Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Kse Stockbrokers Association and 63 others vs Chairman, Securities And Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Secp) and others2023 CLD 181 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-13Read full judgment →
- Kishanchand and others vs Syed Mohammad Zulfiqar Naqvi and others2023 YLR 261 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
- Khurram Mughal through duly Constituted Attorney vs Mrs. Naureen2023 CLD 905 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-12Read full judgment →
- Khemchand son of Bheru Mal, Bheru Mal/legal heirs vs The State2023 SHC 934 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-12Read full judgment →
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 his real brother and sentencing him to death, along with a compensation order under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence from related and interested witnesses, the voluntariness and admissibility of a retracted judicial confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the impact of an unproven motive on the quantum of sentence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony, medical evidence, and a voluntary confession, maintaining the conviction. However, regarding the sentence, the Court held that the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serves as a mitigating circumstance sufficient to commute the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that while related eyewitness testimony and judicial confessions can sustain a murder conviction, an unproven motive acts as a mitigating factor warranting the lesser alternative sentence of life imprisonment instead of capital punishment.
Questions settled- Whether the sole evidence of related or interested eyewitnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence?
- Can a retracted judicial confession be legally admissible and relied upon for awarding a conviction if found to be voluntary?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive operate as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Whether an unproven motive not put to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be used against him for awarding capital punishment?
- Khawaja Zakir-ur-din & 03 others vs Province of Sindh and Others2023 SHC 168 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a writ of quo warranto against private respondents holding positions as Paramedical Staff within the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institute (SESSI). The petitioner challenged the extension of these appointments, alleging they were made without advertisement, based on political influence, and in violation of a prior restraining order issued by the Court in CP No.D-5196/2017. The core legal question concerned the validity of contingent, stop-gap appointments made by the respondent institution. The Court, upon reviewing the matter and the precedent set in CP No.D-5196/2017, held that all appointments must adhere to a fair, competitive process on open merit, in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to avoid filling posts on a contract or ad-hoc basis, mandating that recruitment for BPS-1 to BPS-15 posts be conducted through open advertisement and regular service modes, ensuring compliance with the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and relevant recruitment rules.
Questions settled- Whether appointments to public office made without advertisement and competitive process are sustainable under the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the Court have the authority to mandate that government recruitment for BPS-1 to BPS-15 be conducted through open merit and regular service?
- Are public appointments on a contract or ad-hoc basis permissible in light of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules 1974?
- Khawaja Tariq Siddiq vs Chairman, Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.2023 MLD 611 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-29Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Izharul Hasan and others vs Province of Sindh and others2023 SHC 329 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-22Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Izhar-ul-Hassan and 3 others vs Province of Sindh and 8 others2023 CLC 1296 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-22Read full judgment →
- Khamiso vs The State2023 PCRLJ 908 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence and imprisonment, which was submitted for confirmation under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the failure of the trial court to put all material incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the trial and causes a miscarriage of justice. The Sindh High Court held that omitting to put crucial incriminating evidence—such as the confessional statement, motive, weapon recovery, and chemical examiner reports—to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is an incurable illegality that prejudices the accused and vitiates the conviction. The court laid down the principle that every material piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution must be explicitly put to the accused during Section 342 examination, and failure to do so renders the conviction unsustainable, requiring a remand of the case for a fresh trial from that stage.
Questions settled- Does the failure to put material incriminating evidence to an accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
- Is the omission to examine an accused on all incriminating circumstances curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a conviction and death sentence be maintained based on evidence that was never put to the accused for explanation during his examination?
- What is the legal consequence when a trial court fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Khamiso and another vs The State2023 YLR 1048 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd arising from a sudden altercation over the wastage of irrigation water. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the explanation of delay in lodging the First Information Report, the medical corroboration, the evaluation of a defence plea of alibi and false implication, and the applicability of the exception of grave and sudden provocation to convert the conviction to Section 302(c). The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular accounts corroborated by medical evidence and prompt explanations for procedural delays, while the defence failed to substantiate any alibi or establish the elements of grave and sudden provocation. The court laid down the principle that invoking grave and sudden provocation requires discharging the burden of proof regarding the loss of self-control and proportionality of retaliation, which cannot be raised as a vague afterthought on appeal when the trial defence was complete denial and alibi. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a delay of fifteen hours in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case when a plausible explanation relating to medical treatment and jurisdictional disputes is provided?
- Can the defence of grave and sudden provocation be successfully raised for the first time during the hearing of an appeal when the accused maintained a plea of complete denial and alibi throughout the trial?
- Does the repetition of fatal blows to vital parts of the deceased's body with sharp weapons negative the proportionality requirement necessary to establish the exception of grave and sudden provocation?
- Whether minor discrepancies between the initial report, inquest report, and medical examination regarding the seat and number of injuries are material enough to discredit the ocular testimony?
- Khalid son of Abdul Hameed, Muhammad Imtiaz @ Muhammad Fayyaz2023 SHC 363 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khalid Mehmood & another vs Ramzan & Allah Dino2023 SHC 375 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
- Khalid Inam vs Mrs. Summaya Rehman & others2023 SHC 254 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-06Read full judgment →
- Khair Muhammad vs The State2023 MLD 299 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from three criminal cases in which the applicant sought pre-arrest bail for offenses relating to the misappropriation of government wheat bags while posted as a Food Supervisor, involving charges under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail could be granted where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, absent proof of mala fide and given the accused's prolonged absconsion. The Sindh High Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring demonstration of mala fide or ulterior motives by the prosecution, which was absent here, and noted that the applicant had remained an absconder for approximately four years and failed to join the investigation. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail applications and recalled the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted, laying down that absence from the prohibitory clause alone does not warrant pre-arrest bail without establishing mala fide.
Questions settled- Whether the absence of an offense from the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitles an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Is proof of mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or investigating agency a mandatory prerequisite for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- What is the legal effect of long-term absconsion by an accused person seeking the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail?
- Khadim Hussain & Others vs Fida Hussain Dero2023 SHC 856 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
- Khursheed Anwar Habib vs Muhammad Amin and another2023 CLD 352 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, representing Bank Alfalah Limited, invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court to challenge the judgment of the Special Court (Offences in Banks), Karachi, which acquitted the respondent of charges under sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by extending him the benefit of the doubt. The core legal question concerned whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent and whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite discrepancies in the evidence and the testimony of a court witness concerning a disputed deposit slip. The High Court held that the trial court's conclusion was not perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions and a failure to conclusively disprove the defense's documents or eliminate reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that in criminal revisions against acquittal, a double presumption of innocence attaches to the accused, and appellate or revisional interference is unwarranted unless the impugned judgment suffers from glaring errors, non-reading or misreading of evidence, or is palpably perverse.
Questions settled- Whether revisional interference is warranted against an acquittal judgment that is based on a plausible evaluation of evidence and affords the accused the benefit of doubt?
- Does the presumption of double innocence preclude interference with an acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse, arbitrary, or suffer from serious material infirmities?
- Whether discrepancies in the complainant's statements regarding material dates and events are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a criminal charge?
- Kareemdad and Hussain Bux Brohi vs The State2023 SHC 459 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of twelve months' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellants by the trial court under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for perjury. The appellants, who were victims in a kidnapping case that had been pending for ten years, had resiled from their examination-in-chief during cross-examination, stating they could not identify the accused because the perpetrators' faces were muffled—thereby aligning with their initial FIR version. The trial court convicted them upon an application by the prosecutor without framing a formal charge. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that failure to frame a charge in a trial for perjury is an incurable illegality not saved by Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, proceedings initiated without a written complaint by the court itself violate Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down that witnesses have a locus poenitentiae to correct themselves in judicial proceedings without automatically being liable for perjury, and a successful challenge to credibility does not per se demonstrate intentional false evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to frame a formal charge in a trial for perjury under Section 193 PPC is remediable under Section 537 CrPC?
- Whether a court can initiate perjury proceedings under Section 193 PPC without a written complaint filed by the court itself under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC?
- Whether a witness who corrects a contradictory statement during cross-examination retains a locus poenitentiae against prosecution for perjury?
- Karam Hussain Shakoor and Another vs Mst. Aneela Shaharyar Mughal2023 SHC 586 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-19Read full judgment →
- Karam Ceramics Ltd & others vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2023 SHC 80 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-18Read full judgment →
- Karachi Municipal Corporation vs Presiding Officer, IX Ad&SJ, East, Karachi2023 SHC 1060, 2024 PLD Sindh 339 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
- Kaleemullah S/O Hazar Khan vs The State2023 SHC 134 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Kaleemullah, who is charged under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of a female. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the alleged abduction and the subsequent statement of the abductee. The Court observed that in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the abductee did not allege zina-bil-jabr or forced abduction, but rather indicated she accompanied the applicant voluntarily and entered into a Nikkah. Furthermore, medical evidence suggested the abductee was approximately 16-17 years old, rendering the issue of her capacity to consent a matter of further inquiry. The Court held that the applicant made out a prima facie case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to provide legally admissible evidence connecting the accused to the crime, and the case requires further investigation, the accused is entitled to bail, as unjustified incarceration cannot be compensated if the accused is ultimately acquitted.
Questions settled- Does the absence of allegations of zina-bil-jabr in a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry in an abduction case?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution lacks legally admissible evidence to connect them to the alleged offense?
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of being nominated in an FIR for a heinous crime if the case otherwise warrants further inquiry?
- Kabeer Ahmed Khan through his LRs vs Qadeer Khan through his LRs & Ors2023 SHC 974 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-10Read full judgment →
- Junaid Iqbal vs Hanfia Alamgir Jama Masjid Trust & Others2023 SHC 379 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-29Read full judgment →
- Johnson Controls Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorised Representative vs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan through Registrar of Companies2023 CLD 162 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
- JDW Sugar Mills Limited & others, JK Sugar Mills Private Limited & another2023 SHC 106, 2024 PLD Sindh 348 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
- Jawaid Sarwar vs Rana Munir & another2023 SHC 274 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-07Read full judgment →
- Javed Shah and others vs The State and others2023 MLD 1864 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants were convicted by the trial court for the murder of the deceased, allegedly committed by strangulation after administering an intoxicant, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case relied heavily on a judicial confession made by one appellant and circumstantial evidence. Upon appeal, the Sindh High Court examined the validity of the confession and the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, including the timing of the arrest, the lack of corroborating forensic evidence (no intoxicants found in the viscera), and the failure to explain the delay in recording the judicial confession. Furthermore, the Court noted that the confession was retracted and lacked evidence of voluntariness. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and that unexplained delays in recording judicial confessions undermine their voluntariness.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in recording a judicial confession affect its voluntariness?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the presence of an alleged intoxicant through chemical examination?
- Is a retracted judicial confession sufficient for conviction without corroborating evidence?
- What is the legal effect of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a criminal trial?
- Javed Nisar vs Jalaluddin and 7 others2023 YLR 621 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate approving a police final report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as 'C' Class in an FIR registered for various offences including criminal house-trespass. The core legal question was whether a police raid conducted pursuant to orders of the High Court for the recovery of minor children constituted an illegal act warranting a criminal case, and whether the final report should have been classified under 'C' Class or 'B' Class. The Sindh High Court held that the raid was carried out lawfully in compliance with its earlier binding orders, and that the impugned FIR was false, malicious, and a nullity in law, thereby falling strictly within the ambit of 'B' Class rather than 'C' Class. Consequently, exercising its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court modified the magistrate's order to dispose of the matter under 'B' Class and dismissed the application while initiating administrative steps against delinquent officials.
Questions settled- Whether a police raid conducted in compliance with a High Court order for the recovery of minors constitutes an illegal act or offence?
- Whether an intentionally false FIR arising from lawful execution of court orders falls under 'B' Class or 'C' Class of police disposal?
- Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to modify the classification of a final police report?
- Whether long-standing police rules and practices regarding the classification of state cases have the force of law under the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Javed Iqbal Burqi vs Federation of Pakistan and 06 others2023 SHC 202 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-13Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad alias Khafai Pahore and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1572 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for qatl-i-amd on the basis of individual liability, while ignoring the charges under Sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding common object. The core legal question was whether a trial court can decide a double murder case involving multiple accused on the basis of individual liability without recording a proper finding on common intention or common object, and without complying with the mandatory judgment-writing provisions of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's judgment, which failed to determine common object and omitted distinct findings and sentences for all charged offences, was in defiance of law and Supreme Court precedent. The Court set aside the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for writing a fresh judgment in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Can a trial court decide a murder case involving multiple accused on the basis of individual liability while ignoring charges relating to a common object or common intention?
- Is it mandatory for a trial court under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to specify distinct findings and sentences for each distinct offence of which the accused is found guilty?
- Does a failure to record specific findings on common object render a criminal judgment defective and liable to be set aside?
- Can the omission of a distinct sentence for a charged offence be cured by implication or under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Jamsher Ali Siyal & 82 others vs P.O. Sindh & others2023 SHC 994, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 690 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, police constables promoted to Sub-Inspectors in the Sindh Reserve Police, challenged an order issued by the DIGP, Sukkur Range, which adjusted their seniority based on an Enquiry Committee report. The petitioners alleged a violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and discrimination compared to female police officials. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioners were civil servants, and the matter pertained to terms and conditions of service, falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sindh Service Tribunal. The Court held that the petition was incompetent because the matter related to terms and conditions of service, which are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court further noted that the petitioners had an adequate and efficacious remedy under Section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked to bypass statutory forums established for service matters.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable before the High Court regarding the seniority of civil servants?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
- Is the principle of audi alteram partem violated if an Enquiry Committee provides an opportunity for a personal hearing before adjusting seniority?
- Jamshed Khan vs The State2023 YLR 1510 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Jamshed Khan, for the qatl-e-amd of his mother-in-law and the attempted murder of his wife and brother-in-law. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of ocular evidence, the impact of non-recovery of the crime weapon, and whether the prosecution proved its case despite the absence of formal death records for one injured victim. The Sindh High Court held that the testimony of the injured wife and the brother-in-law was natural, credible, and trustworthy, providing a sufficient basis for conviction without requiring further corroboration. The court affirmed that the non-recovery of the weapon did not invalidate the conviction, particularly given the appellant’s prolonged absconsion. Furthermore, the court ruled that the medical evidence sufficiently established the nature of the injuries under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, even without formal death records for the victim. The court upheld the death sentence, emphasizing that the ocular account, corroborated by medical evidence and the established motive, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Does the non-recovery of a weapon of offense invalidate a conviction when ocular evidence is otherwise credible?
- Is corroboration of ocular evidence a mandatory rule in criminal trials or a rule of caution?
- Can a conviction for attempt to commit murder be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce formal death records for an injured victim?
- Does the burden of proving a specific defense plea lie upon the accused?
- Jamila Bibi and an other vs The State2023 SHC 54 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for the murder of the deceased by poisoning, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the significant delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of forensic evidence of poison, and the reliability of the confessions. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. It emphasized that medical evidence finding no poison in the deceased's remains contradicted the prosecution's theory. Furthermore, the Court found the judicial confession involuntary, as it was recorded under a promise of relief, and deemed the extra-judicial confession improbable. The Court reiterated that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, reinforcing the principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution to eliminate all reasonable doubts.
Questions settled- Can a judicial confession recorded under a promise of relief be considered voluntary and admissible?
- Does medical evidence contradicting the alleged cause of death create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
- Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
- Can a confessional statement made by one co-accused be used as evidence against another?
- Jamia Masjid Al Siddiq (Regd) Trust & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 295, 2024 PLD Sindh 336 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-03Read full judgment →
- Jameel Ahmed and others vs Hayat Muhammad Sher Pao and others2023 SHC 1044, 2024 MLD 1337 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-07Read full judgment →
- Jalaluddin and others vs Province of Sindh and others2023 SHC 210 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, who were declared successful in the written test conducted by the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) for the post of Staff Nurse (BPS-16) but were appointed on a contract basis due to the COVID-19 pandemic, sought regularization of their services under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973. The respondents contended that the petitioners subsequently failed the interview stage conducted by the SPSC and were therefore not recommended for regular appointment. The High Court of Sindh observed that although the petitioners failed the initial interview, they had served the department during a critical pandemic period, creating a legitimate expectation of retention. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that the right to livelihood and work warrants protection against whimsical termination. Consequently, the Court directed the Health Department to refer the petitioners' candidatures back to the SPSC for a fresh assessment of their suitability via interviews, during which period the posts held by them must not be filled by direct recruits.
Questions settled- Whether contract employees appointed during an emergency who failed a subsequent interview can claim regularization as a matter of right?
- Does the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution require the government to devise a mechanism for reassessing the suitability of long-serving contract employees?
- Can the posts occupied by contractual employees be filled by direct recruits while their suitability is being reassessed under court directions?
- Jahanzeb Khan vs The State2023 PCRLJ 186 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for offences under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eye-witness testimony, the impact of alleged delays in FIR registration, and the appropriateness of the death penalty given the evidentiary circumstances. The Sindh High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution’s evidence—specifically the testimony of the injured complainant and other eye-witnesses—to be consistent, trustworthy, and corroborated by medical and forensic reports. The Court affirmed that related witnesses are credible absent proof of enmity, and that corroboration is a rule of caution rather than a strict legal requirement when eye-witness testimony is reliable. However, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. The ratio established that where the prosecution fails to prove motive and it remains unclear whether the appellant’s specific firearm discharge caused the fatal injury, the capital sentence is not warranted, even if guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of related witnesses in the absence of proven enmity?
- Is corroboration of eye-witness testimony a mandatory rule of law or a rule of caution?
- Does the failure to prove motive and the inability to attribute the fatal shot to a specific accused justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a single witness if that witness is found to be entirely reliable?
- Jaffer Ali G. Hussain Shivji vs Kamran Sadiq & others2023 SHC 248 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-01Read full judgment →
- Jaag Broadcasting (Private) Limited vs Pakistan Electronic Media2023 SHC 240, 2024 CLC 534 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
- Ismail vs The State2023 MLD 942 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to the alleged recovery of 1150 grams of charas. The core legal questions involved whether a case for further inquiry was made out in view of the missing details regarding chemical examination samples, the completion of investigation, and the serious allegations of previous mala fides and police animosity supported by prior legal proceedings initiated by the applicant and his family against local police officials. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant successfully made out a case for post-arrest bail, considering the tentative nature of the material, previous litigation indicating potential victimization, and the fact that all witnesses were police officials with no risk of evidence tampering. The court laid down that where substantial material regarding prior police animosity and doubtful procedural compliance (such as sample collection) is brought on record, further inquiry into the guilt of the accused is warranted under the law, justifying the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when there is material on record showing prior animosity and litigation between the accused and the local police?
- Does the failure to mention the drawing of samples for chemical examination in the FIR create a ground for further inquiry under the bail jurisdiction?
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and all cited witnesses are police officials, leaving no apprehension of evidence tampering?
- Ismail Industries Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and Two Others2023 SHC 1034 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-30Read full judgment →
- Islam Shah and another vs The State2023 MLD 1532 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances), which convicted the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession and smuggling of 80 kilograms of hashish. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt and whether the chain of custody for the narcotic samples was maintained. Upon review, the Sindh High Court identified material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the number of parcels recovered and the procedure for sealing the contraband. Furthermore, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of the samples to the chemical examiner, as the individuals responsible for handling the property were not examined. Consequently, the Court held that the chemical examiner's report was unreliable, creating a fatal gap in the prosecution's case. The Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the chain of custody, and acquitted the appellants by extending them the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction in the number of sealed parcels recovered by police invalidate the prosecution's case?
- Is the failure to examine the official responsible for transporting narcotic samples to the chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Must the prosecution prove the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples to rely on a chemical examiner's report for conviction?
- Can an accused be convicted for narcotics possession if the chain of custody of the samples is broken?
- Ishtiaque Ali s/o Muhammad Yousif Memon vs The State2023 SHC 469, 2025 PCRLJ 977 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019, for the alleged possession of Gutka. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the alleged procedural lapses and evidentiary contradictions. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to a broken chain of custody regarding the chemical samples, as the official responsible for their transmission was not examined. Furthermore, the court identified material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the preparation of the recovery memo and the handwriting of the complainant. Additionally, the court noted a failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as no independent public witnesses were associated with the recovery despite the public nature of the location. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Does a delay in sending samples for chemical analysis, coupled with a failure to examine the person responsible for their transmission, break the chain of custody?
- Is a conviction sustainable when there are material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the preparation of the recovery memo?
- Does the failure to associate independent public witnesses in a recovery made from a public place violate the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Irshad Ahmed vs The State2023 MLD 390 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is the fourth post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Irshad Ahmed, facing trial in crime No.415 of 2013 registered under sections 324, 337-D, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mehmoodabad, Karachi. The bail was sought primarily on three grounds: the applicant being a senior citizen, risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Sindh High Court evaluated these grounds and held that the offences alleged fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the COVID-19 related policy guidelines inapplicable to such major offences. Furthermore, the court observed that the applicant remained a fugitive from law for over three years, and the delay in the trial was partly attributable to delaying tactics adopted by the defense, including filing applications under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court reiterated that old age, without proof of sickness or infirmity, is not a statutory ground for bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within two months.
Questions settled- Whether an accused charged with an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is entitled to bail on the ground of COVID-19 risks?
- Does unexplained noticeable abscondence of an accused deprive him of normal rights granted by procedural and substantive law in bail matters?
- Can bail be claimed on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of a trial when the delay is partly designed or contributed to by the defense?
- Is old age alone, in the absence of sickness or infirmity, a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in heinous offenses?
- Irshad Ahmed Memon son of Muhammad Haroon vs The State2023 SHC 190 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the complainant, Irshad Ahmed Memon, challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Model Criminal Trial Court, Thatta, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 302, 392, 365, 511, 114, 337-H(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the trial court correctly identified significant weaknesses in the prosecution's case, specifically an unexplained four-day delay in lodging the FIR and material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Court held that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is extremely narrow, as the presumption of innocence is doubled once an accused is acquitted. The appellate court will only interfere if the trial court’s judgment is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from grave misreading of evidence, which was not established in this case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as meritless.
Questions settled- What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute sufficient grounds to cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
- Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
- Irfan Ahmed S/O Muhammad Hayat vs The State2023 SHC 542 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant sought protective bail in respect of crime registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sahil, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to protective bail pending surrender before the trial court, particularly given the contention of false implication and the existence of doubt in the FIR. The court held that without touching the merits of the case, the applicant was entitled to protective bail for a limited duration. The key principle laid down is that protective bail may be granted for a short, specified period to enable an accused to approach the competent trial court, subject to the furnishing of requisite surety, without examining the merits of the underlying criminal accusation.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to protective bail to enable surrender before the trial court?
- Can protective bail be granted without touching the merits of the criminal case?
- International Brands Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2023 SHC 226, 2024 PTD 49 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-22Read full judgment →
- Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan through Secretary and 22023 PLD Sindh 328 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-11Read full judgment →
- Inayatullah Lashari vs Commissioner Larkana and Others2023 SHC 60, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 460 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions were brought before the Sindh High Court seeking regularization of service by petitioners who had been initially appointed as Junior Clerk and Naib Qasid on a daily-wage or contingent-paid basis with express terms that their service could be discontinued at any time and would not qualify for regular appointment. Their services were subsequently discontinued and they were not in service when filing the petitions, though they claimed entitlement to regularization based on a precedent concerning a similarly placed employee. The core legal question was whether daily-wage or contract employees whose services had been discontinued can claim regularization or invoke the principle of parity in the absence of a governing statute or executive policy. The Court held that daily-wagers and contract employees have no vested right to regularization, that continuity of service is a pre-condition, and that regularization requires statutory backing or an executive policy. Furthermore, older precedents granting relief to similarly placed employees are no longer binding in view of later authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court under Article 189 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether daily-wage or contingent employees have a vested right to regularization of service?
- Is continuity in service a pre-condition to seeking regularization?
- Can the High Court issue a writ for regularization in the absence of an executive policy or statute permitting the same?
- Does the principle of similarly placed employees apply to grant regularization when previous judgments run counter to settled law of the Supreme Court under Article 189 of the Constitution?
- In the matter of vs In the matter of : The Chancellor Masters and Scholars2023 SHC 96 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- In the matter of vs In the matter of The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford, Oxford University Press Pakistan (SMC-Private) Limited2023 SHC 104 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- In the matter of vs In the matter of G. A. Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd.,Gam Corp2023 SHC 98 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Imran Qadeer vs Federation of Pakistan, Federal Tax Ombudsman, M/s2023 SHC 1062, PTCL 2024 CL. 167, 2024 PTD 1163 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) which contained adverse findings against the Petitioner, an Additional Commissioner of the Federal Board of Revenue, without providing him a prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The core legal question was whether the FTO possesses the authority to record adverse observations against a public official without adhering to the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as it violated the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem. The Court clarified that Section 10(4) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, mandates the issuance of notice to the person alleged to have committed maladministration. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 15 of the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, does not dispense with the necessity of notice to the affected individual. Consequently, the Court set aside the adverse findings, affirming that administrative authorities must comply with due process requirements under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Tax Ombudsman record adverse findings against a public official without issuing a prior notice or providing an opportunity of hearing?
- Does Section 15 of the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, dispense with the requirement of issuing notice to an individual against whom adverse findings are contemplated?
- Is the principle of audi alteram partem applicable to non-judicial proceedings conducted by the Federal Tax Ombudsman?
- Does the Federal Tax Ombudsman have the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary recommendations against a tax officer without following the procedure prescribed in the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000?
- Imran Khan vs Malik Amanullah Khan, President Cantonment Board, Malir, Election Tribunal, Malir Cantonment, Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad2023 SHC 150, 2024 PLD Sindh 66 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
- Imran Khan son of Jamal Nasir @ Jamal Khan vs The State2023 SHC 836 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-07Read full judgment →
- Imran Ahsan alias Sunny and others vs The State and others2023 YLR 1796 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal addresses multiple challenges arising from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court concerning charges of kidnapping for ransom. The core legal questions involve assessing the credibility of an approver's testimony, the necessity of an identification parade where the abductee was held captive for an extended period, the standard for reappraising evidence in convictions, and the strict parameters required to overturn an acquittal. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the convicted appellants based on corroborative testimonies of the complainant, the abductee, and the approver, while upholding the acquittal of another accused due to insufficient incriminating evidence, material improvements, and the double presumption of innocence. The key principles laid down include that holding an identification parade is not mandatory when the abductee has spent significant time in captivity with the perpetrators, and that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings of the trial court are perverse, arbitrary, or suffer from grave misreading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether holding an identification parade is mandatory when an abductee has remained in captivity with the kidnappers for a prolonged period?
- What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against a judgment of acquittal?
- Does the uncorroborated testimony of an approver suffice for conviction if supported by material corroborative evidence from other witnesses?
- Is delay in lodging the First Information Report fatal to the prosecution case in kidnapping for ransom matters?
- Imran @ Gullo S/O Bashir Ahmed vs The State2023 SHC 628 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-31Read full judgment →
- Imam Din vs P.O Sindh & Others2023 SHC 1174 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-20Read full judgment →
- Imam Bux Rind son of Dost Muhammad vs Sain Dad son of Haji Sobho2023 SHC 471 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-04Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Ali vs The State2023 SHC 1072 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction under Section 6(2)(k) punishable under Section 7(1)(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and Sections 384/385 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as ordered by the Anti-Terrorism Court No. II, Karachi. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a police constable, was arrested on spy information for collecting extortion money from criminals, leading to the recovery of Rs. 5,600/-. The legal question concerned whether the prosecution proved extortion under Section 383 of the PPC and terrorism under Section 6 of the ATA beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court observed that the eye-witnesses' statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded after an unexplained 13-day delay, their names were missing from the FIR, and they failed to establish that the appellant intentionally put anyone in fear of injury. Furthermore, no evidence showed threats, use of weapons, or terrorizing the public. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant on extending the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- What is the evidentiary value of witness statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after an unexplained delay?
- Whether mere allegations of collecting money without intentionally instilling fear of injury satisfy the definition of extortion under Section 383 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an act of extortion be punished as terrorism under Section 7(1)(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 in the absence of weapons, force, or fear created among the public?
- Iftikhar Ahmed vs Messrs Zeal Pak Cement Factory Limited through Factory2023 PLC 62 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner approached the Sindh High Court seeking the implementation of a Compensation Award dated 10.05.2012 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, claiming delayed payment of service dues and profits accrued thereon. The core legal question revolved around the entitlement of the employee to interest and recalculated service benefits arising from prolonged delayed payments by the respondent-factory under a golden handshake scheme and subsequent litigation. The court held that the payment of service benefits had been unduly delayed for over ten years due to the factory's attitude, and the employee could not be held responsible for such delay. The court disposed of the petition by directing the Additional Registrar, in consultation with the District Accounts Officer Hyderabad, to recalculate the service benefits and accrued delays in accordance with the rules within one week, allowing the petitioner to withdraw the entitled amount from the security deposited by the respondent-factory. The key principle laid down is that an employee is entitled to the recalculation and payment of service benefits including accrued amounts when the employer causes unconscionable delays in settling lawful dues.
Questions settled- Whether an employee is entitled to recalculation of service benefits and compensation for delayed payments resulting from prolonged litigation?
- Can the High Court direct the recalculation of an awarded compensation amount through the District Accounts Officer when the employer fails to appear and contest the proceedings?
- Iffco Pakistan Limited vs Ghulam Murtaza and 19 Others2023 SHC 66 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) and an order of the Registrar Trade Unions regarding the employment status of workers and trade union registration at a trans-provincial establishment. The core legal questions involved whether workers hired through third-party contractors can be deemed employees of the principal company for the purpose of trade union activities and claims of unfair labor practice, and whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent findings under constitutional jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that where an employer retains control over the means and methods of work and workers operate within the company premises on permanent nature duties, the employment through third-party contracting is a sham pretense to avoid statutory benefits and unionization. The Court laid down that workers under such control are deemed employees of the principal company and are entitled to form trade unions and seek protection against unfair labor practices under the applicable labor laws.
Questions settled- Whether workers engaged through third-party contractors can be deemed employees of the principal company for the purpose of trade union activities and statutory benefits?
- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to adjudicate grievances of contract workers alleging unfair labor practices by the principal employer?
- Can concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Single Bench and Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission be interfered with under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Whether outsourcing employment against permanent posts through contractors constitutes a valid employer defense against unionization and regularization?
- Ibrahim Fibres Limited vs Customs Appellate Tribunal and others2023 PTD 896 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-15Read full judgment →
- I.G. General Trading (LLC) and another vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Government of Sindh, Land Utilization Department, Board of Revenue, Sindh and 5 others2023 PCRLJ 300 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by companies engaged in the construction business to challenge a notice of caution issued under Section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 over a property where a project was being constructed, and to seek permission to carry out construction. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could permit construction on property subject to a Section 23 caution and a pending corruption reference before the Accountability Court. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 23 is a preventive and interlocutory measure designed to preserve property allegedly acquired through corruption and to prevent the creation of third-party interests or alteration of the land's status. The court established that when title is under a cloud in a pending Accountability Court reference, altering the ground reality through construction would defeat the statutory purpose of caution, and such matters should be addressed by the trial court.
Questions settled- What is the legal purpose and scope of a caution imposed under Section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Can a High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction permit construction on a property subject to a National Accountability Bureau caution and a pending Accountability Court reference?
- Whether an accused person can bypass the Accountability Court to seek interim reliefs regarding property attached during a corruption inquiry or reference?
- Hyderabad Development Authority through Executive Legal Officer vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 2 others2023 PLC 49 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the High Court through constitutional petitions filed by the Hyderabad Development Authority impugning a common judgment of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which maintained the Labour Court's decision directing the regularization of the private respondents' services with 50% back benefits. The core legal question revolves around whether the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to an authority having statutory rules of service, and whether work-charged employees are competent to approach the Labour Court. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the forums below were unexceptionable, that work-charged staff with less than three years service were excluded from the Authority's 1988 Regulations and thus competent to file grievance petitions under the Ordinance, and that the petitioner could not resile from the clear concession made before the Tribunal regarding reinstatement. The key principle laid down is that the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot act as an appellate court to interfere with concurrent factual findings of inferior tribunals unless patently illegal or based on non-reading of evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to statutory bodies where employees are engaged on a work-charged basis?
- Can a petitioner resile from a clear concession made by its authorized officer before the Labour Appellate Tribunal in constitutional proceedings?
- To what extent can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by labor forums under its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Are work-charged employees with less than three years of service covered by the Hyderabad Development Authority Employees (General Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1988?
- Hyder Ali vs The State2023 PCRLJ 441 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife and the subsequent destruction of evidence. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established guilt based solely on circumstantial evidence, including an alleged confession to police, recovery of a weapon, and medical evidence from an exhumed body. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete, noting the absence of eye-witnesses, failure to recover crime-scene empties or blood-stained items, and the non-examination of independent witnesses or relatives. Furthermore, the court emphasized that a confession made to police is inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The key principle laid down is that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must provide an unbroken chain of evidence connecting the accused to the crime. Where the evidence is fraught with contradictions, missing links, and procedural infirmities, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, resulting in acquittal.
Questions settled- Is a confession made to a police officer admissible as evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- What is the required standard for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in a capital charge?
- Does the recovery of a weapon without corroborating forensic evidence, such as crime-scene empties, sufficiently connect an accused to a murder?
- Hyder Abbas S/O Gul Hassan, Hyder Abbas S/O Gul Hassan, Hyder Abbas2023 SHC 616 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated order decides three post-arrest bail applications filed by the applicant in cases involving allegations of a police encounter, possession of an illicit weapon, and robbery under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Sindh Arms Act 2013. The primary issues before the High Court of Sindh were whether an alleged exchange of gunfire between police and an accused resulting in no injuries or property damage constitutes a case of further inquiry, and whether an accused's implication in a separate robbery based solely on an unrecorded police confession warrants bail. The High Court allowed the applications, holding that ineffective firing without injury to persons or damage to vehicles/property renders the police encounter questionable and calls for further probe. Furthermore, under Article 37 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, confessions made while in police custody are inadmissible in evidence. The Court reiterated that reasonable doubt can benefit an accused at the bail stage and directed the investigating officer to immediately submit the challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does an alleged police encounter involving mutual firing without any injury to persons or damage to property justify granting bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Can an accused person be denied bail based solely on an alleged confession made to the police during interrogation without a recorded judicial confession?
- Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused person at the stage of deciding a bail application?
- Is a failure by the investigating officer to submit a challan within the statutory period under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justifiable on personal grounds?
- Hussain Dawood vs Haji Maqbool Ahmed & others2023 SHC 287 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
- Hussain Dawood through Authorized representative vs Haji Maqbool2023 PLD Sindh 293 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-04Read full judgment →
- Hussain Chaki Alias Ashu & Another vs The State2023 SHC 610 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-26Read full judgment →
- Humayun Mirza vs Station House Officer, Police Station Shahpur Sadar, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha and others2023 PCRLJ 697 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which declined to direct the registration of an FIR against respondents alleged to have misappropriated pledged sugar bags. The core legal question was whether the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, ousts the jurisdiction of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to order the registration of an FIR against a "Muccadam" (warehouse keeper) appointed by a bank. The Court held that the special jurisdiction of the Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, is strictly limited to disputes involving a "customer" and a financial institution. Since a Muccadam does not fall within the definition of a "customer," criminal acts committed by such an agent are governed by the general law, specifically the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace retains the authority to direct the registration of an FIR for cognizable offences under general law. The impugned order was set aside, and the SHO was directed to proceed in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, apply to criminal acts committed by a Muccadam against a financial institution?
- Is a Muccadam considered a 'customer' under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
- Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace direct the registration of an FIR against a person who is not a customer of a financial institution, even if the complainant is a bank?
- House Building Finance Corporation Ltd vs Major Muhammad Abdul Aziz &2023 SHC 1042, 2024 CLD 513 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-08Read full judgment →
- Himat Gul Pathan and another vs The State2023 YLR 1639 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged recovery of 120 kilograms of charas from secret cavities of a truck trailer they were operating. The core legal questions involved whether minor contradictions in the evidence of police witnesses, non-examination of certain official carriers or guards, and non-association of private persons under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 vitiated the conviction for narcotics trafficking. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment, holding that minor discrepancies do not undermine the trustworthiness of consistent official witnesses, that the recovery of a massive quantity of narcotics precludes any realistic possibility of police planting or foisting, and that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is excluded in narcotics cases pursuant to Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
Questions settled- Do minor discrepancies in the evidence of raiding police officials vitiate a conviction for narcotics trafficking?
- Whether the non-association of private local witnesses renders a recovery under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 illegal?
- Can a massive quantity of a contraband substance like charas be presumed incapable of being foisted by law enforcement officials?
- Are the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applicable to searches and arrests conducted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Hassan Ali & Co. Cotton (Pvt.) Ltd vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan and another2023 CLC 1805 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-09Read full judgment →
- Hassan Ali & Co. Cotton (Pvt) Ltd. vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan &2023 SHC 90 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-09Read full judgment →
- Hashim Ali Rizvi vs Owners of the Vessel m.v. Eco Ekram2023 SHC 3 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-04Read full judgment →
- Hascol Petroleum Ltd., Taj Gasoline (Pvt.) Ltd., Euro Oil (Pvt.) Ltd. (2), My2023 SHC 278 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Hascol Petroleum Ltd. through Authorized Attorney and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division and 2 others2023 PTD 1415 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-14Read full judgment →
- Hascol Petroleum Limited vs IIIrd Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi2023 PLD Sindh 369 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-20Read full judgment →
- Hascol Lubricants (Private) Limited vs Securities Exchange Commission Of Pak (SECP) & Ors2023 SHC 429 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-06Read full judgment →
- Hasan Ahmad vs Muhammad Farooq and another2023 SHC 50, 2024 MLD 438 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-11Read full judgment →
- Har Lal vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 SHC 365, 2023 PLJ Karachi 81, 2024 PLD Sindh 100 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
- Hanif Moosa son of Moosa and Humayun Hanif son of Hanif Moosa vs The State2023 SHC 1176 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-18Read full judgment →
- Haneef vs The State2023 YLR 448 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge (Narcotics) convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the recovery of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, established safe custody and transmission of the case property, and relied upon a legally valid chemical examiner's report. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution story was unnatural and unbelievable due to the failure to associate private witnesses, non-examination of the Malkhana incharge and the official who transmitted the sample, inordinate delay in dispatching the sample, and a deficient chemical examiner's report lacking analysis protocols. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant on the principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does the non-examination of the Malkhana incharge and the official who transmitted the sample vitiate the proof of safe custody of the recovered narcotics?
- Is a chemical examiner's report that lacks details of the protocol adopted during analysis sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Whether an inordinate delay in dispatching the recovered narcotic substance to the chemical examiner creates a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case?
- Does a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
- Hakim Ali vs The State2023 SHC 870 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a Criminal Acquittal Appeal filed by the appellant against the acquittal of the private respondent in proceedings initiated under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the trial court's acquittal was based on improper assessment of evidence and whether the appeal itself was procedurally competent given the appellant's failure to seek special leave to appeal. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the appellant failed to obtain special leave to appeal as required by Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the trial court's acquittal was arbitrary, perverse, or based on a misreading of evidence. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is narrow and limited, as the presumption of innocence is doubled upon acquittal. Interference is only justified if the judgment is perverse, artificial, or suffers from grave legal or factual errors, which was not established in this case.
Questions settled- Is an appeal against an acquittal competent if the appellant fails to obtain special leave to appeal as required by Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in a judgment of acquittal?
- Must a notice be issued to a proposed accused before initiating proceedings under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Hakim Ali and another vs Secretary Education and Literacy Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 3 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 1291 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The subject constitutional petitions were filed by petitioners aggrieved by the inaction of respondents in issuing fresh letters for their medical fitness test following a 2007 recruitment advertisement for Primary School Teachers. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to appointment and medical testing despite failing to secure the mandatory 60 percent passing marks in the written test as per the Recruitment Policy, and whether a prior consent judgment relied upon by the petitioners constituted a binding precedent. The court held that the petitions were devoid of merit because the petitioners failed to meet the mandatory eligibility threshold of 60 percent marks, their claims were barred by laches, and a consent order does not lay down a binding question of law under Article 189 or 201 of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that consent orders and decisions based on compromise do not constitute binding judicial precedents or enunciations of law under the doctrine of stare decisis.
Questions settled- Whether a consent order passed by a court has a binding precedential value under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does a candidate who fails to achieve the minimum required marks under a recruitment policy acquire a vested right to appointment?
- Whether constitutional petitions filed after a delay of four to five years are hit by laches?
- Haji Umar Lakhany through legal heirs vs Mst. Khatoobai Noor Muhammad2023 PLD Sindh 23 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
- Haji Moosa Khan (Late) through Legal Heirs & others vs Nazia Bibi & others2023 SHC 1036, 2024 CLC 1785 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-03Read full judgment →
- Haji Ibrahim through Special Attorney and 6 others vs Abdul Qadir Lakhani2023 PLD Sindh 11 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal impugned interlocutory orders passed by a learned Single Judge in a suit for rendition of accounts, damages, and injunctions, whereby mandatory directions were issued to replace locks, seal apartments, and utilize a court staff member instead of the Nazir to execute the orders ex parte. The core legal question concerned the legal standards, circumstances, and evidentiary thresholds required for granting an interlocutory mandatory injunction, particularly one that alters possession or establishes a new state of things without notice to affected occupants. The Sindh High Court held that interlocutory mandatory injunctions are extraordinary equitable reliefs that should only be granted in rare and exceptional circumstances to restore the status quo existing at the date of the suit, rather than to establish a new state of things, and require high assurance and clear undisputed material rather than a solitary statement. The Court laid down that such orders cannot dispossess persons without hearing them, and restored possession to the rightful key holders while setting aside the flawed mandatory directions.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can a court grant an interlocutory mandatory injunction?
- Whether an ex parte mandatory injunction can be issued to alter possession without hearing affected parties?
- Is a mandatory injunction permissible to establish a new state of things different from that existing on the date the suit was instituted?
- What evidentiary threshold is required before a court can order the replacement of locks and sealing of property on an interlocutory application?
- Haider Builders & Developers vs Parkash Kumar & Other2023 SHC 1080, 2024 CLC 672 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-28Read full judgment →
- Habibullah vs The State2023 YLR 2117 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Habibullah, who is charged with the murder of Mst. Zohra Bibi under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient grounds, including mala fide intent or ulterior motive by the complainant, to warrant the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail in a case involving a capital offense. The court held that the applicant failed to establish a case for pre-arrest bail, noting that he was specifically named in the FIR for causing a fatal hatchet blow to the deceased. The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect against the abuse of legal process and is not a substitute for post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is charged with a non-bailable, capital offense and there are reasonable grounds connecting them to the crime, and no mala fide on the part of the prosecution is shown, the court must decline pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Is pre-arrest bail a substitute for post-arrest bail in criminal cases?
- Does the mere fact that a complainant is an absconder in a separate FIR constitute sufficient grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
- What are the essential requirements for the grant of pre-arrest bail in cases involving capital punishment?
- Should an accused charged with a non-bailable offense be released on bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe they committed the offense?
- Habibullah and 2 others vs The State2023 YLR 359 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b) read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside other offences under the same code, and sentencing them to life imprisonment and compensation. During the pendency of the appeal, one appellant passed away resulting in the abatement of proceedings against him, while the legal heirs of the deceased and the remaining two appellants reached a genuine compromise. Applications under section 345(2) and section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were filed seeking permission to compromise and for the acquittal of the surviving appellants. The trial court verified the compromise. The High Court examined the compromise, noted that major legal heirs waived their rights, and addressed the Diyat share of minor legal heirs through a transfer of agricultural land and an undertaking to deposit the remaining cash balance. Finding that the ingredients of section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were not attracted, the court accepted the compromise, ordered the deposit of the remaining Diyat for the minors, and acquitted the surviving appellants.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court allow a compromise between the legal heirs of a deceased and the accused under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the provisions of section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply when a genuine compromise is reached between the parties in a murder case?
- How is the share of minor legal heirs in Diyat safeguarded during a compromise in a criminal appeal?
- Habib Ur Rehman @ Mama vs The State2023 SHC 520 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-04Read full judgment →
- Habib Ullah vs The State2023 MLD 1961 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife, who was found dead in their shared bedroom. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained on circumstantial evidence alone, given the absence of eyewitnesses and the prosecution's failure to produce the crime weapon in court. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the life sentence. The court held that in cases of domestic violence occurring within a private, shared space, once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case—supported by evidence of prior abuse, the accused's presence at the scene, and subsequent abscondence—the burden shifts to the accused to provide a reasonable, logical explanation. The court ruled that technical lapses by investigators, such as the non-production of case property, do not automatically necessitate acquittal when the circumstantial evidence, viewed holistically, overwhelmingly proves guilt. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the judiciary must adopt a gender-sensitive lens when adjudicating domestic violence cases, rejecting absurd defense pleas that ignore the reality of the crime.
Questions settled- Does the non-production of the crime weapon in court automatically entitle an accused to an acquittal in a murder case?
- When does the burden of proof shift to the accused in a domestic murder case where the victim is found in a shared private space?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence in the absence of eyewitnesses?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce case property always invalidate a conviction?
- Habib Metropolitan Modaraba Management Company (Private) Limited2023 CLD 464 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-07Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited vs Amin Soap & Oil Industries (Pvt) Ltd & Others2023 SHC 1160, 2024 CLD 563 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-14Read full judgment →
- Gunvor Singapore Pte, Ltd. through authorized signatory vs Pakistan LNG2023 CLC 1422 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-13Read full judgment →
- Gunvor Singapore Pte Ltd vs Pakistan LNG Limited & another2023 SHC 16 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-13Read full judgment →
- Gullab alias Aro vs The State2023 PCRLJ 958 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad, which convicted the appellant under Section 23(1)(A) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case was that the appellant was apprehended during a police patrol and found in possession of an unlicensed .30-bore revolver. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether the prosecution had established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered weapon to the ballistic expert, and whether the testimony of police officials alone, without independent corroboration, was sufficient for conviction. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the weapon, as the Malkhana register entry was not produced, the Incharge Malkhana was not examined, and the police constable who transported the weapon was not called. Additionally, there was an unexplained nine-day delay in sending the weapon. The Court reiterated that while police testimony is admissible, where the case hinges solely on it, independent corroboration is necessary, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution's failure to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of a recovered weapon to the ballistic expert is fatal to a conviction under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013?
- Can a conviction be safely sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of police officials when independent witnesses were available but not associated?
- What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending a recovered weapon to the ballistic expert for forensic analysis?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if there is only a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
- Gul Mina Afridi vs Rana Abdul Kareem Ft others2023 SHC 214 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-10Read full judgment →