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. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Muhammad Nadeem vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1297 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-28
  murder during robberyidentification paradeprompt FIRballistic matchcapital punishmentreassessment of evidencestreet crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased during a robbery and sentencing him to death, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution proved the appellant's identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in the absence of a formal identification parade and given challenges regarding eye-witness testimonies and recoveries. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and answered the confirmation reference in the affirmative, holding that prompt lodging of the FIR, reliable and confidence-inspiring eye-witness testimonies, the lack of necessity for an identification parade under the specific circumstances, corroborative medical evidence, positive forensic ballistics matching the recovered weapon with crime-scene empties, and the recovery of the victim's CNIC from the appellant conclusively established his guilt. The court laid down that a formal identification parade is not mandatory where eye-witnesses have sufficient opportunity to observe the accused in daylight, harbor no prior enmity, and identify the accused within a short duration post-incident.

  Questions settled

  • Is an identification parade mandatory when an unknown accused is identified by eye-witnesses shortly after the commission of the offense?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained primarily on the testimony of related eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence and forensic ballistic reports?
  • Whether delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution case when adequately explained by attending circumstances?
  • Does the recovery of the victim's belongings and a matching firearm from the accused upon arrest serve as conclusive corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munawar Arain and others vs National Accountability Bureau2023 MLD 400 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malook & another vs Mst. Mehnaz Gul & others2023 SHC 960, 2025 PLD Sindh 25 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Karim-Ud-Din Qureshi through legal heirs and others vs Deputy Commissioner District East, Karachi and 3 others2023 YLR 740 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jibran Nasir & others, Arif Hasan & others, Syed Zafar Ali Shah2023 SHC 451, 2023 PLD Sindh 440 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-27
  police autonomyindependence of commandfundamental rights enforcementGhaidan approachstatutory interpretationpolice postings and transferspolitical interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the vires of the Police Order 2002, as amended by the Sindh (Repeal of the Police Act, 1861 and Revival of Police Order, 2002) (Amendment) Act, 2019. The core legal question was whether the amended Police Order violates the principles of "autonomy of command" and "independence of operations" of the police force, which are essential for safeguarding fundamental rights as previously established in Karamat Ali v. Federation of Pakistan. The Court held that the police force requires institutional autonomy to function effectively and protect fundamental rights. Applying the "Ghaidan approach" to statutory interpretation, the Court struck down the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Police Order 2002, which allowed the Chief Minister to override the Inspector General of Police in postings. Furthermore, the Court read down "approval" to "consultation" in Sections 15(3) and 21, and mandated meaningful consultation with the Inspector General of Police regarding Sections 7 and 14. The key principle laid down is that police independence from political interference is a constitutional necessity for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Police Order 2002, as amended, violate the principle of autonomy of command and independence of operations of the police force?
  • Can the High Court interpret statutory provisions using the Ghaidan approach to ensure the enforcement of fundamental rights?
  • Is the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Police Order 2002, which allows the Chief Minister to override the Inspector General of Police in postings, unconstitutional?
  • Does the requirement for 'approval' in police administrative matters under the Police Order 2002 imply a mandatory consultation with the Inspector General of Police?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jan vs Mst. Faiza & others2023 SHC 216 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan S/o Mushtaq Ahmed vs The State2023 SHC 526 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State2023 SHC 417 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-20
  narcotics possessionbenefit of doubtchemical report delayfalse implicationwhistleblowercriminal appealControl of Narcotics Substance Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence handed down by the Special Judge CNS, Jamshoro, for offences under the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the alleged recovery of narcotics and the reliability of the investigation. The Court held that the prosecution's case was significantly undermined by several factors: the unexplained four-day delay in sending samples to the laboratory, the failure to associate independent witnesses despite the serious nature of the offence, and the lack of evidence establishing the appellant's link to the premises where the bulk of the contraband was allegedly recovered. Furthermore, the trial court failed to properly evaluate the appellant’s defense plea regarding his prior whistleblowing activities against narcotics dealers. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case, and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, ordering his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotics samples to the laboratory vitiate the evidentiary value of the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to associate independent witnesses in narcotics recovery cases despite the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a trial court's failure to consider a plausible defense plea regarding false implication constitute a miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal S/O Muhammad Ameen vs The State2023 SHC 293 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-04
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtocular evidencerecovery of weaponSection 103 CrPCwithholding evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant’s brother. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's ocular evidence, the impact of significant delays in lodging the FIR and sending the weapon to the chemical examiner, and the consequences of withholding material witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the complainant was not an eyewitness and relied on hearsay without disclosing sources. Furthermore, the Court found the testimony of the alleged eyewitness contradictory and unreliable, and criticized the investigation for failing to associate independent witnesses for the weapon recovery, violating Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, and that withholding best evidence creates an adverse presumption. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of a weapon violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal consequence of withholding material evidence by the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a delay in sending a weapon to the chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of contradictory ocular testimony without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Naseem vs Province of Sindh through Home Secretary2023 PLC (C.S.) 700 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-23
  Shaheed statuspolice compensationstatutory interpretationAnti-Terrorism Actwrit jurisdictionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of a committee report issued by the Inspector General of Police, Sindh, which denied 'Shaheed' (martyr) status to the petitioner’s son, a police constable who died after being struck by a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the deceased’s death qualified for Shaheed status and associated compensation under the Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act, 2014, and whether the incident constituted an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the deceased’s death, resulting from a road accident, did not satisfy the statutory definition of 'Shaheed' under the 2014 Act, which requires death in counter-terrorism operations or targeted attacks by terrorist groups. The Court emphasized that an incident cannot simultaneously be classified as a mere road accident and an act of terrorism. Consequently, the impugned committee report was upheld as well-reasoned and lawful. The judgment establishes that the Police Department cannot grant Shaheed status outside the strict criteria prescribed by the Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act, 2014.

  Questions settled

  • Does a death resulting from a road accident qualify for 'Shaheed' status under the Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act, 2014?
  • Can an incident be simultaneously classified as a road accident and an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is the Police Department authorized to grant Shaheed status to an official outside the criteria defined in the Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act, 2014?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal & Others vs Muahmmad Ashraf & Others2023 SHC 996 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inam and another vs The Secretary Local Government and 052023 SHC 206 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran vs The State2023 MLD 2130 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-12
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtdying declarationdelayed FIRmurderrobberywitness credibilityrecovery evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of Mst. Rukhsana and related robbery, under sections 302 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance on a disputed dying declaration, delayed witness statements, and questionable recovery evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing significant contradictions in witness testimony, the unexplained five-day delay in recording a key witness's statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the failure to obtain expert handwriting analysis for the alleged dying declaration. Furthermore, the court noted the non-examination of crucial witnesses and the lack of forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the deceased. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing the principle that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, and that a single reasonable doubt suffices for acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the late recording of a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the witness testimony unreliable without a plausible explanation?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to subject an alleged dying declaration to handwriting expert analysis?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran Sawati vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home2023 PLD Sindh 374 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran alias Mana vs The State2023 MLD 1993 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-29
  murderjudicial confessioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtpolice investigationcircumstantial evidencerecoveriesacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a 75-year-old man, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a judicial confession recorded on a pre-printed form, the veracity of alleged recoveries of stolen items and handwriting samples, and the overall standard of a flawed and dishonest police investigation. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the judicial confession was tainted by procedural irregularities and lack of voluntary safeguards, while the recoveries and forensic evidence were riddled with contradictions and fabrications. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on a mechanical and uncorroborated judicial confession when the surrounding police investigation is proven to be dishonest, incomplete, and legally flawed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based solely on a judicial confession when the surrounding investigation is found to be dishonest and fraught with material contradictions?
  • Whether the use of pre-printed confession forms by a magistrate affects the voluntariness and reliability of a judicial confession?
  • Is a recovery memo rendered doubtful when oral testimonies of police witnesses and recovery mashirs are in direct conflict with the written record?
  • Does a failure by the investigating officer to conduct forensic DNA or fingerprint analysis on crucial crime scene evidence weaken the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Azad vs Aqeel Ahmed2023 SHC 160 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 506 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State2023 SHC 850 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-09
  pre-arrest bailmurdercommon intentionvicarious liabilitydelayed FIRfurther inquiryovert act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a pre-arrest bail application filed on behalf of an accused facing trial for murder under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant, to whom no overt act or weapon use was attributed during the commission of the offence and who was allegedly standing empty-handed, made out a case for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that where no active role or overt act is assigned to the accused and further inquiry is required regarding common intention and vicarious liability, particularly in the presence of delayed FIR registration and delayed witness statements, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that pre-arrest bail may be granted when an accused is shown empty-handed without playing an active physical part in the crime and mala fide or doubt exists in the prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when no overt act or weapon use is attributed to the accused in a murder case?
  • Does a delay in the registration of the FIR and the recording of witness statements create sufficient doubt to warrant pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused who is alleged to be standing empty-handed at the scene of the crime entitled to bail pending trial?
  • When does the question of vicarious liability and common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 become a matter for the trial court after recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hujjan Ujjan vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 34 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-23
  constitutional petitionservice lawdeferment of promotionmaintainabilityjurisdictionseniority disputefitness for promotionperformance evaluation report
  Summary & questions settled

  A constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by a BS-18 civil servant seeking promotion to BS-19 in the Ex-PCS cadre. The petitioner challenged his deferment by the Provincial Selection Board-II (PSB-II), which was based on an ongoing seniority dispute and missing Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs/ACRs). The High Court first addressed a preliminary objection raised under Article 212 of the Constitution and Section 4(b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973, holding that because matters of promotion are excluded from the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 4(b), the High Court retains constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. On the merits, the Court distinguished between eligibility and fitness, reiterating that promotion depends on fitness evaluated through objective criteria, service records, and PERs. The Court held that deferment due to a disputed seniority or pending administrative issues is permissible under service rules, but the competent authority is bound to settle the underlying seniority dispute promptly. The petition was disposed of with directions to reconsider the petitioner's promotion following the resolution of the seniority issue.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition regarding deferment of promotion where the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal is barred under Section 4(b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • What is the legal distinction between eligibility and fitness in civil service promotion matters?
  • Is the preparation and presentation of Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) the responsibility of the department rather than the civil servant?
  • Can a civil servant's promotion be deferred on the ground of a pending inter-se seniority dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haziq Ali Khan and 2 others vs IXth Additional District Judge, Hyderabad and 2 others2023 CLC 1817 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim Shah and others vs The State and others2023 YLR 1768 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07
  murderocular testimonybenefit of doubtSection 342 CrPCchance witnessesmedical evidencecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal jail appeal against convictions for murder, alongside an appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused and a revision application for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, the impact of delayed FIR registration, the weight of medical evidence contradicting ocular accounts, and the procedural requirements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It found the eye-witnesses to be unreliable chance witnesses lacking independent corroboration, noted significant delays in lodging the FIR, and observed that medical evidence regarding the time of death and rigor mortis contradicted the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the Court ruled that incriminating evidence not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, cannot be used for conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants, and dismissed the appeals for acquittal and sentence enhancement, reaffirming that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can incriminating evidence not put to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to support a conviction?
  • Does medical evidence contradicting ocular testimony regarding the time of death render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a legal right for an accused when reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's case?
  • Does documentary evidence prevail over subsequent oral statements that contradict the contents of the documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim Islami vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1338 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-15
  illegal dispossessioncriminal appealburden of proofreasonable doubtpossession of propertyappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirwah, which convicted the appellant under Section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established that the appellant forcefully dispossessed the complainant of the disputed agricultural land. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of illegal dispossession beyond a reasonable doubt. The court observed that the trial court erroneously relied on the appellant's continued possession and his statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to secure a conviction, while ignoring significant contradictions in the prosecution's evidence and the existence of a prior civil dispute. The court reaffirmed the principle that in illegal dispossession cases, the prosecution must affirmatively establish that the accused obtained possession through force or deceit. Merely being in possession does not constitute an offence under the Act. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of property by an accused constitute an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a trial court convict an accused in an illegal dispossession case solely based on the accused's statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a trial court required to provide reasons when disregarding a police investigation report in a case under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What must the prosecution establish to prove an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hasan Nadeem & three others vs Collector of Customs2023 SHC 279 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon through LRs vs Ali Asghar & others2023 SHC 968, 2024 CLC 580 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hammad Khan and others vs The State2023 MLD 351 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-27
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailcivil disputecriminal breach of trustcheatingproperty transactionbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal bail applications filed by applicants facing trial for alleged cheating and fraud under sections 468, 420, 406, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest and post-arrest bail given the nature of the dispute. The Court observed that the dispute between the parties, involving an immovable property transaction, was essentially civil in nature and had been improperly given the color of criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that no negotiable instruments were exchanged involving the applicant acting as an estate agent, and the complainant was already in negotiations with the relevant parties. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail for two applicants and granted post-arrest bail to the third applicant, who acted as a property broker and was not a beneficiary of the transaction. The Court held that where a dispute is purely civil, criminal proceedings are inappropriate, and it affirmed the trial court's authority to cancel bail if the concession is misused by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dispute that is purely civil in nature be converted into criminal proceedings?
  • Is an estate agent who is not a beneficiary of a disputed transaction entitled to bail?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to cancel bail without reference to the High Court if the accused misuses the concession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Feroz ud Din Hilali vs Nadir & others2023 SHC 44 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State and another2023 SHC 528 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-06
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequeprohibitory clausefurther inquirysecurity chequedelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the Sindh High Court, wherein the applicant/accused sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 160 of 2013 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rissala, Karachi, concerning the dishonour of a cheque allegedly given for repayment of a business investment. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail, particularly given that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the existence of a delay in lodging the FIR, and the disputed nature of whether the cheque was issued as security. The court held that the case constituted one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause, there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the core transaction involves disputed questions of fact such as whether a cheque was given as security, the accused makes out a case for further inquiry justifying the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted when the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a six-month delay in lodging an FIR for dishonour of a cheque constitute a ground for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
  • Can a dispute over whether a cheque was issued as a 'security' or for repayment be resolved at the bail stage?
  • Whether the confirmation of pre-arrest bail is justified when there is no allegation of the accused misusing the concession of interim bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faheem vs The State2023 YLR 1084 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-12
  murderbenefit of doubtinterested witnessescriminal appealforensic evidencedelayed FIRappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on interested witnesses, significant delays in FIR registration and statement recording, and the absence of forensic corroboration. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing the unnatural conduct of the complainant party in failing to apprehend the accused, the lack of fingerprint evidence on the alleged murder weapon, and the failure to produce the best available evidence. The Court emphasized that the testimony of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration, which was absent here. Furthermore, the Court noted that unexplained delays in legal proceedings and the withholding of material witnesses create reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt, reaffirming that such benefit is a legal right of the accused, not a matter of grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to collect fingerprints from an alleged murder weapon create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution withholding a material witness during a criminal trial?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and recording witness statements entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Danish and another vs The State2023 YLR 1947 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-09
  target killingretracted confessionsole eye-witnessidentification paradecapital convictioncorroborationballistic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 23(i)/A of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, for the target killing of two individuals. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of the sole eye-witness, the voluntariness and admissibility of retracted judicial confessions under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the reliability of a joint identification parade, and corroborative evidence including bank deposits and weapon recoveries. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court laid down principles affirming that a reliable sole eye-witness testimony coupled with voluntary retracted judicial confessions, corroborative bank transaction records, and positive forensic ballistic match forms a safe basis for capital conviction, and that minor procedural irregularities in an identification parade do not vitiate its evidentiary value if otherwise trustworthy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eye-witness supported by retracted judicial confessions?
  • Does a joint identification parade render the identification evidence completely inadmissible or does it only require the court to apply a rule of caution?
  • Can a retracted confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 form the basis of a capital conviction if found to be voluntary and truthful?
  • What is the evidentiary value of bank deposit slips showing payments made to an accused shortly after the commission of a target killing?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux Bhangar & 02 others vs The State2023 SHC 590 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux alias Babu and another (edit test) vs Station House2023 PLD Sindh 288 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-23
  second FIRSughran BibiJustice of Peaceinvestigationcriminal procedurecognizable offencehonour killing
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directing the registration of a second FIR regarding an incident for which an FIR had already been registered and was pending investigation. The core legal question was whether a second FIR could be registered for the same incident based on a different version provided by a complainant. The High Court, relying on the principles established by the Supreme Court in Sughran Bibi, set aside the impugned order. The Court held that a second FIR cannot be registered for the same incident. Instead, the Investigating Officer is obligated to record any new version of the incident under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 within the existing case file. The Court emphasized that the Investigating Officer must investigate the matter from all possible angles to discover the truth and file a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on the actual facts discovered, rather than blindly accepting any single version.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second FIR be registered for the same incident if a different version is presented?
  • What is the duty of an investigating officer when multiple versions of the same incident are presented?
  • Under which provision should an investigating officer record a new version of an incident during an ongoing investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and 3 others2023 CLC 935, 2023 PLJ Karachi 96 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar vs Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), National2023 SHC 305 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1501 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-23
  narcotic possessionchain of custodychemical examiner reportpolice witnessControl of Narcotic Substances Actcriminal appealsafe custody
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence for the possession of 564 kilograms of charas under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the conviction given the lack of independent witnesses, the alleged discrepancy in the weight of the chemical samples, the chain of custody of the narcotics, and the procedural compliance of the chemical analysis report. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses and their testimony is not invalidated by the absence of private witnesses, especially given the statutory provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the chain of custody was intact, the chemical examiner's report complied with the prescribed legal forms, and minor discrepancies in weight were attributable to packaging. The judgment reaffirms that police officers can act as both complainants and investigators without prejudicing the accused, provided the evidence is consistent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials without independent witnesses?
  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses during a narcotics recovery invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is a chemical analysis report rendered inadmissible if there is a minor discrepancy in weight due to packaging?
  • Can a police officer serve as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Tareen and others, Osama Yunus & others vs JS Bank2023 SHC 435, 2024 CLD 290 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayoub Panhwar vs Province of Sindh and others2023 SHC 128 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayoub and another vs The State2023 YLR 1914 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-07
  kidnapping for ransomjoint criminal enterpriseidentification paradeAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal liabilityappellate jurisdictionabductee testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the convictions of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for kidnapping for ransom and possession of illegal firearms. The core legal question was whether the appellants, who served as guards and ransom negotiators rather than primary abductors, were criminally liable for the kidnapping, and whether the identification evidence provided by the abductees was sufficient to sustain convictions. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were active participants in a joint criminal enterprise. The court affirmed that in kidnapping for ransom cases, every member of the gang—whether they physically abducted the victim, guarded them, or facilitated ransom demands—incurs equal responsibility. The court further held that conviction can be based on the testimony of abductees if it inspires confidence, and that a formal identification parade is not strictly necessary when victims have been held in captivity for a prolonged period, allowing for sufficient recognition. The court emphasized that a dynamic judicial approach is required to address organized kidnapping, prioritizing the substance of the offence over minor technical defects.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise apply to participants in a kidnapping for ransom who did not physically abduct the victim?
  • Is a formal identification parade mandatory for the conviction of an accused in a kidnapping for ransom case where the abductees were held in captivity for a prolonged period?
  • Can a conviction for kidnapping for ransom be sustained solely on the testimony of the abductees?
  • Does the failure to pay a ransom amount negate the offence of kidnapping for ransom?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayoob @ Ayoob vs The State2023 SHC 844 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-09
  pre-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clausecompromisecriminal theftbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by Muhammad Ayoob and others seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 316/2023 of Police Station A-Section Tando Allahyar, registered under sections 380, 381-A, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the alleged offence and the complainant's stance. The Court observed that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the complainant filed an affidavit stating she had forgiven the accused, who are her family members, and expressed no objection to the confirmation of bail. The Assistant Prosecutor General also did not oppose the application. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, holding that in non-prohibitory offences where the complainant has forgiven the accused and does not oppose bail, confirmation is appropriate. The Court emphasized that these observations were tentative and would not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail confirmable when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a complainant's affidavit of forgiveness and no-objection constitute a valid ground for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz S/O Abdul Ghafoor vs The State2023 SHC 578 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Commerce and 3 others2023 PLC (C.S) 889 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-17
  master and servanttermination of servicecorporate entityreinstatementsuit for damagesHuman Resource Manual
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit challenging his termination from service by National Insurance Company Ltd. vide letter dated 10.9.2021, claiming he was entitled to an inquiry under the Human Resource Manual. The core legal question was whether an employee inducted by a corporate entity after its corporatization can enforce employment or seek reinstatement under the principle of master and servant. The Sindh High Court held that the relationship between the parties is governed by the principle of master and servant, as the plaintiff was appointed after the company acquired corporate status and lack statutory service rules. The court ruled that an employee in a master and servant relationship cannot enforce employment for reinstatement or continuation of services, and the appropriate remedy for alleged unlawful termination is a suit for damages. The key principle laid down is that employment in corporate entities without statutory rules is governed by master and servant, barring specific performance or reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee appointed by a corporate entity after its corporatization can enforce employment to seek reinstatement?
  • Does the relationship between a corporate company and its employee appointed post-corporatization fall under the principle of master and servant?
  • Can an employee whose services are terminated by a corporate entity seek specific performance of employment or are they restricted to a suit for damages?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam S/O Nawab Ali vs The State2023 SHC 510 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam etc vs Province Of Sindh and others2023 PLJ Karachi 122 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 2 others vs The State2023 YLR 2068 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-13
  pre-arrest bailattempted rapemala fidetentative assessmentpolice investigationcriminal trespass
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition by three applicants seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 60 of 2021 registered at Police Station Tando Adam City for offences including attempted rape and house trespass. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants have established exceptional grounds, including mala fide on the part of the complainant, to warrant the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate mala fide or ulterior motives, and that prima facie reasonable grounds existed connecting them to the heinous offences, supported by the complainant's injuries and statements of eyewitnesses and minor daughters. The court dismissed the bail application and recalled the interim pre-arrest bail, reaffirming that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring clear proof of mala fide and is not a substitute for post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the opinion of the Investigation Officer placing an accused in column No.2 of the challan is binding upon the court?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted without demonstrating mala fide or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant or police?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of considering pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether assault on a woman in her house with intent to outrage her modesty constitutes a heinous offence disentitling the accused to pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Hashim Mughal vs Dawood University of Engineering And Technology through Vice-Chancellor and 3 others2023 PLC (C.S) 711 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-09
  service lawdeputationregularizationuniversity transfervested rightsservice statusconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a regular employee of Dawood University of Engineering and Technology (DUET), challenged orders relieving him from service on the premise that he was on deputation from his parent institution, Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology (QUEST). The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's transfer constituted a deputation and whether the university could unilaterally reclassify his status after years of treating him as a regular employee. The Court held that the transfer was a valid university-to-university transfer within the same cadre, not a deputation. It found that the university's belated reclassification based on internal correspondence was unsustainable, especially given that the petitioner had been consistently treated as a regular employee in official records, including budget books. The key principle laid down is that a public institution cannot unilaterally alter an employee's status from regular to deputationist based on a retrospective interpretation of third-party correspondence, particularly when the initial transfer was validly executed and the employee has acquired vested rights through continuous service.

  Questions settled

  • Can a university unilaterally reclassify an employee as a deputationist after years of treating them as a regular employee?
  • Does a university-to-university transfer within the same cadre constitute a deputation?
  • Can third-party correspondence alter the vested rights of an employee regarding their employment status?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif and others vs Province of Sindh & and others2023 SHC 502 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif alias Bhaya Son of Ghulam Muhammad vs The State2023 SHC 832 · Sindh High Court
  murderconfessional statementidentification paradeCCTV evidenceanti-terrorism actdeath sentenceocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for the murder of an Assistant Sub-Inspector and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and the Sindh Arms Act 2013. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitness accounts, the voluntariness and admissibility of the appellant's confessional statement and identification parade, and whether the targeted killing of a police officer constituted an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The Sindh High Court held that while the prosecution successfully established the murder charge and related firearms offenses through unimpeachable ocular testimony, medical evidence, CCTV footage, and a voluntary confession, the offense did not fall within the purview of terrorism as it stemmed from a private vendetta and lacked the specific design to create terror under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 while maintaining the conviction and death sentence under Section 302 Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted confessional statement can be legally considered against the maker when recorded after following due legal formalities?
  • Does the targeted killing of a police officer in pursuance of a private vendetta or personal enmity automatically constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Whether the admissibility of modern device evidence such as CCTV footage is affected if it remains unchallenged during cross-examination?
  • Is the recovery of the weapon of offense mandatory to sustain a conviction when there is otherwise robust and confidence-inspiring ocular and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State2023 YLR 750 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-01
  murdercapital punishmentocular testimonyrecovery of weaponinterested witnesscriminal appealmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing him to death, alongside compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, prompt FIR, and corroborative recoveries of blood-stained clothes and the crime weapon. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant conclusively through natural eyewitnesses whose presence was verified, supported by medical findings of fatal hatchet injuries and positive chemical examiner reports. The court laid down the principle that minor contradictions in testimony are to be ignored, that close relationship does not render a witness 'interested' absent proof of a false implication motive, and that gruesome crimes lacking mitigating circumstances warrant deterrent capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses related to the deceased can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship without establishing a motive for false implication?
  • Does the recovery of blood-stained clothing and a crime weapon corroborated by a positive chemical examiner report furnish sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction?
  • Whether minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • What constitutes an 'interested witness' in criminal jurisprudence under Pakistani law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf S/o Muhammad Jamil vs The State2023 SHC 530 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Armughanullah & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 331 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State2023 YLR 2369 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30
  narcoticschain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealsafe custodymalkhana register
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 6/9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the alleged possession of opium and charas. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case and established a safe, unbroken chain of custody of the recovered narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, failure to produce register entries regarding the malkhana, a delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner, and a compromised chain of custody rendered the chemical report unreliable. The key legal principle laid down is that any break or gap in the chain of custody makes the chemical examiner's report unsafe for conviction, and a single material infirmity creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break or gap in the chain of custody render the report of the Chemical Examiner unsafe and unreliable for justifying a conviction?
  • Whether contradictions among police witnesses regarding the handling and deposit of case property in the malkhana are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the chain of custody of narcotics was safe, secure, and indisputable from recovery to testing?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and 196 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal2023 PLC (C.S) 961 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-26
  regularizationmaster and servantmaintainabilityconstitutional petitionnon-statutory rulescontract employeesservice dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought regularization of their employment with M/s. Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL) through constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against SSGCL by contract or temporary employees seeking regularization of service in the absence of statutory employment rules. The court held that since SSGCL does not possess statutory rules of employment, the relationship between the company and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant, rendering constitutional petitions under Article 199 incompetent for seeking regularization or enforcing employment contracts. The key principle laid down is that employees of companies incorporated under the Companies Ordinance or Act without statutory service rules cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for service disputes, and contract employees have no vested right to claim regularization through a writ petition.

  Questions settled

  • Are constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable against Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL) in respect of service matters?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to the employment relationship of a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance or Companies Act that lacks statutory rules?
  • Do contract employees have a vested right to claim regularization of their services through a constitutional petition?
  • Does the mere adoption of existing rules from a statutory body make those rules statutory for a newly incorporated company?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aqeel and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry2023 PLD Sindh 400 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Pakistan through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 6 others2023 PLD Sindh 391, 2023 PTD 1519 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs Department of Plant Protection and 2 others2023 PLD Sindh 251, 2023 PTD 985 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir S/O Sirajuddin vs The St2023 SHC 570 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Port Qasim Authority & others2023 SHC 1064, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1057 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-20
  constitutional petitionvested rightlegitimate expectationrecruitment processappointmentHigh Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking to declare the cancellation of a recruitment process for the post of Personal Assistant / Selection Grade Stenographer (BS-17) illegal, and seeking a direction to respondents to issue an appointment order to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether a candidate acquires a vested right to appointment or a legitimate expectation merely by passing tests and interviews when no offer letter has been issued and the department has cancelled the recruitment process. The court held that no vested right or legitimate expectation is created merely by appearing or passing in a test and interview, and the department has the lawful authority to cancel or abandon a recruitment process and re-advertise the post. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the High Court cannot assume the role of an appointing authority under its constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the mere participation in or passing of tests and interviews does not create a vested right to a job, and courts will not interfere in the lawful discretionary exercise of administrative departments to cancel and re-initiate recruitment processes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate acquire a vested right to an appointment merely by passing tests and interviews?
  • Whether the High Court can issue directions for appointment under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when no offer letter has been issued?
  • Can a government department cancel a recruitment process and re-advertise the posts?
  • Does mere submission of an application or participation in a recruitment process create a legitimate expectation to claim the job?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Asif Younus and others, The Registrar of Trade Marks2023 SHC 409 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State2023 SHC 562 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-14
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtmurder trialcriminal appealmotiveacquittalstandard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Mst. Firdos, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in the absence of eye-witnesses and a proven motive. Upon reappraisal of the evidence, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a coherent chain of circumstantial evidence or provide any motive for the crime, noting that witnesses testified to the couple's happy relationship. Furthermore, the court identified significant procedural lapses in the recording of witness statements. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case to the required standard. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused, the benefit of that doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the absence of a proven motive in a murder trial entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal consequence of a failure by the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali S/O Jan Muhammad & Ors vs The State2023 SHC 910 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali S/O Iqbal Ahmed vs The State2023 SHC 576 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Karim Khan vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 SHC 120 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Javed vs The State2023 PCRLJ 843 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-18
  narcotics controlrecovery of charassafe custody of sampleschemical examiner reportcredibility of police witnessesspecial criminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the recovery of 360 kilograms of charas from a secret cavity of a truck trailer driven by him. The core legal questions involved the reliability of official witnesses without independent private mashirs, the integrity of the chain of custody, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence regarding possession and forensic analysis. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent testimonies of police officials, positive chemical examiner reports confirming intact seals, and the recovery of a massive commercial quantity of narcotics which precluded any reasonable possibility of planting or false implication. The court laid down that official witnesses are as credible as private witnesses in the absence of mala fides or proven enmity, and that minor procedural discrepancies do not vitiate a case where recovery is overwhelming and well-corroborated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 without the association of private independent witnesses?
  • Does the non-examination of the official who delivered samples to the chemical examiner render the chain of custody fatal to the prosecution's case when seals are found intact?
  • Can a massive recovery of narcotic substances from a vehicle driven by the accused establish exclusive possession sufficient for conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Messrs Jamia Imamia Trust through Representative_Rent Controller2023 MLD 522 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar S/O Bashir Ahmed vs Vth Adj Khi Central & Another2023 SHC 906 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-21
  surety bond forfeiturecriminal revisionbail bondattendance of accusedSection 514 CrPCpre-arrest bailpenalty on surety
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the V-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central, which forfeited a surety bond and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the applicant/surety following the accused's failure to appear. The core legal question was whether the forfeiture of a surety bond remains justifiable when the accused, despite a temporary absence, subsequently surrenders and successfully obtains bail from the same court. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable. The court reasoned that the primary purpose of a surety bond is to secure the attendance of the accused. Since the accused had surrendered and obtained bail, the objective of the bond had been satisfied. Furthermore, the court emphasized that Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandates that a court must record the grounds for forfeiture and provide the surety an opportunity to show cause before imposing any penalty. Consequently, the court set aside the order of forfeiture, taking a lenient view given the specific circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a surety bond liable to be forfeited if the accused subsequently surrenders and obtains bail from the trial court?
  • What is the mandatory procedure under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before a court can impose a penalty on a surety?
  • Does the subsequent surrender of an accused and grant of bail satisfy the purpose of a surety bond?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Cooperative Department and others2023 PLD Sindh 142 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsan Shakeel vs Liaquat University Of Medical And Health2023 SHC 924 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed Kausar, Syed Ehtesham Ahmed, Ayesha Chaudhry vs Feder_e51975002023 SHC 1108 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Chandio vs The State2023 SHC 487, 2024 YLR 1797 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-19
  narcotics possessionchain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealsafe custodychemical examinerreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, for the possession of narcotics. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the chain of custody of the recovered contraband and the consistency of witness testimonies. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a clear chain of custody, specifically failing to prove the safe custody of the parcel in the malkhana or its safe transmission to the chemical examiner. Furthermore, material contradictions regarding the location of the FIR registration and the preparation of the recovery memo, alongside the failure to associate private witnesses despite their availability, undermined the prosecution's case. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove every link in the chain of custody. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the malkhana in-charge regarding the safe custody of recovered narcotics entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is a photocopy of a Road Certificate admissible as evidence without the court's permission?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses on the reliability of the recovery proceedings?
  • Must the prosecution prove every step of the chain of custody from the stage of recovery to the delivery of the sample to the laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid S/O Muhammad Afzal vs The State2023 SHC 902 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-18
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencymalafide intentiondelayed FIRcall data recordconstructive liabilitytheftforgery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, who was implicated in an FIR registered under Sections 380, 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the alleged theft of cargo from the Karachi Port Trust. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail, considering allegations of malafide, an unexplained twenty-five-day delay in lodging the FIR, and the principle of consistency regarding co-accused already granted bail. The court held that the applicant was entitled to confirmation of his interim pre-arrest bail. It observed that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief granted where prosecution is based on malafide or ulterior motives. The court emphasized that an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, it affirmed that the rule of consistency applies to bail proceedings, even between pre-arrest and post-arrest stages, where the roles of the accused are indistinguishable. Additionally, the court noted that Call Data Records, absent other concrete evidence, are insufficient to establish guilt at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to bail proceedings when comparing pre-arrest and post-arrest bail applications?
  • Is an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case in bail matters?
  • Can Call Data Records serve as conclusive evidence of guilt at the bail stage in the absence of other material?
  • What are the essential requirements for granting the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Qayyum Shaikh and another vs Ahmad Construction2023 CLD 541 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aalam Brohi vs The State2023 YLR 2310 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-08
  control of narcotic substancescharas recoverysafe custodychemical examiner reporttest protocolsofficial witnessescomplainant as investigatorSection 103 CrPC exclusion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with a fine under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, passed by the Special Judge CNS, Larkana. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was apprehended carrying a sack containing 45 kilograms of charas. On appeal, the appellant raised several defenses, including non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, lack of test protocols in the chemical examiner's report, failure to establish safe custody and transmission of samples, and the impropriety of the complainant acting as the investigating officer. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The Court held that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 explicitly excludes Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotic cases. It further held that official testimonies of police/ANF personnel are fully competent, a complainant is not barred from investigating the case absent prejudice or malice, and procedural technicalities cannot override credible evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 invalidate searches made by official witnesses without private masheers?
  • Can a police or ANF officer act as both the complainant and the investigating officer in a narcotics case?
  • Does the absence of detailed procedural test protocols invalidate a chemical examiner's positive report if statutory rules are otherwise substantially complied with?
  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of official police or ANF witnesses form the sole basis of conviction in narcotic offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Mughira vs Mst. Hani Shamsi & others2023 SHC 158 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaria Begum vs Zafar Iqbal and 7 others2023 CLC 1256 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tasleem W/O Abdul Wahab & 05 others vs The State2023 SHC 618 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sunila Mushtaq vs Babar Hussain and 7 others2023 PCRLJ 1787 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-23
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceappreciation of evidencedomestic violenceproperty disputemisreading of evidencecriminalization of civil dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the 21st Judicial Magistrate, Karachi West, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 509 and 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013. The appellant alleged that the respondents, her relatives, harassed and threatened her amidst a property dispute. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of evidence or if it suffered from misreading or non-reading of evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted material contradictions in the testimonies, the absence of medical evidence for alleged violence, and the lack of specific details regarding the incidents. Emphasizing that an acquitted person enjoys a double presumption of innocence, the court affirmed that appellate interference is only warranted if the trial court’s decision is arbitrary or perverse. Finding no such illegality, the court concluded the dispute was essentially civil in nature and improperly criminalized.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Does an acquitted person enjoy a double presumption of innocence in an appeal against acquittal?
  • Can a civil property dispute be converted into a criminal case through a direct complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sumera Amir, Mumtaz Rizwan, Muhammad Mushtaq and others vs Province of Sindh and others2023 SHC 489 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Wajid W/o Wajid Ali vs Mst. Zeenat Khatoon and others2023 SHC 389 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhter And Another vs Mst. Nazar Bhari And Another2023 SHC 928 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaista Bibi and another vs Brig. (R) Ijaz Bhatti & Others2023 SHC 152 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaheen Gul vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 SHC 1172 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-19
  terms and conditions of servicetransfer and postingjurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunalconstitutional petitioncivil servantwedlock policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant serving as a photographer in the National Highway and Motorway Police, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge her transfer order, relying on an Office Memorandum concerning the posting of married female government servants. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a constitutional petition by a civil servant regarding transfer and posting, or if such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The court held that the transfer and posting of a civil servant relate to the terms and conditions of service, and by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution and relevant service tribunal acts, the jurisdiction of the High Court is completely ousted, even where mala fides or illegality are alleged. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional bar under Article 212 ousts High Court jurisdiction over service matters, and civil servants must agitate such grievances before the appropriate Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant regarding transfer and posting?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution apply when an order relating to terms and conditions of service is alleged to be mala fide or void?
  • Do interlocutory departmental orders merge into the final order and fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the entertainment of a previous writ petition without deciding maintainability create a binding precedent contrary to constitutional ouster?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabana Hanif and another vs M/s. New Chali Trade Centre & another2023 SHC 1082 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Begum vs Muhammad Haq Nawaz khan and 2 others2023 MLD 103 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina alias Sikko and others vs The State2023 MLD 366 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-08
  narcotics possessionburden of proofsentencing guidelinespolice evidencecriminal appealsafe custody of narcoticspresumption of knowledge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of three appellants for the possession of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellants were apprehended in a vehicle with substantial quantities of Cannabis (Charas) and subsequently sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence regarding possession and knowledge of the contraband, the reliability of police witnesses in the absence of independent witnesses, and the appropriateness of the sentence. The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the appellants were caught red-handed and failed to rebut the presumption of knowledge under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court affirmed that police evidence is reliable absent proven enmity and that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded by the special law. While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentences to align with established judicial sentencing guidelines, applying the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 render police evidence sufficient for conviction without independent witnesses?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused to prove lack of knowledge regarding narcotics found in a vehicle under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can a court reduce a sentence imposed by a trial court if it exceeds established judicial sentencing guidelines?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sahja & others vs Muhammad Zaman, Province of Sindh & ors2023 SHC 986 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raana Alwi and another vs District And Sessions Judge, East Karachi2023 PLD Sindh 248 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naz Bibi through L.Rs. and others vs Wahid Bux through L.Rs. and others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1346, 2023 PLD Sindh 321 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-02
  inheritancetarkahservice benefitsgratuitybenevolent fundNational Saving Certificatesnomineesecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a civil dispute over the inheritance of service benefits and National Saving Certificates left by the deceased employee, contested between his widow and his brother. The core legal questions involve whether the service benefits and National Saving Certificates form part of the estate (tarkah) of the deceased and are thus inheritable by all legal heirs, and whether a nominee of National Saving Certificates becomes the exclusive owner or holds them as a trustee. The High Court held that property owned by the deceased during his lifetime or claimable as an absolute right forms part of tarkah and is inheritable, meaning National Saving Certificates form part of tarkah and nomination does not defeat the legal heirs' rights. However, service benefits such as gratuity, severance grants, and benevolent funds that do not fall due during the employee's lifetime or are in the nature of grants, bounties, or compensation do not form part of tarkah and are payable strictly in accordance with the employer's service rules and regulations. The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the lower appellate court's finding regarding National Saving Certificates while setting aside the award of service benefits to the brother.

  Questions settled

  • Whether National Saving Certificates left by a deceased person form part of his estate or tarkah for the purpose of inheritance?
  • Does the nomination of a person in National Saving Certificates confer absolute title or ownership, or does the nominee act merely as a trustee for the legal heirs?
  • Whether service benefits such as severance grants, gratuity, and benevolent funds constitute part of the tarkah of a deceased employee?
  • Are service benefits that do not fall due during the lifetime of an employee inheritable according to personal law or payable strictly under the employer's service rules and regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadra Jamil Siddiqui vs Munir Ahmed and 2 others2023 CLC 198 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Massarrat Abid vs The State and 3 others2023 MLD 342 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-01
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencecheatingcriminal breach of trustbenefit of doubtreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting respondents of charges relating to cheating, fraud, and criminal breach of trust. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court's acquittal order was perverse, arbitrary, or suffered from non-appraisal of evidence warranting interference by the appellate court. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that no element of cheating or criminal breach of trust was established against the respondents as the financial transaction was executed with an absconding co-accused. The court laid down the principle that an acquittal order carries a double presumption of innocence and cannot be set aside merely on the possibility of a contrary view unless the impugned judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or borders on impossibility, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does an acquittal order carry a double presumption of innocence?
  • Can an order of acquittal be recalled merely on the possibility of a contrary view?
  • What is the effect of a reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person regarding the guilt of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maryam D/o (Late) Dr. Fazlullah Yousufani vs Muhammad Ayub Jatoi2023 SHC 646 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maryam and others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary2023 PLJ Karachi 37 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamti Khatoon Mastoi vs The State2023 YLR 684 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-21
  suretybail bondforfeiture of bondcriminal revisionproduction of accusedsurety liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, which imposed a penalty of one-fourth of the surety bond amount on the applicant for failing to produce an accused. The core legal question was whether a surety remains liable for forfeiture of a bond under Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, when the accused was initially detained in another jurisdiction and was subsequently produced by the surety before the trial court. The High Court held that the impugned order was unjustified. The Court reasoned that the surety had fulfilled her obligation by informing the trial court of the accused's detention and later producing the accused, who surrendered to the court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the subsequent acquittal of the accused in the main case rendered the imposition of the penalty unwarranted. The Court established that once an accused is produced and submits to the court's jurisdiction, the surety is absolved of the legal liability to produce the accused, rendering the forfeiture of the bond unnecessary and legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does a surety remain liable for bond forfeiture under Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the accused is eventually produced before the trial court?
  • Is a surety absolved of the liability to produce an accused if the accused surrenders to the jurisdiction of the court?
  • Can a trial court impose a penalty on a surety for non-production when the accused was in custody in another jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Bibi vs Samiullah Niazi and others2023 YLR 1385 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulshan W/O Aashiq Ali vs Province Of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 896 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farzana W/O Ajad Ali & Ors, Allah Ditta S/O Muhammad Ramzan vs2023 SHC 598 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farah Naz and another vs Province of Sindh through Board of Revenue2023 PLJ Karachi 45 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Dania Bibi D/O Malik Mukhtiar vs The State2023 SHC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-14
  post-arrest bailcyber stalkingnon-prohibitory clausebail for womenfurther inquirydissemination of intimate materialPrevention of Electronic Crimes Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused woman charged under sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, for the alleged dissemination of intimate video clips. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail pending trial, given the nature of the offences and her gender. The court held that while the offence under section 21 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, is non-bailable, it falls within the non-prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the prosecution's evidence regarding the actual dissemination of the material required further inquiry, as the alleged device was never recovered. The court laid down the principle that, pursuant to the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and constitutional protections, women are entitled to greater concessions in bail matters, making bail the rule and refusal the exception, unless specific risks like abscondence or tampering with evidence are clearly established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dissemination of intimate videos fall under the non-prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule for women under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can bail be granted where the prosecution's evidence regarding the dissemination of electronic material requires further inquiry?
  • Does the court have the authority to impose conditions on bail, such as prohibiting internet activity or public statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bhalan and Four Others vs Muhammad Asif Sakaria and Five Others2023 SHC 1056, 2024 MLD 1160 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Batool & others vs Abdul Sattar and others2023 SHC 250 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashira Bibi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others2023 CLC 1008 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bano Hasham and others vs New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd.2023 SHC 812, 2024 CLD 781 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-13Read full judgment →