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.

• Gul Hassan vs The State2023 SHC 256 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-03
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequefraudcommon intentionbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal case where the applicants sought pre-arrest bail after an FIR was registered against them following the dishonour of a cheque given as an installment for paddy sold on deferred payment. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail in the presence of prima facie incriminating evidence collected during investigation. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants were not entitled to pre-arrest bail because the investigation papers and statements of purchasers revealed reasonable grounds connecting them to the alleged fraud and common intention to deprive the complainant of his money. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail applications and recalled the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is designed to protect innocent persons falsely implicated due to mala fides, and it cannot be extended to accused individuals against whom reasonable and sufficient incriminating evidence surfaces during the course of investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail when investigation papers disclose prima facie evidence of guilt?
  • Does the issuance of a dishonoured cheque in a commercial transaction involving a middleman attract penal liability disentitling pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be sustained where allegations of mala fides are negated by incriminating material collected by the Investigating Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Banoa vs Shahnaz Bano and others2023 CLC 861 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Govt of Sindh & Ors vs Laiqdino and others2023 SHC 962 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-27Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department and others vs Muhammad Sarwar and 11 others2023 PLD Sindh 154 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• Goharullah S/O Inayatullah vs The State Through Chairman NAB2023 SHC 236 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulamali P. Allana vs Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse Sa & others2023 SHC 154 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabir vs 2nd Adj Tando Allahyar & others Sindh High Court2023 PLJ Karachi 171 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabir and others vs Government of Pakistan through Chairman2023 PLJ Karachi 34 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabeer Lashari vs The State2023 SHC 1126, 2024 PCRLJ 847 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-05
  plea of alibibenefit of reasonable doubtappreciation of evidenceocular testimonycriminal appealmurderanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for murder, kidnapping, attempt to murder, and terrorism offences arising from an incident where multiple armed persons allegedly attacked a house, resulting in fatalities and injuries. The core legal question was whether the appellant's plea of alibi, supported by official documentary and travel records showing he was abroad in Saudi Arabia at the time of the offence, was sufficient to create reasonable doubt against the consistent ocular testimony of prosecution eyewitnesses. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the trial court erred by ignoring the exculpatory defense evidence and documentary proof of alibi. The court laid down the principle that the onus on an accused setting up an alibi is not to prove it affirmatively beyond doubt, but merely to produce sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable possibility of innocence, and that where official documentary evidence substantiates an alibi, the benefit of any resulting reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the extent of the burden of proof on an accused person who sets up a plea of alibi?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the trial court completely fails to consider exculpatory defense evidence and official travel records supporting an alibi?
  • Does the heinous or brutal nature of an offence justify a court in disregarding established principles of evidence appreciation and the constitutional right to a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir Shaikh vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2023 SHC 208 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-17
  regularization of servicecivil servantdue processefficiency and discipline ruleswrit of mandamusboard of revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the decision of the Chief Minister Sindh approving a summary that undid the regularization of the petitioner's service as a Legal Assistant (Second Capacity) in the Board of Revenue Sindh (BOR Sindh). The core legal question was whether a regularized civil servant's services can be abruptly terminated or de-notified through an administrative summary without adhering to the prescribed statutory disciplinary procedure, and whether temporary employees possess a vested right to regularization. The Sindh High Court held that while contract employees have no automatic right to regularization, once an employee's service has been regularized and they attain the status of a civil servant, their services cannot be dispensed with arbitrarily or on the administrative side without a regular inquiry. The court laid down the principle that the removal of a regularized civil servant must strictly follow the applicable efficiency and discipline rules, and public functionaries cannot bypass due process to undo past administrative decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether temporary or contract employees have a vested right to claim regularization of their services?
  • Can the regularization of a civil servant be undone through an administrative summary approved by the Chief Minister without a regular inquiry?
  • Whether the services of a regularized civil servant can be dispensed with without resorting to the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1974?
  • Does a public functionary's abuse of discretion violate the right to due process under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir Kubar vs The State, Mst. Batool2023 SHC 361 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-31
  domestic violencespecial law vs general lawcognizance of offencemandatory counselingaggrieved personjudicial magistratedomestic relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate and a Sessions Judge regarding a Domestic Violence Petition filed under the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013. The petitioner challenged the trial court's cognizance of the petition, arguing that the court failed to mandate counseling under Section 8 of the Act, lacked sufficient evidence, and failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter-XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013 is a special law, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 only applies where the special law is silent. The Court further clarified that the provision for counseling under Section 8(1) is discretionary, as indicated by the word 'may'. Finding that the Magistrate had prima facie established the allegations and that the applicant would have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during trial, the Court dismissed the application, affirming that the Magistrate acted within their jurisdiction to protect the aggrieved person.

  Questions settled

  • Is the provision for mandatory counseling under Section 8(1) of the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013, mandatory or discretionary for the court?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to proceedings under the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013 when the Act is silent?
  • Can a Judicial Magistrate take cognizance of a domestic violence petition based on prima facie evidence before a full trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir and another vs The State2023 YLR 153 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-26
  narcoticscharaschain of custodybenefit of the doubtpolice witnessesindependent mashirschemical examiner reportRapid Response Force
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the reliability of police-only mashirs in a thickly populated area, the implications of a delay in sending the recovered contraband to the chemical examiner, the integrity of the chain of custody, and the competency of the Rapid Response Force to conduct routine vehicle checking and narcotics searches. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the contraband, noted material contradictions and the absence of independent witnesses despite availability, and questioned the authority of the Rapid Response Force for routine policing duties. The court concluded that multiple circumstances created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge. The key legal principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, and an unbroken chain of custody is mandatory to rely on a chemical examiner's report.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission to associate independent witnesses from a thickly populated area renders a narcotics recovery doubtful?
  • Does a delay in dispatching seized narcotic samples to the chemical examiner break the chain of custody and vitiate the conviction?
  • Whether the Rapid Response Force is legally competent to conduct routine vehicular patrolling and searches under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir & others, Altaf Hussain Khuhro & others, Noor Hassan &PTCL 2023 CL. 109 · Sindh High Court
  posting and transferterms and conditions of serviceArticle 212 barvested right in postingAudit CadreInland RevenueFBR notificationconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioners, officers of the Audit Cadre in the Inland Revenue Department, filed constitutional petitions challenging FBR's clarification letter dated 25.02.2022 and Paragraph 3 of Notification dated 28.10.2015. The impugned notification directed that officers of the Audit Cadre shall not be posted as Unit In-charge in field formations nor assigned assessment-related duties. The Petitioners asserted that being Assistant Directors of Inland Revenue, this restriction was discriminatory, ultra vires, and contrary to statutory provisions. The High Court dismissed the petitions. The Court held that the primary grievance related to transfers, postings, and duties, which fall within the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. Consequently, the constitutional petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, leaving the Service Tribunal as the appropriate forum. On merits, the Court reaffirmed under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 that civil servants have no vested right to a particular posting or assignment and FBR possesses administrative authority to assign postings and duties as deemed fit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a constitutional petition lie in respect of transfer, posting, and assignment of duties of a civil servant despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Does a civil servant possess a vested legal right to demand a specific posting, field assignment, or particular duties?
  • Is FBR's administrative clarification excluding Audit Cadre officers from assessment duties actionable under constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs The State2023 SHC 413 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-12
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseitlaf-i-udwdiyatdelay in trialtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant Ghulam Sarwar seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under various sections including Pakistan Penal Code provisions for hurt and other offences, pending before the trial court. The core legal questions involved whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that the primary penal section applicable provided for financial liability rather than imprisonment, alongside delays in the trial. The Sindh High Court held that the offence under Section 337-U of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prescribes payment of Diyat or Arsh without entailing a sentence of imprisonment, thus falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and further noted that prolonged incarceration without trial progress warranted the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that offences lacking a sentence of imprisonment do not attract the prohibitory clause, and an accused cannot be indefinitely detained when the prosecution causes trial delays.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence punishable only with financial liability such as Diyat or Arsh falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the removal of a tooth constitute the loss of an organ attracting punishments for itlaf-i-salahiyyat-i-udw under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an accused be kept in indefinite custody when the trial is delayed due to the fault of the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Lashari vs The State2023 SHC 958 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-23
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtdelayed FIReyewitness credibilitymedical evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder and abduction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the significant delay in FIR registration, material contradictions in eyewitness testimony, and suspicious police conduct. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies: the nine-day delay in lodging the FIR, the failure of eyewitnesses to intervene during the abduction despite being numerous, and the conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence regarding the time of death and firing distance. Furthermore, the Court noted that the police's failure to act upon initial information and the subsequent identification of co-accused after a significant delay undermined the credibility of the prosecution's narrative. The Court reaffirmed the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in the registration of an FIR, without a plausible explanation, undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • When medical evidence regarding the time of death and firing distance contradicts the oral testimony of eyewitnesses, how should the court weigh the evidence?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt in a criminal trial a right of the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does the failure of police to act upon initial information regarding an abduction and subsequent murder cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Ghangro vs The State2023 YLR 1368 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-04
  murder convictionocular evidenceinterested witnessnon-recovery of weaponabscondenceappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III/MCTC-II, Sukkur, in a murder case. The appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, receiving a life sentence and compensation. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-recovery of the crime weapon, the absence of forensic reports, and the alleged interested nature of the witnesses. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution's case was established through consistent, confidence-inspiring ocular evidence corroborated by medical reports. The Court affirmed that the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them interested or unreliable, especially when their presence is established and their testimony is consistent. Furthermore, the Court held that the non-recovery of a weapon or the absence of forensic evidence is not fatal to the prosecution's case when other direct, natural evidence is sufficient to prove guilt, particularly where the accused has absconded, preventing recovery efforts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or interested?
  • Is the non-recovery of the crime weapon fatal to the prosecution's case when ocular evidence is otherwise consistent and reliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained in the absence of forensic reports if the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused through other direct evidence?
  • Do minor contradictions in prosecution evidence warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Safdar vs Mukhtiar & others2023 SHC 170 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool son of Allah Warayo Ogahi, Kashmir son of Huzoor Bux2023 SHC 270 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool @ Rasooli S/O Ghulam Muhammad vs The State2023 SHC 894 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-17
  post-arrest bailheroin recoveryControl of Narcotic Substances Acttentative assessmentcrime against societyprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 6(i) and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 775 grams of heroin. The core legal question centered on whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the quantity of heroin recovered, the amendments introduced by the Sindh Amendment Act regarding narcotic categories, and the applicability of the statutory prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the quantity of heroin recovered exceeded the threshold under the applicable Sindh amendments, falling squarely within Section 9(c) of the Act, which carries capital punishment or imprisonment for life. The Court laid down the principle that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the record is undertaken, and where an accused is found in possession of a substantial quantity of narcotics and has previous similar criminal cases, bail should be refused as the offense constitutes a crime against society.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused found in possession of 775 grams of heroin is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can the question of false police implication be deeply evaluated at the stage of deciding a bail application?
  • Are the provisions regarding the association of private persons under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 considered directory?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool & Another vs Chief Election Commissioner and others2023 SHC 1028 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Ramsha Ghaffar & others2023 SHC 218 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State2023 MLD 2060 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-23
  criminal jail appealmurderinterested witnessrelated witnessesmedical evidenceballistic confirmationminor contradictionslife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal before the High Court of Sindh challenged the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 302(b), 148, and 337-H(2) read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including rigorous imprisonment for life on each count for double murder. The core legal issues centered on whether the ocular testimony of related witnesses could sustain conviction without independent corroboration, whether previous enmity necessitated false implication, and the evidentiary value of medical evidence and minor contradictions. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences, holding that the direct ocular testimony was natural, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by the recovery of weapons and crime empties. The Court reaffirmed that law values the quality, not quantity, of evidence; mere relationship between witnesses and victims does not render them 'interested' without motive to substitute the real culprit; and minor discrepancies or the confirmatory nature of medical evidence do not dismantle a credible prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of related eyewitnesses without independent corroboration?
  • What constitutes an 'interested witness' in criminal jurisprudence, and does mere relationship to the deceased suffice to discredit their testimony?
  • What is the evidentiary role and probative limit of medical evidence in criminal trials concerning the identity of the accused?
  • Do minor discrepancies and contradictions between witness statements warrant the rejection of ocular evidence in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi alias Naboo alias Nabi Bux vs The State2023 MLD 1831 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-24
  narcotics possessionchain of custodybenefit of the doubtcriminal appealchemical examiner reportsafe transmissionmaterial contradictions
  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 alleged possession of 2050 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the integrity of the evidence and the chain of custody. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the arrest, the preparation of the mashirnama, and the handling of the contraband. Crucially, the court found that the unexplained delay in transmitting the samples to the chemical laboratory broke the chain of custody, rendering the chemical examiner's report unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any break in the chain of custody of narcotics samples entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, rather than grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in dispatching narcotics samples to a chemical laboratory break the chain of custody?
  • What is the legal consequence of a broken chain of custody in a narcotics case regarding the reliability of the chemical examiner's report?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when material contradictions exist in the prosecution's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa son of Beerbal vs Election Commission of Pkaistan &2023 SHC 473 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 307 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa & others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 SHC 387 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Khoso vs Chairman National Highway Authority and others, Province of Sind2023 SHC 988, 2024 YLR 1028 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mahdi Abro vs The State2023 SHC 140 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27
  murder convictiondeath sentence commutationocular testimonyunproven motivecriminal appealconfirmation referencewitness reliability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and confirmation reference arise from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the ocular testimony and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a death sentence, particularly regarding the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive. The Court held that while the ocular testimony was sufficient to establish guilt, the prosecution failed to prove the motive, which was shrouded in mystery. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, citing the principle that an unproven motive can mitigate the sentence. The Court reaffirmed that the testimony of a related witness is admissible absent proof of enmity and that a conviction may be based on a single reliable witness. Furthermore, the Court ordered the appellant to pay compensation to the legal heirs under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granted the benefit of Section 382-B.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive in a murder case warrant the commutation of a death sentence?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of a single eye-witness related to the deceased?
  • Is the failure to order compensation to legal heirs under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a curable error by the appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder Shah vs Province of Sindh through Home Secretary2023 YLR 1746 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The State2023 YLR 581 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06
  post-arrest bailmurderprohibitory clauseocular evidencemedical evidencetentative assessmentdeeper appreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Ghulam Hussain in Crime No.05 of 2020 registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Guloo Sial, District Khairpur. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail when he is specifically nominated in the FIR with a role of firing at the deceased, supported by ocular and medical evidence, and where the offence falls within the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant is nominated with a specific role of firing resulting in the death of the deceased, and as the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account, the case calls for tentative assessment and does not permit deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, and where an accused is prima facie connected with an offence falling within the prohibitory clause, the concession of post-arrest bail is rightly denied. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused nominated in the FIR with a specific role of firing at the deceased is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence warrant the grant of bail at the preliminary stage?
  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible while deciding a bail plea?
  • Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure disentitle the accused to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Education and Literacy Department and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 194 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-31
  constitutional petitionpublic appointmentNaib Qasidfundamental rightsequality before lawdiscriminationSindh Civil Servants Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking appointment to the post of Naib Qasid (BPS-01) in the School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Sindh, after successfully passing the written test and interview. The respondents rejected his candidature on the ground that being highly qualified (holding a Master's degree), he would not properly perform the duties of a Naib Qasid. The core legal question was whether a candidate can be denied public employment on the mere presumption that their higher educational qualification makes them unsuitable for a lower post. The court held that rejecting a candidate on such a presumption without a basis in law constitutes discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. The matter was remanded to the competent authority for a fresh decision and consideration of the petitioner's case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate be denied appointment to a lower post on the presumption that their higher educational qualification makes them unsuitable for the job?
  • Does rejection of a qualified candidate based on arbitrary assumptions violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • How must posts in basic pay scales 1 and 2 be filled under Rule 16 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farooq & another vs The State2023 SHC 1130 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-01
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailspecific rolesserious injuriesmala fidecriminal trialland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns bail applications filed by the accused persons seeking pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving a dispute over agricultural land. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to the concession of bail given the specific roles assigned to them, the nature of the injuries inflicted upon the complainant party, and the existence of prior enmity. The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to bail, noting that they were assigned specific roles in causing serious injuries punishable by up to ten years imprisonment. The Court observed that the collective approach and the severity of the injuries indicated a pre-determined intent to cause harm. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of mala fide on the part of the complainant to justify pre-arrest bail. The principle laid down is that where there is prima facie evidence of serious injuries and specific roles assigned to the accused, and no clear evidence of mala fide, the concession of bail should be denied, leaving the matter to be determined by the trial court after the examination of witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Are accused persons entitled to pre-arrest bail when they fail to demonstrate mala fide on the part of the complainant?
  • Does the existence of admitted enmity between parties automatically entitle an accused to bail in a criminal case?
  • Should bail be granted when the accused are assigned specific roles in causing serious injuries punishable by long-term imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Bahauddin Khan, Imaduddin Khan vs Muhammad Islamuddin2023 SHC 92 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Asghar Pathan and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PLD Sindh 187 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Asghar Pathan & others, Emad ul Hasan vs Federation of Pakistan2023 SHC 84 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Asghar Pathan & others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 SHC 86 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali alias Lami and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 671 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-23
  capital punishmentfair trialright to counselcriminal appealremanddue processvitiated trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court in a murder case. The core legal question was whether a trial in a capital case is vitiated when the examination-in-chief of key prosecution witnesses is recorded in the absence of the accused's defense counsel. The High Court held that the trial court’s failure to ensure the presence of defense counsel during the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses in a capital case constituted a significant procedural illegality that prejudiced the appellants. The Court determined that this omission violated the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the statutory right to be defended by a pleader under Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter to the trial court for a retrial from the stage of recording the evidence of the affected witnesses in the presence of the defense counsel, emphasizing that such procedural failures are not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses in the absence of defense counsel in a capital case violate the right to a fair trial?
  • Is the failure to provide defense counsel during the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses in a capital case an incurable illegality?
  • Does the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 guarantee the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas son of Muhammad Moosa (Now confined at Central Prison2023 SHC 485 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Magsi vs The State2023 PCRLJ 355 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-19
  criminal jail appeallife imprisonmentinjured eye-witnessmedical corroborationnon-recovery of weaponminor contradictionsrelated witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal assailed the trial court judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment alongside fines and compensation for murder and injuries caused during an armed incident. The core legal questions pertained to whether the testimony of related injured eye-witnesses could be relied upon, whether the non-recovery of the crime weapon was fatal to the prosecution, and whether minor contradictions in witness statements created reasonable doubt. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences. The court held that the ocular evidence provided by natural injured eye-witnesses was credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence and crime-scene recoveries, establishing that close relationship alone does not make witnesses interested or partisan. Furthermore, the non-recovery of the weapon of offence is not fatal when direct, trustworthy evidence proves the charge. Minor discrepancies in evidence are to be disregarded if the prosecution establishes its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the totality of circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the deceased render their testimony interested or untrustworthy?
  • Is the non-recovery of a weapon of offence fatal to the prosecution case when direct and credible ocular evidence exists?
  • Do minor discrepancies or contradictions in witness testimony invalidate a prosecution case established beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• G.A. Enterprises (Private) Limited and 2 Others: In the matter of vs Not2023 CLD 417 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-28Read full judgment →
• Foundation Securities (Pvt.) Ltd. and Another: In the matter of vs Not2023 CLD 883 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-13Read full judgment →
• Flying Paper Industries Ltd. through Authorized Representative vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division and 3 others2023 PTD 1165 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Feroz Bari vs Syed Ayaz Hussain and 3 others2023 PLD Sindh 263 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan & others vs M/s Al-Hassan Tech & Eng. Svc. (Pvt.)2023 SHC 816, 2024 YLR 1484 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-18Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and Moledino vs The State2023 SHC 373 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-02
  murdercriminal appealmedical and ocular discrepancyballistic reportsafe custody of case propertysection 342 statementbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions involve the credibility of eyewitness testimony in the face of material contradictions with medical evidence, the evidentiary value of delayed forensic dispatch of crime weapons and empties without proof of safe custody, and the legal effect of failing to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that irreconcilable discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical report regarding the number of firearm injuries, coupled with broken chains of custody for recovered weapons and empties and the omission to confront the accused with material evidence during their Section 342 statements, rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The court laid down the principles that ocular evidence fundamentally inconsistent with medical findings undermines witness presence, that unexplained delays and lack of safe custody vitiate ballistic reports, and that incriminating evidence not put to an accused under Section 342 CrPC cannot be used for conviction. The appeals were allowed and the appellants acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of firearm injuries are sufficient to discredit eyewitness accounts?
  • Does a failure by the prosecution to establish safe custody and safe conveyance of crime weapons and empties render ballistic reports inconclusive?
  • Can incriminating pieces of evidence not confronted to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered for recording a conviction?
  • Whether the unverified delay in dispatching recovered empties and pistols to the forensic laboratory affects the reliability of recovery evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Fareed Ahmed and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 583 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-29
  post-arrest bailmethamphetaminenarcotics traffickingtentative assessmentstatutory barsearch and seizure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was filed by two applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 6, 7, 8, and 14 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, punishable under Sections 9(c) and 15 of the same Act. The prosecution alleged that 2.500 kilograms of methamphetamine was recovered from a specially designed cavity in a bus where the applicants worked as a cleaner and a munshi. The applicants argued that they were falsely implicated, that there was a lack of independent private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the death of a co-accused driver altered the circumstances. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the bail application, holding that the statutory bar under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 applies to offences carrying capital punishment under Section 9(c). The Court further ruled that Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 explicitly excludes the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that tentative assessment of the record prima facie connected the applicants to the recovered contraband.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to search and recovery operations conducted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Does the statutory bar on bail under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply to offences where the quantity of recovered narcotics exceeds one kilogram?
  • Can the death of a co-accused during custody serve as a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail to other co-accused persons?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application in narcotic cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Faraz Hussain vs Province of Sindh and 03 others2023 SHC 166 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06
  deceased quotacivil servantconstitutional petitionappointmentminorlimitation periodPublic Service Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitution petition seeking appointment to a suitable post under the deceased civil servant quota in the Government College of Home Economics Karachi, invoking Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The respondent Education Department objected on the ground that the petitioner's father passed away in 2012 and the application was made in 2017, exceeding the stipulated two-year limitation period. The core legal question revolved around whether the delay barred the claim where the applicant was a minor at the time of the father's death and applied promptly upon attaining majority. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant applied immediately upon reaching the age of majority and was found eligible, his case was covered by the applicable policy and rules. The petition was allowed with directions to appoint the petitioner within fifteen days, while also directing the government to strictly adhere to Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding competitive appointments through the Public Service Commission for higher scales.

  Questions settled

  • Does the two-year limitation period for applying under the deceased civil servant quota bar a minor child who applies promptly upon attaining majority?
  • Can the appointing authority make direct appointments in basic pay scales 17 and above without going through the Public Service Commission?
  • What is the legal effect of the deletion of Rule 10-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Faraz Ali and 5 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary to Governor2023 CLC 695 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-15Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad and another vs Amanullah , Province of Sindh and others2023 SHC 804 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-05Read full judgment →
• Faqeer Hussain & Company vs M.S Sir Haji Abdullah Haroon Trust Waqf 22023 SHC 1008, 2024 YLR 1011 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-10Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher and another vs The State2023 YLR 1926 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-06
  narcotic possessionchemical analysis reportrepresentative samplessafe custody of propertycriminal appealconviction maintenancerecovery of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants for the possession of 18 kilograms of charas, for which they were sentenced under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery beyond a reasonable doubt, whether minor discrepancies in witness testimony regarding the raiding party's route undermined the case, and whether the appellants could be held liable for the entire quantity of narcotics recovered when only representative samples were sent for chemical analysis. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution's evidence was consistent, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by official records, including Malkhana deposit entries and chemical analysis reports. The Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that minor discrepancies in testimony do not invalidate the prosecution's case unless they affect material aspects. Furthermore, the Court established that when representative samples are taken from each packet of a bulk seizure, the accused is liable for the entire quantity recovered, rejecting the defense's argument that liability should be limited to the weight of the samples analyzed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor discrepancy in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the route taken by a raiding party invalidate the entire prosecution case?
  • Is an accused person liable for the entire quantity of narcotics recovered if only representative samples from the bulk seizure are sent for chemical analysis?
  • Does the failure of an accused to substantiate a plea of false implication or enmity during a trial under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken their defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad Pitafi and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 764 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-04
  anti-terrorism courtjurisdictiontransfer of casepersonal vendettapre-existing enmitycriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court declining to transfer a murder case to a regular Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether the murder of an advocate arising from a pre-existing inter-community blood feud constitutes an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or a personal vendetta. The Sindh High Court held that the murder was motivated by a pre-existing personal enmity between limited factions of two communities and did not generate a general sense of panic among the legal fraternity or fall within the statutory design and purpose of terrorism. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the transfer of the case to the Sessions Court for regular trial. The key principle laid down is that crimes committed in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta do not constitute terrorism regardless of their brutality, and the question of trial court jurisdiction must be decided at the initial stage based on available material rather than waiting for evidence to be recorded.

  Questions settled

  • Does a murder committed due to a pre-existing blood feud constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Must the question of a trial court's jurisdiction to try a case under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 be decided at the initial stage before recording evidence?
  • Does the murder of an advocate necessarily create a general sense of panic among the legal fraternity amounting to terrorism?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Mohammed alias Faiz vs The State2023 PCRLJ 121 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-21
  abductionrapebenefit of the doubtdefective investigationhabeas corpuscontradictions in testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 365-B, 376(i), and 343 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case alleged that the appellant, along with others, abducted the complainant's minor daughter from a street and subjected her to repeated rape over four days, following which an FIR was registered pursuant to habeas corpus proceedings before the High Court. The core legal question before the appellate court was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt in light of significant investigative flaws, material contradictions in witness testimonies, unexplained delays in reporting, and an alternative defense theory involving a free-will marriage with a third party. The court held that multiple serious loopholes, including the failure to investigate the alleged husband mentioned in habeas corpus proceedings, missing forensic evidence, and pervasive contradictions, created deep and insurmountable clouds of doubt regarding the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant on the principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the investigating agency to examine a material individual linked to the victim through habeas corpus proceedings creates sufficient doubt to vitiate a conviction?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the first information report, combined with material contradictions among prosecution witnesses, warrant the setting aside of a conviction for abduction and rape?
  • Is a criminal conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to collect corroborative forensic evidence such as chemical analysis of clothes in sexual assault cases?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to an acquittal when multiple reasonable doubts pervade the entire prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Aleem S/O Fazal Aleem vs The State2023 SHC 568 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hassan and 40 others, Zulfiqar Khushk and 04 others, Ahmed2023 SHC 401 · Sindh High Court
  civil servicecadre mergerultra viresdelegated legislationservice structurefundamental rightsSindh Civil Servants Act 1973judicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the validity of the Sindh Civil Servants (Provincial Management Service) Rules, 2018, which purported to merge the Ex-Provincial Civil Service (Ex-PCS) and Provincial Secretariat Service (PSS) cadres into a new Provincial Management Service (PMS). The core legal question was whether the executive government could, via delegated legislation, merge distinct service cadres and create a new service structure in a manner that contradicts the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the constitutional framework governing civil service. The Court held that the PMS Rules, 2018, are ultra vires the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The ratio is that the executive cannot, through delegated rule-making power, override substantive statutory provisions (Sections 8 and 9 of the Act) that compartmentalize civil servants into specific services, cadres, and posts. The key principles laid down are that service structures are protected by the Constitution and parent statutes; delegated legislation cannot vary underlying statutory principles or merge cadres without legislative amendment; and civil servants have fundamental rights to status and reputation that cannot be undermined by arbitrary administrative reclassification.

  Questions settled

  • Can the provincial government merge distinct civil service cadres into a new service through delegated rule-making powers under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the Sindh High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to examine the constitutionality of service rules, or is it barred by Article 212?
  • Are the Sindh Civil Servants (Provincial Management Service) Rules, 2018, ultra vires the provisions of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can the executive, by declaring existing cadres as 'dying cadres', effectively abolish them and merge their posts into a new service without legislative amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Sardar vs The State2023 SHC 634 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-02Read full judgment →
• Faisal Maqbool Shaikh vs The State2023 SHC 144 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-07
  pre-arrest bailforeign exchange regulationhawala hundimalafidefurther inquirybanking channelsfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from pre-arrest bail applications filed by Faisal Maqbool Shaikh and Tariq Shafi against whom an F.I.R. was registered under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding funds received from abroad and transferred to a political party's account through formal banking channels. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail should be granted where transactions occurred a decade prior through legitimate banking channels, declared to authorities, and lacked prima facie evidence of mens rea or proceeds of crime. The Sindh High Court held that the transactions were conducted through normal channels with no conclusive evidence of proceeds of crime, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry, and malafide was prima facie established due to the decade-long delay in initiating proceedings. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bails. The key principles laid down include that law enforcement agencies must possess solid prima facie evidence before effecting arrests, that legitimate inward remittances through banking channels without proven criminal intent do not warrant criminal incarceration, and that pre-arrest bail is justified where exceptional delay and potential political maneuvering suggest mala fide.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when transactions are executed through formal banking channels and declared to regulatory authorities?
  • Does a decade-long delay by law enforcement agencies in initiating proceedings raise a prima facie presumption of malafide for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether inward foreign remittances received without conclusive evidence of being proceeds of crime satisfy the ingredients of an offence under Section 5(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947?
  • When does a case qualify as one of further inquiry warranting confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Manzoor Ansari and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 2 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 19 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-16
  constitutional petitionshow-cause noticemaintainabilitydepartmental proceedingsfake pilot licensesCivil Aviation Authoritydue processalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  The Sindh High Court addressed a batch of consolidated constitutional petitions filed by employees of the Civil Aviation Authority challenging show-cause notices, suspension orders, and a dismissal order arising from allegations of issuing fake pilot flying licenses through software protocol breaches. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of constitutional petitions against show-cause notices and departmental proceedings instituted regarding a matter of larger national public interest, in light of prior directions by the Supreme Court. Dismissing the petitions, the Court held that constitutional petitions are ordinarily not maintainable against show-cause notices, that High Courts cannot enter into disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction, and that departmental proceedings must be allowed to conclude without judicial interference as mandated by the Supreme Court. The key principles laid down are that discretionary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked prematurely against show-cause notices or in the presence of adequate alternate statutory remedies, and that Supreme Court rulings on matters of public interest are binding on all state organs under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a show-cause notice issued in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a public employee have to exhaust alternate statutory remedies before approaching the High Court against departmental action?
  • Are observations and directions issued by the Supreme Court in suo motu proceedings binding on lower courts regarding ongoing departmental inquiries?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahimul Huda vs Anwarul Huda & Ors2023 SHC 1184 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-20Read full judgment →
• Faheemuddin and 5 others vs Province of Sindh and others2023 SHC 70, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 833 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-20
  civil servantspromotionseniority disputefitness vs eligibilityservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petitionProvincial Selection Board
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the recommendations of the Provincial Selection Board-II (PSB-II) for the promotion of certain Ex-PCS officers (BS-17) to BS-18 while their inter se seniority was sub-judice before the Sindh Service Tribunal. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of a constitutional petition in the face of Article 212 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, specifically concerning the determination of 'fitness' versus 'eligibility' for promotion, and whether junior civil servants can be recommended for promotion while a seniority dispute is pending. The Sindh High Court held that since the matter pertained to the determination of fitness and suitability—which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Section 4(1)(b)—the constitutional petition was maintainable. Allowing the petition, the court ruled that holding a selection board meeting and recommending promotions in the face of an unresolved, sub-judice seniority dispute is illegal, arbitrary, and violates established service jurisprudence and prior judicial dicta.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sindh Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine the 'fitness' of a civil servant for promotion under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 be maintained in service matters relating to the fitness of an employee for promotion?
  • Is it lawful for a departmental selection board to recommend junior civil servants for promotion while their inter se seniority dispute is pending adjudication before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the non-issuance of an injunctive order by the Service Tribunal empower the competent authority to supersede senior officers by proceeding with promotions during a pending seniority appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ekram ud Din Khan vs The D.G. F.I.A. and 3 others2023 PLD Sindh 90 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-20Read full judgment →
• Eaton Phoenixtec MMPL Co., Ltd. and another vs Messrs New Rabia2023 PLD Sindh 123 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• East Rice Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Moon Rice Corporation and others2023 CLD 338 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-19Read full judgment →
• E.D.O. (Now Superintending Engineer) Road District Kashmore @ Kandhkot2023 CLC 1383 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad S/O Muhammad Ali vs The State2023 SHC 518, 2024 PTD 380 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-03Read full judgment →
• Dua Tauseef vs Province of Sindh, Director Admissions Smbbmu and others2023 SHC 1078 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-07Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sunil Anand Hotwani vs Abdul Wakeel and 2 others2023 CLC 1279 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-12Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shaista Shoukat Ali vs Federation of Pakistan and 03 others2023 SHC 72 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahzad Nasim vs The State & Others2023 SHC 297 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-28
  stay of criminal proceedingssimultaneous civil and criminal proceedingsdishonoured chequecommercial disputequashmentabscondenceSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a commercial dispute between business entities over a failed high-rise apartment project, leading to multiple civil suits and a criminal First Information Report (F.I.R.) under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding dishonoured post-dated cheques issued pursuant to a Settlement Agreement. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be stayed pending the final determination of related, ongoing civil litigation between the parties. The Sindh High Court held that while civil and criminal proceedings may generally proceed simultaneously, criminal proceedings ought to be stayed where the criminal liability is intimately connected with, or dependent upon, the resolution of complex commercial and contractual issues pending before civil courts, to avoid conflicting findings and grave prejudice to the accused. The court laid down the principle that in complex commercial disputes where determining the purpose of a cheque and whether it was issued for the 'satisfaction of an obligation' under Section 489-F requires interpreting underlying agreements, civil courts must first determine these rights, and criminal proceedings should be suspended accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be stayed pending the final decision of a civil suit arising out of the same subject matter?
  • Whether criminal liability under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is dependent on the determination of contractual rights in civil litigation?
  • Does the mere pendency of civil litigation automatically bar the continuation of criminal proceedings?
  • What are the guiding principles for exercising discretion to stay criminal proceedings in view of pending civil disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Samreen Riaz Ali and 03 others vs Dow University of Health Sciences2023 SHC 204 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Noor-Ul-Haq and 3 others vs The State2023 YLR 690 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-14
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirybenefit of doubtfamily disputecounter FIRbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises out of a pre-arrest bail confirmation matter where the applicants, who are brothers of the complainant, sought confirmation of interim bail in a case involving a dispute over a madrassah and its properties. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the existence of a prior civil dispute, counter-FIRs, and lack of attribution of specific roles or firearm use. The Sindh High Court held that the case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution's case appeared doubtful due to family animosity, mutual injuries, and absence of firearm usage at the scene. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that where reasonable doubt arises regarding the participation of an accused or the probability of the prosecution case, the benefit of doubt must be extended at the bail stage, and personal liberty should not be arbitrarily curtailed since the object of bail is merely to secure the attendance of the accused at trial and is not punitive.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when a case falls within the scope of further inquiry due to a property dispute and counter-allegations between brothers?
  • Does the absence of specific role attribution and non-use of alleged firearms entitle an accused to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • What is the primary object of granting bail in criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nafees Zubair vs Saeeda Bano & others2023 SHC 1050, 2024 CLC 1146 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Bashir Qasim vs Mrs. Farida Bano and 2 others2023 MLD 275 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mazhar Ali Jatoi, Dr. Habib ur Rehaman vs Federation of Pakistan and 022023 SHC 42 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-07
  pensionary benefitsad-hoc serviceregularizationqualifying servicesuperannuation pensionKarachi Port Trustmaintainabilityconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This common order of the Sindh High Court decided two constitutional petitions filed by retired employees of the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) seeking the inclusion of their initial ad-hoc service (1989–1995) in calculating their total pensionary benefits. The court addressed two central questions: whether constitutional petitions against KPT are maintainable despite claims of non-statutory service rules, and whether continuous ad-hoc service prior to regularization counts toward qualifying service for pension. Overruling the respondent's preliminary objection, the court held that because KPT regulations were framed with Federal Government approval under Section 22 of the KPT Act 1886, KPT operates under statutory rules, making constitutional remedies under Article 199 appropriate. On the merits, the court held that continuous ad-hoc/temporary service followed by regularization without interruption must be counted toward total pensionary and superannuation benefits pursuant to Civil Service Regulations (CSR Articles 358, 371-A, 423, 474(b)) and binding precedent. The High Court allowed the petitions, directing the respondents to compute and release full pensionary benefits incorporating the six-year ad-hoc service.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable against the Karachi Port Trust regarding service terms of its employees?
  • Does continuous service rendered on an ad-hoc basis prior to regularization count towards calculating qualifying service for pensionary benefits?
  • Can pensionary benefits be refused for continuous ad-hoc service that was subsequently regularized by a competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Masuma Hasan vs Imtiaz Ali Khan2023 SHC 1038, 2025 PLD Sindh 96 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
• Dr. Javed Akhtar vs Messrs Rufi Builders and Developers through Director_Partner and 2 others2023 MLD 994 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-05Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farzana Zulfiqar vs Federation of Paksitan and others2023 SHC 36 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Agha Aijaz Ali Pathan vs The State and another2023 MLD 44 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Malik vs K.M.C & others2023 SHC 76 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-15Read full judgment →
• Dollar Industries (Pvt.) Limited through Authorized Signatory_Director and another vs Kamran Akhlaq2023 CLD 670, 2023 PLD Sindh 296 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-15Read full judgment →
• Din Farm Products (Pvt.) Limited vs Not2023 CLD 219 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Dilmurad vs Province of Sindh through Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah2023 CLC 1323 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-26Read full judgment →
• Dilbar, Ali Sher & another vs The State2023 SHC 114 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Dilawar vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1684 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-13
  post-arrest bailSindh Arms Actprohibitory clausestatutory interpretationunlicensed weaponrecovery proceedingscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused in a criminal case registered under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, following the recovery of an unlicensed .30 bore pistol. The core legal question was whether the possession of a pistol constitutes an offence under Section 23(1)(a) regarding firearms and ammunition, or Section 24 regarding arms, and consequently, whether the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that a pistol falls within the definition of arms under Section 2(c) and Section 24 of the Act, rather than firearms or ammunition under Section 23. Consequently, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The Court established that for bail purposes, the classification of the weapon determines the applicable penal section, and where the potential sentence does not trigger the prohibitory clause, the accused is entitled to bail, particularly when the investigation is complete and no private witnesses were associated during the recovery process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of a pistol fall under Section 23(1)(a) or Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013?
  • Does an offence under Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should bail be granted when the police fail to associate private witnesses during the recovery of an alleged weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Dil Murad & Another vs The State2023 SHC 260 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-03
  pre-arrest bailcriminal lawmurderfatal injuryFIR nominationbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by two accused persons seeking confirmation of their pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges of murder and assault. The core legal question was whether the applicants, who were specifically nominated in the First Information Report (FIR) for causing fatal injuries to the deceased, were entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. The High Court held that the applicants were not entitled to such relief, noting that they were specifically attributed with causing fatal blows to the deceased, Fida Hussain Laghari, with an iron rod and a lathi, respectively. The Court reasoned that pre-arrest bail is reserved for cases where an accused is prima facie falsely implicated due to mala fide or ulterior motives, which was not established here. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application and recalled the ad-interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not available to accused persons who are specifically implicated with active roles in fatal injuries, absent evidence of mala fide or false implication.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused specifically nominated in an FIR for causing fatal injuries entitled to pre-arrest bail?
  • What is the threshold for granting pre-arrest bail in cases of serious criminal offences?
  • Does the presence of specific allegations of fatal blows preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Dil Ahmed vs The State2023 SHC 592 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-20
  criminal appealmurdercircumstantial evidencedying declarationbenefit of the doubtchemical examiner reportacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted of murdering his wife under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility and evidentiary value of an oral dying declaration, and the implications of a negative chemical examiner's report regarding flammable substances. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish motive, that an oral dying declaration is a weak piece of evidence requiring strict corroboration, and that the negative chemical report completely demolished the prosecution's theory of the victim being set on fire with petrol. The ratio decidendi is that where material discrepancies and missing links exist in a circumstantial case, and the foundational elements of the crime are unproven, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of an oral dying declaration in a murder trial?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal when the chemical examiner report contradicts the prosecution's core allegation of using a flammable substance?
  • How should a court evaluate a criminal case built entirely on circumstantial evidence and missing links?
  Read full judgment →
• Digri Sugar Mills Limited vs The Additional Collector of Customs, Sales Tax2023 PTD 825 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-22Read full judgment →
• Digital Bridge (Private) Limited through authorized representative vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Information Technology and Telecom and 6 others2023 CLC 560 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-03Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue Services (Aec) and 4 others vs Messrs Clariant Pakistan Limited2023 PTD 1292 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-30Read full judgment →
• Deedar Ali Meerani S/O Ghulam Hyder Mirani vs Spl. Judge Anti Corruption2023 SHC 136 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-26
  criminal appealdismissal for non-prosecutionright of appealanti-corruptionmisappropriation of case propertynon-appearance of appellant
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Karachi, regarding the appellant's involvement in the misappropriation of case property (Charas) while serving as an Excise & Taxation Inspector. The appellant was convicted under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. During the pendency of the appeal, the jail authorities reported that the appellant had already completed his sentence and was released from custody. Neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared for the hearing, demonstrating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The Court held that while the right of appeal is a statutory right that cannot be denied, an appeal cannot be kept pending indefinitely due to the appellant's persistent non-appearance and lethargy. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, while granting the appellant liberty to apply for the restoration of the appeal upon his appearance, subject to notice to the prosecution and a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the persistent absence of the appellant and their counsel?
  • Does the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution preclude the appellant from seeking its restoration at a later date?
  • Is the right of appeal a statutory right that cannot be arbitrarily denied?
  Read full judgment →
• Darya Khan and others vs The State2023 MLD 1751 · Sindh High Court
  identification paradebenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionappreciation of evidenceQanun-e-Shahadatsentence modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the trial court's judgment convicting four appellants for murder and robbery. The prosecution's case rested primarily on identification parades conducted after the appellants' arrest. The core legal question was whether the identification parade evidence was reliable given that the witnesses had previously seen the accused during their arrest and the appellants were not named in the FIR. The High Court held that the identification parade lacked evidentiary value because the witnesses had already encountered the accused before the parade, and the prosecution failed to provide specific descriptions or roles in the FIR. Consequently, the Court acquitted two appellants, Darya Khan and Zaheer Ahmed, granting them the benefit of the doubt. Regarding the remaining appellants, Gul Hassan and Khan Muhammad, the Court maintained their convictions but modified their sentences from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, citing mitigating circumstances and the absence of other incriminating evidence. The judgment reaffirms the principle that identification evidence is unreliable if witnesses have prior exposure to the accused, and that any reasonable doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade lose its evidentiary value if the witnesses have already seen the accused prior to the parade?
  • Is the benefit of doubt in a criminal case a matter of right or a matter of grace for the accused?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 302(c) based on mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Dargahi vs The State2023 MLD 1426 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-07
  anti-terrorism appealpolice encounterbenefit of doubtidentification evidenceindependent investigationcriminal appealmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences including murder and terrorism arising from an alleged police encounter. The core legal questions involve the jurisdiction of the High Court versus the Federal Shariat Court over matters involving certain Hadd provisions, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on identification via motorcycle headlight and police investigation of a police encounter. The Sindh High Court held that under Section 25(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the appeal is maintainable before the High Court, and that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to weak identification evidence lacking corroboration, material contradictions, and the lack of an independent investigation in a police-involved incident. The key principles laid down include that identification on a motorcycle headlight in a dark night is a weak type of evidence requiring strong corroboration, that an incident involving police casualties must be investigated by an independent agency rather than the police acting as investigators of their own cause, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against the final judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court lie to the High Court under Section 25(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is identification based solely on the headlight of a motorcycle during a dark night sufficient to sustain a conviction without strong corroboration?
  • Must a criminal case involving a police encounter and police casualties be investigated by an independent agency rather than the local police?
  • What is the effect on a criminal case when there is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Danish Parabha Shankar Kaneria vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination and another2023 MLD 1464 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
• Danish and others vs The State2023 PCRLJ 522 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-23
  defective chargejuvenile offenderjoint trialsection 342 Cr.P.C.incriminating evidenceretrialvitiated trialdeath sentence reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against convictions and death sentences awarded by the trial court for offences including Zina and abduction, alongside a death sentence confirmation reference. The core legal questions concern whether material procedural illegalities during trial—namely a vague and defective charge, joint trial of a juvenile offender with adult accused by improperly copying and pasting deposition records, and failing to put all incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—vitiate the trial. The court held that these grave violations caused serious prejudice to the appellants and were incurable under the law. The ratio is that where a trial suffers from fundamental procedural flaws such as joint juvenile-adult trials violating the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, defective charges, and failure to properly examine the accused under section 342, the convictions must be set aside and the matter remanded for retrial. The court laid down the principle that trials of juveniles and adults must be conducted separately, charges must specify all essential ingredients, and all incriminating evidence must be specifically put to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the joint trial of a juvenile offender with adult accused violate the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 so as to vitiate the trial?
  • Whether copying and pasting witness depositions from one case into another violates the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can prosecution evidence not put to an accused during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be used to maintain a conviction?
  • What is the legal effect of framing a vague and defective charge that omits material particulars and ingredients of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Daim vs The State2023 SHC 399 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-09
  post-arrest bailpolice encounterfurther inquiryattempt to commit Qatl-e-amaddeterring public servantbenefit of doubtcriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by Daim Khaskheli in Crime No.55 of 2023 registered at Police Station Tando Jam, Hyderabad, under sections 324, 353, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he was arrested on the spot following an alleged police encounter, but no injuries or scratches were sustained by any member of the police party. The Sindh High Court held that the absence of injuries to the police party renders the applicability of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code debatable and brings the case within the scope of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that in cases of alleged police encounters where no law enforcement personnel receive injuries, the matter of murderous assault requires further inquiry at the bail stage, and the benefit of doubt regarding penal applicability must be resolved in favor of granting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when an accused is arrested at the spot during an alleged police encounter but no injuries are sustained by any police personnel?
  • Does the lack of injuries to a police party in an alleged exchange of fire make the applicability of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code a matter requiring further inquiry?
  • Whether the recovery of a weapon from an accused at the spot is sufficient to deny bail when the foundational charge of murderous assault is open to further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Dadabhouy Foundation & another vs Karachi Building Control Authority &2023 SHC 1152 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dad Gul alias Mangha and another vs The State2023 YLR 1702 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-24
  murderdeath sentence reductionlife imprisonmentocular testimonyrelated witnessesstatement under section 342 Cr.P.C.appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death, alongside a connected appeal challenging the acquittal of co-respondents. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eye-witness testimony, the evidentiary value of an accused's statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the admissibility of a co-accused's confession against other respondents, and the grounds for interfering with an acquittal. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt through consistent, confidence-inspiring eye-witness testimony and a clear inculpatory admission under section 342 Cr.P.C., but altered the death sentence to imprisonment for life since it could not be determined whose specific shot proved fatal. Furthermore, the court dismissed the appeal against acquittal, holding that an exculpatory or retracted confession and uncorroborated statements of a co-accused are insufficient to displace the double presumption of innocence enjoyed by acquitted persons. The key principles laid down include the rule that related eye-witnesses are credible in the absence of proven enmity, that an accused's statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. can be used when corroborated by reliable evidence, and that an acquittal cannot be set aside without showing the judgment was blatantly perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Can an incriminating statement of an accused recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to support the prosecution's case when corroborated by reliable ocular evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can a death sentence be reduced to imprisonment for life when multiple accused fired at the deceased and the fatal shot cannot be attributed with certainty to a single individual?
  • Whether a confessional statement or a co-accused's statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is sufficient by itself to overturn an acquittal and convict respondents who enjoy a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Sindh Steel Corporation (Private) Limited, Karachi2023 PTD 231 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Ir, Zone-IV vs M/s. Hamdam Paper Corporation (Pvt) Ltd.,2023 SHC 174 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IV vs Byco Petroleum Pakistan2023 PTD 1498 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-06
  default surchargesales tax penaltymens reacircular debtquasi-criminal liabilityreference jurisdictionwillful default
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application before the Sindh High Court arose from concurrent orders of the Commissioner Appeals and the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which had set aside the imposition of default surcharge and penalties levied upon petroleum sector entities for late payment of sales tax. The core legal question was whether default surcharge and penalties under fiscal laws could be imposed without establishing willful default or mens rea, particularly where delays stemmed from a liquidity crunch caused by the national circular debt crisis. The Court held that fiscal penalties and default surcharges are quasi-criminal in nature and require proof of culpable intent or mens rea, which was absent given the peculiar circumstances and government-induced liquidity issues. The Court concluded that in the absence of willful default, the levy of default surcharge and penalties was unwarranted, and accordingly answered the reframed question of law in the negative and in favor of the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the imposition of default surcharge and penalties under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 requires the presence of mens rea or willful default?
  • Does a liquidity crunch resulting from the national circular debt crisis absolve a taxpayer from liability for default surcharge and penalties on delayed tax payments?
  • What is the scope of reference jurisdiction of the High Court regarding factual determinations made by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue?
  • Are penalties and default surcharges under fiscal statutes considered civil liabilities or quasi-criminal in nature?
  Read full judgment →