischarge of accusedrevisional jurisdictionappreciation of evidenceadditional evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition is directed against an order of the District Magistrate setting aside an order of discharge passed by a Magistrate in favor of the petitioners. The core legal question revolves around whether the District Magistrate was justified in setting aside the discharge order under revisional jurisdiction when the trial court had afforded adequate opportunities to the prosecution to produce evidence and material witnesses had failed to support the case. The Balochistan High Court held that revisional jurisdiction against an order of discharge is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, specifically where the discharge order is perverse, involves misreading of evidence, or causes a miscarriage of justice. The Court ruled that the trial Magistrate was fully justified in discharging the accused after material witnesses did not support the prosecution and the complainant failed to adduce additional evidence despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the High Court set aside the District Magistrate's order and restored the order of discharge passed by the trial court, laying down that an order of discharge should not be disturbed merely on the probability that further evidence might emerge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether revisional jurisdiction can be invoked to set aside an order of discharge when the trial court's order is neither perverse nor suffers from misreading of evidence?
  • Can an order of discharge be interfered with simply on the ground that further evidence might possibly be produced if the case is remanded?
  • Is a Magistrate justified in discharging an accused under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when material prosecution witnesses fail to support the complaint and the complainant repeatedly fails to adduce additional evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Baqi and Another vs Muzaffar Ali Khan and AnotherPL D 1978 Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-07Read full judgment →
• Government of Baluchistan and Other vs Mir Qadir Bakhsh & Sons1978 PLD Quetta 215 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
• Government of Baluchistan and 4 Other vs Mir Qadir Bakhsh & Sons1978 PLD Quetta 204 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Member, Board of Revenue 11, Baluchistan Ante 41978 PLD Quetta 34 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Government of Baluchistan and 2 Other1978 PLD Quetta 40 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-06-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mujtaba Khan vs Martial Law Administratoe Zone ' D', Quetta1978 PLD Quetta 199 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• DR. Salahuddin and 3 Other vs Revenue Commissioner, Baluchistan and 2 Other1978 PLD Quetta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-16
  criminal cognizancejurisdictionspecial lawprocedural lawretrospective operationconstitutional petitionCriminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order of cognizance passed by an Assistant Commissioner-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968. The core legal question was whether the Assistant Commissioner could validly take cognizance of an offence under the Ordinance when the Ordinance was not in force in the relevant area on the date of cognizance, despite being in force on the date of the alleged offence. The Court held that the order of cognizance was illegal and without jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that the relevant date for determining the applicable law and the competent forum for a criminal case is the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence, not the date of the offence's commission. Furthermore, the Court established that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a tribunal by the mere submission of parties to its authority, nor can subsequent re-enactment of a law cure an initial lack of jurisdiction retrospectively unless explicitly provided by the legislature. The proceedings were directed to continue under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is the date of the commission of an offence or the date of taking cognizance the relevant factor for determining the applicable law and forum?
  • Can parties confer jurisdiction upon a court or tribunal by submitting to its authority when the law does not otherwise grant such jurisdiction?
  • Does the subsequent re-enforcement of a law retrospectively validate an order of cognizance passed during a period when the law was not in force?
  • Can an order passed without jurisdiction be challenged through a writ petition despite the passage of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Dewana vs Shah Muhammad and 3 Other1978 PLD Quetta 12 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-10-26Read full judgment →
• Chakar Khan vs Mir Gaza Khan1978 PLD Quetta 88 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Sher Lodhi vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police and 21978 PLC [C. S. T.] 79 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ba Z Muhammad and Another vs Malik Abdul Haque and Anothers1978 P Cr. L J 482 · Balochistan High Court · 1975-07-02Read full judgment →
• Asim Iqbal vs And 3 Other1978 PLD Quetta 97 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-04-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Muhammad Shaft and Another1978 PLD Quetta 66 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-12-18
  revision petitionpublic nuisanceobstruction of public wayconditional ordermandatory procedureremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under sections 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code was directed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner and Magistrate First Class, Pishin, whereby the petitioner was ordered to remove an alleged obstruction on a public way and flood water channel. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate could pass an absolute order under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code without first passing a conditional order, recording evidence, and following the mandatory procedure prescribed under sections 133 to 139-A of the Code. The Balochistan High Court held that the Magistrate flagrantly violated the mandatory provisions of sections 133 to 139-A of the Criminal Procedure Code by failing to pass a conditional order or follow the prescribed procedure. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Magistrate for re-trial in strict compliance with the statutory provisions, while also deprecating the practice of directly approaching the High Court in revision without first seeking remedy from the Sessions Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate can pass an absolute order under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code without first passing a conditional order?
  • Is it mandatory for a Magistrate to follow the procedure laid down under sections 133 to 139-A of the Criminal Procedure Code in public nuisance proceedings?
  • Does a direct revision petition to the High Court, once admitted, warrant a decision on merits despite the availability of an alternate forum in the Sessions Court?
  • Can an absolute order passed in violation of mandatory procedural provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code be sustained on the basis of admissions in a written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Baluch vs Province of Baluchistan1978 PLC [C. S. T.] 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Anwar vs Government of Baluchistan through Secretary, Department of Food, Quetta and Another- Respondents1977 PLD Quetta 17 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-26Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad/ vs Ghulam Rasool1977 PLD Quetta 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-05-23Read full judgment →
• Shah Baz Khan vs Government of Baluchistan through Secretary, Department of Education, Quetta and 5 others1977 PLD Quetta 22 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-19
  domicile certificatecancellation of domicileconstitutional petitioneducational admissiondistrict quotadue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenges the orders of the District Magistrate, Sibi and the Department of Education, Baluchistan, which cancelled the petitioner's domicile certificate and subsequently rejected his nomination for admission to the First Year Engineering Class at the University of Peshawar. The core legal question concerns the statutory procedure and lawful authority required for cancelling a domicile certificate once issued. The Balochistan High Court held that the District Magistrate acted without lawful authority by cancelling the domicile certificate in hot haste and without adhering to the mandatory statutory inquiry procedure outlined under the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952. The Court laid down that a domicile certificate cannot be suspended or cancelled arbitrarily or without following the due process and formal investigation mechanisms prescribed by law. The petition was accepted, declaring the impugned cancellation orders illegal, while leaving it open for the authorities to conduct a lawful inquiry if advised.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a District Magistrate can cancel a domicile certificate once issued without following the procedure laid down under the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952?
  • Does the cancellation of a domicile certificate without proper inquiry render the consequent administrative actions void and without lawful authority?
  • What is the prescribed statutory procedure for investigating a domicile certificate alleged to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Qahir Khan vs Haji Hafeezullah1977 PLD Quetta 75 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
• Pak Industrial & Mining Syndicate Ltd., Quetta and Other vs Iqbal1977 PLC 593 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-06-28Read full judgment →
• Pak Industrial & Mining Sy Ndicate Ltd., Queeta and Others vs Iqbal1977 PLD Quetta 45 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• New National Mining Corporation vs Government of Baluchistan1977 PLD Quetta 15 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-29Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan Badar Din vs The State1977 PLD Quetta 7 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jan Ghaznavi vs Captain Haji Muhammad Kabir and 31977 PLD Quetta 60 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-07
  transfer of propertyostensible ownerbona fide purchasermutation entryreasonable careforged power of attorneytitle
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal and connected cross-objections arise out of a civil suit concerning a disputed property transaction involving a forged power of attorney. The core legal question centered on whether subsequent purchasers of the property were entitled to the protection afforded to bona fide transferees from an ostensible owner under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, and whether mere reliance on revenue mutation entries constituted reasonable care. The Balochistan High Court held that the initial purchaser could not claim protection because no valid power of attorney or payment of consideration was proved, rendering his purchase mala fide. Furthermore, subsequent purchasers relying solely on mutation entries—which do not create title or carry a presumption of truth—failed to exercise reasonable care as required by law. The court laid down the principle that mutation entries in revenue records have merely evidentiary value and do not confer proprietary title, and a purchaser who relies solely upon them without investigating the underlying title does so at his own risk and cannot claim the benefit of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a purchaser who relies solely on revenue mutation entries without investigating the underlying title can be considered to have acted with reasonable care under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act?
  • Do entries in a register of mutations create or extinguish proprietary title or carry a presumption of truth under the Land Revenue Act?
  • Whether a person claiming the protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act as a transferee from an ostensible owner bears the burden of pleading and proving the elements of the section?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and 4 Others vs Mr Muhammad Murad and Another1977 PLD Quetta 84 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and 3 Others vs Mir Muhammad Murad Ahd1977 PLD Quetta 30 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-05-06Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Muhammad Murad vs Jangi Khan and Ammer1977 PLD Quetta 79 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-05-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Sultan Muhammad vs Haji Taj Muhammad and 4 others1977 PLD Quetta 39 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-06-19Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Syed Habibullah and Others vs The Municipal Committee, Quetta1977 PLD Quetta 71 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-06-16
  Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960recovery of arrearsland revenuelease moneycontractual liabilitysummary procedurecivil suitmunicipal property
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns the recovery of outstanding lease money by the Municipal Committee, Quetta, from a contractor. The core legal question was whether unpaid lease money for municipal property qualifies as "moneys claimable by a Municipal Committee under the Ordinance," thereby permitting recovery as arrears of land revenue under Section 38(2) of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960. The Court held that lease money does not fall within the scope of Section 38(2), as it is a debt arising from a private contract rather than a statutory due. The Court established the principle that the summary recovery procedure provided by Section 38(2) is limited to specific statutory dues such as taxes, rates, tolls, and fees. Consequently, the Municipal Committee cannot invoke this summary mechanism to recover contractual lease arrears; such disputes must be adjudicated through a regular civil suit. The appeal was allowed, and the injunction against the recovery proceedings was granted, affirming that contractual liabilities are outside the purview of the summary recovery provisions of the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does unpaid lease money for municipal property constitute 'moneys claimable' under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960?
  • Can a Municipal Committee recover contractual lease arrears as arrears of land revenue under Section 38(2) of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960?
  • Is the summary procedure for recovery under Section 38 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, applicable to debts arising from private contracts?
  Read full judgment →
• Begum Saeeda Afzal vs The Government of Baluchistan through the Cenf Secretary, Government of BALUCmISTAN, Quetta and Anotner1977 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State1977 PLD Quetta 32 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs The State1977 PLD Quetta 56 · Balochistan High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
• J Muhammad Hashim Khan and Other vs Province of Baluchistan and Other1976 PLD Quetta 59 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-06-18
  service tribunalexclusive jurisdictionabatement of proceedingsterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional petitioncivil servantArticle 212
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, all civil servants, filed various constitutional petitions challenging departmental orders regarding their dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement, transfer, and seniority. The Provincial Government raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of these petitions, citing the establishment of the Services Tribunal under the Baluchistan Services Tribunal Act, 1974, and the subsequent extension of Article 212(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to said Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the High Court retained jurisdiction over these service matters or if such jurisdiction was exclusively vested in the Services Tribunal, causing the pending petitions to abate. The Court held that the cumulative effect of the Baluchistan Services Tribunal Act, 1974, and Article 212 of the Constitution is to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Services Tribunal for all matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, including disciplinary actions. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitions had abated under Section 6 of the Act and dismissed them, affirming that the Tribunal possesses the authority to adjudicate on issues of mala fides and the vires of laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 require that a Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over every single matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Does the Services Tribunal have the jurisdiction to examine whether a law is void due to conflict with Fundamental Rights or if a departmental order is mala fide?
  • What is the effect of the Provincial Services Tribunal (Extension of the Provisions of the Constitution) (Amendment) Act, 1976, on pending proceedings in the High Court regarding service matters?
  • Does the subsequent disability of a member of a Service Tribunal render the Tribunal itself non-existent?
  Read full judgment →