The end product of a trial, in a court of law, is the judgment. It is the only allowed interaction of a judge with people. There are certain characteristics of a good judgment. The procedural law (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898) provides under its section 367what a good judgment should entail,but it does not provide what a good judgment should not have. So whether the Musharraf case verdict is despicable or laudable, the august superior court will decide that. True, there is no clear-cut rule of writing a judgement,yet what a good judgment should have and should not have is an open question that needs to be answered. Before analysing the requirements of a good judgment its definition and explanation must be clear. A judgement can be defined as a ground for a decision. It is the decision of a court resolving a dispute between two parties, and on the criminal side, it is the determination of guilt. In simple words, it is the application of law upon the conclusion of facts. It is based upon the points for determinations, decision and the reasoning behind it. Foremost, a good judgment stands on three main pillars: points for determination, decision, and reasons for the decision. In simple parlance, these are the charge of crime against the accused, the adjudication of the charge (trial resulted in conviction or acquittal), and the reasons for its decision. Furthermore, a good judgment must comprehensively analyse all relevant facts, should depict clear thinking, and be well written. It should be self-contained, unambiguous, and conveniently intelligible. It should be transparent like clean water so that people can understand it without any doubt and probabilities. Lastly, it should be brief. Transparency is sin qua non for a judgment because it supports building of public confidence on which stands the entire judicial structure A good judgment should be based on evidence on record. No external material or any extraneous circumstances can be considered in writing a judgment of a particular case. It should discuss the evidence, reasons, arguments and materials from both sides. A trial court is not required to discuss and research the law, as it is a court more of facts than law. It deals with facts, and therefore, its judgment too must not leave any important fact and introduce any extraneous one. The trial court’s judgment is an answer to the question of fact and not of law. It is the job of the superior courts to expound the law.It should be plain and easily understandable. If the judgment is in the English language, the use of oriental words should be avoided. Poetic allusions should also be avoided. Now what a judgment should not have. As it is said, “Brevity is the soul of wit”, so a judgement should not be too long. Sinceit is the quality and not the quantity that produces a good judgment, it should not leave any important fact; however, it should not be unduly long, repetitive and unbridled. Generally, judges do not have to worry about the interest of the readers, but they should. Usually, judges in our country have an inclination for tracing the history of a case or a subject. History cannot be part of a good judgment; a good judgment is a concise judgment. It is a requirement that the tone and attitude of a judge should not be depicted through a judgment. Any criticism, if it is necessary, should be in a dignified manner. No personal remarks should be made. It should not contain any adverse remarks against the past or present conduct of apublic servant;otherwise, the entire judicial system would also become open to criticism. There should not be left any chance of even a slight feeling of biasedness. Each party must have full trust in the presiding judge. Transparency is sin qua non for a judgment because it supports building of public confidence on whichstands the entire judicial structure.It is not the satisfaction of a judge but the satisfaction of the parties in a case that is the hallmark of the test of presence or absence of biasedness. In addition, it should be at the end of the trial. Unless a party is satisfied that it has been heard and completely granted an opportunity to present its case, the rule of prudence is that it should be postponedso that there is not any agitation regarding a hearing. It should not contain any unnecessary details, arguments and materials, either in or out of court. In a nutshell, a good judgment needs to have reasoning, clarity, precision, brevity, sobriety, impartiality, complete hearing, evidence, precedents and arguments of both sides. What it shoud not have: prolixity, verbosity, poetic expressions, frivolity, complex sentences, personal feelings of the judge, and adverse, derogatory and disparaging remarks. Whether the verdict in the General Musharraf’s case is a good judgment or not, the decision is yours. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: “There are three categories of judges; two will go to hellfire, whilst the third one will enter paradise. A judge who knows the truth and passes judgment accordingly will enter paradise. A judge who knows the truth but perverts the course of justice will go the hell. And a judge who knows the truth and passed judgement based on ignorance shall go to hell.” The writer is an advocate of the high court and a teacher of law