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.

• Sanwal @ Charya vs The State2022 SHC 368 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-22
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtinadmissible confessionrecovery of weaponforensic reportacquittalSection 342 Cr.P.C examination
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the alleged recovery of a crime weapon and an extra-judicial confession. The Court found that the prosecution failed to examine the police officer who allegedly recovered the weapon, rendering the recovery unreliable. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant's alleged confession to police officials was inadmissible under Article 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Additionally, the failure to confront the appellant with the forensic report and the recovery during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Is a confession made before police officials admissible in evidence?
  • Does the failure to confront an accused with a forensic report during Section 342 Cr.P.C examination render the recovery inconsequential?
  • Is it necessary to have multiple circumstances to grant the benefit of doubt to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanofi-Aventis Pakistan Limited and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 PCTLR 1505 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-02Read full judgment →
• Sana-ur-Rehman vs The State & another2022 SHC 512 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-07
  strict liabilitymens reasub-standard pesticidedealer liabilitychain of custodycriminal acquittalAgricultural Pesticides Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, a small-town dealer of agricultural products, was convicted under Section 21(2)(b) of the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971 for selling a sub-standard pesticide manufactured by a third party. The applicant challenged his conviction before the Sindh High Court. The core legal question was whether a pesticide distributor or dealer can be held criminally liable for selling a sub-standard product when the product was sold in sealed containers purchased lawfully from the manufacturer without any knowledge of its defect or tampering by the dealer. The court held that while Section 21(1) of the Ordinance creates an offence of strict liability, offences carrying prison sentences must be construed as 'true crimes' where the requirement of mens rea should be read into the provision unless the seller knew, should have known, had reason to believe the product was sub-standard, adulterated it themselves, or acquired it from an unreliable source. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove that the complainant was a duly notified Inspector under Section 15 of the Ordinance, and the evidence was vitiated by severe procedural lapses in sample collection, preservation, and chain of custody. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the applicant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pesticide dealer can be held criminally liable for selling a sub-standard product contained in intact manufacturer-sealed containers without knowledge of the defect?
  • Should the requirement of mens rea be read into a statutory offence carrying a prison sentence even if the legislative provision is silent on a guilty mind?
  • What are the legal consequences when the prosecution fails to establish that the complainant was a duly notified Inspector under the relevant statute?
  • Does a fatal flaw in the sample collection, preservation, and chain of custody vitiate a criminal conviction under the Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance, 1971?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah son of Muhamad Badshah, Zahoor Ahmed @ Abdullah son of Abdul Malik, Dad Shah son of Ahmed Shah vs The State,The State, The State2022 SHC 432, 2024 MLD 44 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-04
  police encounterbenefit of doubtcriminal appealfirearm injurycontradictions in evidenceanti-terrorismillegal arms recoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses six criminal appeals arising from a single judgment dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court No.X, Karachi, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with Sections 353, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and under Section 23(1)(A) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal question involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the police encounter and the charges of firing and possession of illicit arms beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that material contradictions among prosecution witnesses, lack of blood evidence at the scene or inside the police mobile despite a chest injury, presence of blackening and charring on the entry wound, and conflicting accounts of the arrest cast serious doubt on the prosecution's version of events. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellants and ordering their immediate acquittal. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions in ocular testimony, coupled with medical evidence inconsistent with the alleged manner of injury, destroy the credibility of the prosecution case, requiring the benefit of the doubt to be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between eyewitness accounts and medical evidence are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a prosecution case?
  • Does the presence of blackening and charring on an entry wound invalidate the prosecution's claim of a distant police encounter?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal when the foundational facts of an alleged crime, such as the occurrence of a police encounter and the place of arrest, are rendered doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Butt & Another vs Dr. Afnan Ullah Khan & Another2022 SHC 294, 2025 PLD Sindh 28 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-27Read full judgment →
• Salah Uddin vs The State and 3 others2022 PLD Sindh 354 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-15
  perjuryfalse evidenceSection 340(2) CrPCcriminal revisionjudicial discretionSection 476 CrPCaccused as witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged a trial court order dismissing an application for the prosecution of an accused for perjury. The core legal question was whether an accused person, testifying on oath under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, could be prosecuted for perjury under Section 193, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether such prosecution is mandatory when the statement is immaterial to the case. The High Court held that while an accused testifying under Section 340(2) is not a 'witness' in the conventional sense, they may be liable for perjury if they make a false statement. However, perjury requires a statement made with knowledge of its falsity, not a bona fide mistake or presumption. The court affirmed that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to dismiss the application, as the accused's statement resulted from a bona fide misunderstanding of his legal status. The key principle laid down is that the initiation of perjury proceedings is a judicial discretion, and private parties cannot challenge a court's refusal to prosecute if the court finds no prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be prosecuted for perjury under Section 193, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for statements made while testifying on oath under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a trial court have the discretion to refuse to initiate proceedings for perjury under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if it finds no prima facie case?
  • Is a false statement made by an accused under a bona fide mistake or presumption sufficient to constitute the offense of giving false evidence?
  • Can a private party challenge a trial court's refusal to initiate perjury proceedings under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad alias Sijoo Gopang vs The State2022 SHC 466 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-12
  narcoticsplea of guiltcriminal appealchemical examiner reportsentence servedcharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC/Special Judge for CNS, Kamber, convicting the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. During the pendency of the appeal, it was reported that the appellant had already completed his sentence and been released from prison. When produced before the High Court, the appellant stated that he did not wish to press the appeal on merits. Nevertheless, the court reviewed the prosecution evidence and the trial court's findings, noting that the appellant had earlier admitted his guilt before the trial court and that the chemical examiner's report was positive with intact samples. The core legal question was whether the conviction was sustainable upon re-appraisal of evidence when the appellant chose not to press the appeal. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was based on sound judicial principles and required no interference. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal against conviction be dismissed as not pressed when the appellant has already served the sentence?
  • Whether a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be sustained upon an accused's admission of guilt before the trial court?
  • Does a positive chemical examiner's report with an intact sample rule out tampering in a narcotics case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid S/o Noor Ahmed vs The State2022 SHC 370 · Sindh High Court
  kidnapping for ransomabductionidentification paradeanti-terrorismcriminal appealdelay in FIRsingle witness testimonyextortion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants for kidnapping for ransom, police encounter, and illegal weapon possession. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence regarding the kidnapping, the impact of delayed FIR registration, and the reliability of identification parades and weapon recoveries. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of the abductee, which was deemed natural and confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by Call Detail Records and weapon recoveries. The Court affirmed that kidnapping for ransom is constituted by the act of abduction for extortion purposes; actual payment of ransom is not a prerequisite. Furthermore, the Court established that delay in FIR registration is not fatal when adequately explained by the victim's family's search efforts. It reiterated that the testimony of a single reliable witness is sufficient for conviction, and identification parades, while useful, are not mandatory when the victim has had prolonged exposure to the accused. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Is the actual payment of ransom money a necessary ingredient to constitute the offence of kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful in kidnapping for ransom cases?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness if the court finds the witness to be reliable and confidence-inspiring?
  • Is the holding of an identification parade a mandatory requirement of law to establish the identity of the accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Rehman and Another vs The State2022 MLD 1966 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-21
  narcotics transportationconscious possessionburden of proofsafe custody of samplespolice evidencecontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for transporting a large quantity of charas and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the appellants had conscious possession and knowledge of the narcotics recovered from the vehicle they were traveling in, and whether the absence of independent mashirs vitiated the recovery. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions, holding that the prosecution successfully established guilt through consistent police testimony, prompt lodging of the FIR, safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband, and positive chemical reports. The court laid down that under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once recovery is proven from a vehicle under the control of the accused, the burden shifts to them to disprove knowledge or possession, and that courts must adopt a dynamic approach rather than acquitting drug offenders on technical grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the burden of proof shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 once the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle in their control is established?
  • Can the evidence of police witnesses be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases in the absence of any proved enmity against them?
  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by virtue of Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 affect the validity of a recovery made without independent mashirs?
  • Whether courts should adopt a dynamic approach in narcotics cases rather than acquitting accused persons on technicalities?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Plastic Factory vs Federation of Pakistan and two others2022 SHC 310 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-03Read full judgment →
• Safeer Alias Ali Dino and another vs The State2022 YLR 2034 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-04
  illegal arms possessionbenefit of doubtsafe transmission of weaponsjoint trialconflicting judgmentsSindh Arms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants were tried and convicted under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 for the alleged possession of unlicensed pistols. They filed separate criminal appeals before the Sindh High Court challenging their convictions. The core legal questions involved the legality of the trial procedure, the failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody and safe transmission of recovered weapons to the Ballistic Expert, and the necessity of joint trials for connected offshoot cases to avoid conflicting judgments. The High Court held that copying evidence from one case to another was illegal, and the failure to establish safe transmission of the weapons to the Ballistic Expert created serious doubt in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt. The Court further laid down the principle that where an accused is alleged to have used an arm in the commission of an offense triable by a Court of Session, the trial under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 must be held jointly with the main case to prevent conflicting judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's failure to prove safe custody and safe transmission of a recovered weapon to the Ballistic Expert vitiates the conviction under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013?
  • Does copying or duplicating evidence from one case into another separate trial render the proceedings illegal?
  • Should an offense under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 be tried jointly with the main Sessions case arising from the same transaction to avoid conflicting judgments?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when a circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Babar and Muhammad Shahid Rauf vs Federation of Pakistan and 04 others2022 SHC 122 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-11
  regular promotionacting chargeofficiating chargevested rightscivil servantsdirect recruitment quotaregularization
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Class IV employees seeking regular promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) after having served on an acting or look-after charge basis for over a decade. The core legal question was whether employees continuously serving on higher posts against direct recruitment quotas on an acting or officiating charge basis for extended periods can claim regular promotion and confirmation. The Sindh High Court allowed the petition, holding that departments cannot exploit employees by keeping them on acting charge indefinitely and that long-serving officiating employees who meet the requisite criteria are entitled to regular promotion and its consequential benefits. The court laid down the principle that rules providing for acting charge appointments must be used bona fide and cannot be invoked to perpetuate maladministration or deny legitimate regularization to employees performing duties against vacant posts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee serving on an acting or officiating charge basis against a higher post for a prolonged period acquires a right to regular promotion?
  • Can a government department indefinitely keep employees on an acting charge basis against posts meant for direct recruitment?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan apply to constitutional petitions seeking regularization based on the principle of equality and prior judgments?
  • Are employees who meet the eligibility criteria and qualify departmental tests entitled to confirmation as regular promotees?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Akhtar and 2 others vs Muslim Commercial Bank Pakistan Ltd. and 42022 CLD 1523 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs Mudasir Ali2022 SHC 282 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-15Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 PLD Sindh 508 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-22Read full judgment →
• Sadaf Sharjeel and another vs National Accountability Bureau (Sindh)2022 YLR 2441 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-18
  Exit Control Listpre-arrest bailfundamental rightsreview jurisdictionflight riskfreedom of movementaccountability reference
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought a review of a High Court order that had placed their names on the Exit Control List (ECL) as a condition for granting pre-arrest bail in a National Accountability Bureau reference. The petitioners argued that their fundamental rights to travel and conduct business were unduly restricted, noting that they had previously traveled abroad with court permission and returned on time. The National Accountability Bureau opposed the application, arguing that the order was not reviewable and that the petitioners posed a flight risk. The Court held that it possesses the inherent power to review its own orders to meet the ends of justice and that such reviews are decided on the merits of each case. Finding no evidence that the petitioners were a flight risk—given their deep roots in Pakistan, the presence of their properties, and their history of compliance—the Court determined that maintaining their names on the ECL for an indefinite period, especially given the trial's slow progress, violated their fundamental rights. Consequently, the Court ordered the removal of the petitioners' names from the ECL, subject to their appearance before the trial court when required.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have the inherent power to review its own order placing an accused person's name on the Exit Control List?
  • Can the placement of an accused's name on the Exit Control List be maintained indefinitely when the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future?
  • Is the right to travel abroad as guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 absolute for an accused person in a criminal case?
  • Does the existence of property and family ties within the country mitigate the risk of an accused absconding while on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustam Ali Shar vs The State2022 SHC 448, 2024 PCRLJ 68 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-29
  murderbenefit of doubtpolice witnessessafe custody of weaponappraisal of evidencecriminal appealacquittalarms act
  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 wife and under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment and ten years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The core legal questions addressed involve the reliability of uncorroborated police testimony in a case based on spy information without associating private independent witnesses, the legal effect of missing chain of custody regarding weapon recovery and forensic transmission, and the application of the principle of benefit of doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case through unimpeachable evidence, noting fatal flaws in the failure to join independent witnesses despite availability, overwriting in police station daily diaries, and failure to prove safe custody and transmission of crime weapons to forensic experts. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant and directing his immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a capital punishment case when independent witnesses available at the scene were not associated or examined?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody and safe transmission of recovered weapons to the forensic expert vitiate the evidentiary value of the weapon?
  • How many circumstances creating a reasonable doubt are required to entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  • Does the failure of an accused to explain unnatural circumstances under the same roof shift the burden of proof to relieve the prosecution from proving its case on its own strength?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Lakhan and others vs The D.G. Petroleum and others2022 CLC 284 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-19Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Kanasro vs Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority2022 PLJ Karachi 21 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rizwan Haider and others vs The State2022 PCRLJ 908 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-15
  pre-arrest bailpolice officialsfurther inquirydeeper appreciation of evidencecriminal trialbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three criminal bail applications filed by police officials seeking confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants were accused of murder following the death of a suspect during a police chase, while the applicants maintained the death resulted from a traffic accident. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to confirmation of bail given the conflicting evidence and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to confirmation of bail, finding that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the object of bail is to secure the accused's presence at trial rather than to punish, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. As no misuse of the bail concession was demonstrated and the prosecution's case required further investigation, the interim pre-arrest bails were confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the bail stage?
  • What is the primary objective of granting bail in the criminal justice system?
  • When should a court confirm interim pre-arrest bail based on the requirement for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan and 3 others vs The State2022 MLD 716 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-19
  pre-arrest baildelayed FIRgeneral allegationspresumption of innocencecriminal procedurebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by four applicants seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR registered for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the significant delay in FIR registration and the nature of the allegations. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court observed that the FIR was registered with an inordinate delay of 40 days without any plausible explanation from the prosecution, despite the proximity of the police station to the place of occurrence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to assign any specific role to the individual applicants, relying instead on general allegations of joint assault. The Court reaffirmed the principle that mere heinousness of an offence does not justify denying bail to an accused, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that unexplained delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be denied solely on the basis of the heinous nature of the alleged offence when no specific role is attributed to the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the presumption of innocence at the bail stage despite the severity of the charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Magsi and others vs The State2022 MLD 1787 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-03
  capital punishmentright to counselfair trialdue processexamination-in-chiefremand of caseabsence of defense counsel
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, including murder. During the trial, the examination-in-chief of the primary eye-witness and complainant was recorded in the presence of the accused but in the absence of their defense counsel. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether recording the examination-in-chief of a material witness in a capital case in the absence of the accused's counsel vitiates the trial and warrants a remand. The court held that in capital cases, it is mandatory for an accused to be represented by legal counsel during the examination-in-chief to ensure due process and a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The ratio laid down is that the absence of a defense counsel during examination-in-chief prejudices illiterate or unrepresented laymen accused, leading to an unfair trial. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, remanding the matter back to the trial court to re-record the complainant's testimony in the presence of counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recording the examination-in-chief of a prosecution witness in a capital case in the absence of the accused's counsel violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the absence of legal representation during the examination-in-chief of a crucial witness in a capital trial necessitate setting aside the conviction and remanding the case?
  • Is it mandatory under Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the accused to be assisted by a pleader during the recording of evidence in capital offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Reliance Petrochem Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan2022 SHC 416 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-30Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs The State (A.N.F.)2022 YLR 1639 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-31
  narcotics traffickingControl of Narcotic Substances Actburden of proofsafe custodychemical examiner reportcriminal appeallife imprisonmentrecovery of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Special Court (C.N.S.) for transporting 1000 kilograms of charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the appellant, as the sole occupant of the vehicle, could be held liable for the narcotics recovered from secret cavities. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. It held that under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, once the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle under the accused's control is proven, the burden shifts to the accused to demonstrate ignorance of the contents, which the appellant failed to do. The Court affirmed that police evidence is reliable absent proof of enmity, and minor contradictions do not vitiate the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court emphasized a dynamic approach to narcotics cases, rejecting technical acquittals, and confirmed that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded for offenses under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 once the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle under the accused's control is proven?
  • Is Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to offenses under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics trafficking be sustained solely on the testimony of police witnesses if no enmity is proven?
  • Is life imprisonment the mandatory sentence for the recovery of narcotics exceeding 10 kilograms?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehan Hamid vs Federation of Pakistan &others2022 SHC 480 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-26
  territorial jurisdictioncause of actionrejection of plaintreturn of plaintcontractual employeewrongful terminationcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and damages filed by a former Chief Executive Officer of Hyderabad Electric Supply Company challenging his removal from service via a notification issued by defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 filed an application seeking rejection or return of the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the Sindh High Court at Karachi possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit where the defendant company operates in Hyderabad, the termination notification originated from Hyderabad, and the plaintiff performed his employment duties there, notwithstanding the plaintiff's contention that cause of action arose in Karachi because he received or came to know of the notification while in Karachi. The court held that the Sindh High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, ruling that mere knowledge of an adverse order at a transit or temporary location does not constitute a cause of action, and that jurisdiction is determined by the place where the defendant carries on business or where the notification originates and the employment contract is performed. Consequently, the court ordered the return of the plaint for presentation before the proper forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plaintiff's mere knowledge or receipt of an impugned termination notification at a temporary location constitute a cause of action for establishing territorial jurisdiction?
  • Where does the cause of action arise in a suit challenging a termination order issued by an employer?
  • Whether a court lacking territorial jurisdiction can return a plaint for presentation before the proper forum under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux, A.S.I. (Retd.) and 2 others vs The State2022 YLR 402 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-11
  defective investigationAnti-Terrorism Actsummary proceedingsfair trialdue processpolice misconductcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted three police officials under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for alleged defective investigation and misconduct. The core legal question was whether a trial court is empowered to summarily convict and sentence police officers under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without framing a formal charge or conducting a proper trial, based solely on a show-cause notice and an unconditional apology. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, ruling that the summary procedure adopted by the trial court was unwarranted. The Court clarified that proceedings under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, do not dispense with the fundamental requirement of a fair trial. Unless an act constitutes contempt in the face of the court, a proper charge must be framed to allow the accused to defend themselves. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that due process cannot be bypassed through summary proceedings, even when an apology is tendered.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court convict police officers under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without a formal trial?
  • Does an unconditional apology submitted in response to a show-cause notice constitute a waiver of the right to a trial?
  • Is the summary procedure under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, applicable to cases not involving contempt in the face of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali Noonari vs Mst. Zoya Noonari & another2022 SHC 62 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-21Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmed vs Pakistan Telecommunication Limited & another2022 SHC 326 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-20
  wrongful dismissalmaster and servantdamagesdisciplinary inquirycivil suitservice regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This lawsuit seeks a declaration, permanent injunction, and damages following the removal of the plaintiff, an Assistant Divisional Engineer (BS-18) in Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), from service. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of a civil suit regarding terms and conditions of employment governed by master-servant principles, the lawfulness of the disciplinary proceedings and termination without statutory competence, and the plaintiff's entitlement to damages in lieu of reinstatement. The court held that while the company lacked statutory service rules barring constitutional petitions, the termination was unlawful and without jurisdiction as it violated procedural regulations and followed a previously concluded inquiry where the plaintiff was exonerated. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages for wrongful dismissal, mental agony, and loss of future earnings. The key principle laid down is that where an employee is wrongfully dismissed in violation of procedural rules and natural justice, and chooses to forego reinstatement, the court may award fair compensation as damages reflecting economic loss, loss of reputation, and physical or mental stress.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit for damages is maintainable against a corporate entity lacking statutory service rules where the relationship is governed by master and servant?
  • Can an employer initiate a second disciplinary inquiry on the same charges after an employee has already been exonerated in the first inquiry report?
  • Is an employee entitled to general and special damages for wrongful termination when dropping the prayer for reinstatement in service?
  • What criteria should a court apply in determining the quantum of damages for mental agony, loss of reputation, and future economic loss resulting from unlawful dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed A. Razvi vs Mrs. Sakina Suleman and another2022 PLD Sindh 403 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Gulzar and 126 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and 2 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 454 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-22
  contempt of courtregularization of servicecompliance reportthird-party contractorletter and spiritemployment lawjudicial order enforcement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a contempt application filed against the respondent-company for failing to comply with a previous judgment directing the regularization of the petitioners' services. The core legal question was whether the respondent's compliance report, which excluded certain petitioners based on grounds such as prior termination, death, or third-party contractor status, satisfied the court's earlier directions. The Court held that the compliance report was inadequate and failed to adhere to the 'letter and spirit' of the previous orders. It ruled that the respondent could not use third-party contractor status or other technicalities to deny regularization, as these issues had already been settled by superior court precedents. Consequently, the Court rejected the compliance report. Rather than initiating immediate contempt proceedings, the Court granted the respondent a final two-week opportunity to fully implement the regularization orders, warning that failure to do so would result in the issuance of show-cause notices for contempt under the relevant legal provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer rely on third-party contractor status to deny the regularization of employees after a court has ordered such regularization?
  • Does a compliance report that excludes certain employees based on technical grounds satisfy a court order for general regularization?
  • What is the standard for determining if a court order has been complied with in 'letter and spirit'?
  • Can a court grant a final opportunity for compliance before initiating formal contempt proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramesh Kumar vs The State and another2022 PLD Sindh 155 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-18
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceSection 265-K CrPCfruitless trialappellate interferencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South, which acquitted the respondent under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a direct complaint case. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion to acquit the accused at an early stage, and whether the appellate court should interfere with this acquittal. The High Court held that the trial court's power under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. is broad and intended to prevent fruitless trials when there is no probability of conviction. The Court emphasized that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, and appellate interference is only warranted if the order is perverse, capricious, arbitrary, or based on a gross misreading of evidence. Finding that the trial court's order was well-reasoned and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any such infirmity, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that courts should not fill lacunae in the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a trial court exercise its power to acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an order of acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require a formal application by the accused?
  • What is the standard of review for an appellate court when considering an appeal against an acquittal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajesh alias Raju vs The State2022 YLR 1855 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-08
  murder convictiondeath sentence reductionunproven motiveCCTV evidenceforensic scienceQatl-i-Amdmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of a hospital employee and sentenced to death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a compensation order under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution's case relied on CCTV footage, medical evidence, and the recovery of a weapon. On appeal, the appellant did not challenge the conviction on merits but sought a reduction of the death sentence. The High Court, upon re-examination, found the conviction sound, noting that the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through reliable CCTV evidence and forensic reports. However, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive (unauthorized ATM withdrawal) with independent evidence. Citing the principle that failure to prove a set-up motive warrants caution in sentencing, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the death sentence to imprisonment for life, maintaining the compensation order and granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a set-up motive warrant the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can CCTV footage be admitted as evidence under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is the trial court required to act as a gatekeeper for scientific and forensic evidence?
  • Does the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to a sentence reduced from death to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali Bullar vs The State2022 YLR 1907 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-08
  murderpolice encounterfirearm injuryeyewitness testimonycriminal appealmedical evidenceminor contradictionsappellant conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze, whereby the appellant, a police official, was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case is that the victim and his relatives were travelling in a car when stopped by a police party on the National Highway. After a brief verbal exchange due to the car stopping a few paces ahead of the police mobile, the appellant fired at the car, causing fatal firearm injuries to the deceased. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular and medical evidence, the impact of minor discrepancies, the effect of omissions under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the assessment of prompt FIR registration. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through trustworthy eyewitness and medical evidence. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence, and ruled that minor contradictions do not dilute the credibility of consistent eyewitness accounts corroborated by medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to discard an otherwise consistent and trustworthy eyewitness account?
  • Does the mere relationship of eyewitnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or partisan in the absence of direct enmity?
  • Whether the failure to put certain pieces of circumstantial evidence, such as weapon recovery empties and FSL reports, to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the conviction when independent strong evidence exists?
  • Does prompt registration of the First Information Report exclude the possibility of consultation or deliberation in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Quality Steel Re-Rolling Mill, through Legally Authorized Officer vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad and 7 others2022 PTD 39 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-16Read full judgment →
• Province Of Sindh, through Secretary Revenue Department and 3 others vs Thakur Das and others2022 MLD 174 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-25Read full judgment →
• Province Of Sindh, through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 2 others vs Land Acquisition Officer_Deputy District Officer (R&R), Rohri and others2022 CLC 409 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh, Works &2022 SHC 74, 2024 CLC 568 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-09Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh & Others vs Rahim Bux Khan & Others2022 SHC 64, 2022 CLC 2063 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-14Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan., Muhammad Akbar & 13 others vs Province of Sindh and others2022 SHC 514 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Professor Nisar Ahmed Khan Rao vs Institute Of Business Administration2022 PLJ Karachi 14, 2022 CLC 1680 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-02Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Jan Muhammad & another vs Province of Sindh & others2022 SHC 56 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-08
  quo warrantoprobationeracting chargeunfettered discretionpublic officemaintainabilityseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought a writ of quo warranto challenging an office order issued by the Vice Chancellor of Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University, Larkana, assigning the additional charge of Principal of an affiliated medical college to Respondent No. 6. The petitioners contended that Respondent No. 6 was a junior professor serving on probation without regular confirmation, who lacked administrative experience, while senior permanent professors were bypassed arbitrarily without lawful criteria or statutory rules. The respondents challenged maintainability, citing the absence of statutory rules and asserting the Vice Chancellor's unfettered administrative discretion under the governing statute. The High Court held that a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution is maintainable against a public office holder even in the absence of statutory rules. The Court ruled that administrative discretion is never unfettered and must be exercised transparently and reasonably. An employee on probation cannot be appointed or assigned acting charge of a key public office like Principal over senior permanent professors, nor can acting charge stop-gap arrangements persist indefinitely. The impugned appointment order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ of quo warranto under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution is maintainable against an appointment to a public office in a university that lacks statutory rules?
  • Can a retired employee maintain a constitutional petition seeking a writ of quo warranto as a non-interested party?
  • Whether a university Vice Chancellor possesses unfettered discretion to appoint a junior probationer to hold acting charge of a public office over senior permanent professors?
  • Can a person whose eligibility for a public office is challenged on the cut-off date cure that deficiency merely by completing probation during the pendency of court proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Amir Bux Channa & Another vs Isra Islamic Foundation2022 SHC 566 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-21Read full judgment →
• Princely Jets (Private) Limited through Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PTD 1642 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-20Read full judgment →
• Power Cement Limited, Thatta Cement Company Limited, Popular Cement2022 SHC 460, 2024 PLD Sindh 1 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• Piyaro Gurgaje vs Ghulam Qadir Gurgage2022 SHC 114 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-08Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux and another vs The State through Deputy Prosecutor General and another2022 PCRLJ 1420 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-05
  exhumation of dead bodycriminal revisionjurisdiction of trial courtcognizance of offencecause of deathCode of Criminal Procedurepostmortem examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kamber, which directed the exhumation of the deceased's body to ascertain the cause of death in a pending trial. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the jurisdiction to order the exhumation of a dead body after taking cognizance of a case. The High Court held that the trial court acted without jurisdiction. It reasoned that the power to order exhumation is vested in the police under the Police Rules, 1934, or in a Magistrate under Sections 174 or 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, not in a Court of Session. The court emphasized that once a trial court has taken cognizance, it cannot direct investigative actions like exhumation. The key principle laid down is that where the law mandates a specific procedure for a legal act, it must be strictly followed; any order passed by a court lacking the requisite statutory jurisdiction is void and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Court of Session have the jurisdiction to order the exhumation of a dead body during a pending trial?
  • Can a trial court direct an investigation or exhumation after it has taken cognizance of a criminal case?
  • Is an order passed by a court that lacks the statutory jurisdiction to do so valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Pegasus Consultancy (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2022 SHC 334 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-21Read full judgment →
• Pegasus Consultancy (Private) Limited through Authorized Representative2022 CLC 2036 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-10Read full judgment →
• Peer Bux alias Peeral and others vs Mushtaque Ali and others2022 SHC 152 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-18Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf & others.,Monem Zafar Khan & another vs Province of Sindh & others.,Election Commission of Pakistan & others2022 SHC 516 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Sugar Mills Association & others vs Federation of Pakistan &2022 SHC 266 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited vs Sindh & others2022 SHC 30, 2024 CLD 580 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Post Office Employees Cooperative Housing Society Through Authorized Persons vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and Others2022 PCRLJ 1687 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-26
  caution noticefreezing orderNational Accountability Ordinanceproperty rightsjudicial oversightcooperative housing societyprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Cooperative Housing Society, challenged the enforcement of caution notices placed on its land under Section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which effectively prevented the society from dealing with its property. The core legal question was whether the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) could indefinitely enforce caution notices on property without initiating formal freezing orders under Section 12 of the Ordinance, particularly when the petitioner was not an accused party in the relevant inquiries. The Court held that the caution notices were unsustainable and set them aside. It reasoned that Section 23 is intended to prevent an accused from alienating property acquired through illegal means, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that NAB cannot bypass the procedural requirements and judicial oversight mandated by Section 12 by resorting to the 'surreptitious' use of caution notices under Section 23. Where the law prescribes a specific manner for freezing property, that procedure must be strictly followed, or the action is invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Can the National Accountability Bureau enforce a caution notice on property under Section 23 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, without first exercising the power to freeze property under Section 12?
  • Is it permissible for the National Accountability Bureau to place a caution on property to prevent its transfer when the owner is not an accused party in the relevant inquiry?
  • Does the National Accountability Bureau have the authority to bypass the judicial oversight required for freezing orders by issuing caution notices instead?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. Through authorized attorney and others vs Spec2022 CLC 1412 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Petroleum Limited through Senior Manager vs Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division and Ex-Officio Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another2022 PTD 1742 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-23
  rejection of plaintimplied bar of jurisdictionshow-cause noticerepresentative of non-residentIncome Tax Ordinance 2001special forumtax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the rejection of a plaint challenging a show-cause notice issued under Section 172(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The Plaintiff sought to restrain the tax authorities from declaring it a representative of a non-resident company for tax purposes. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction in a civil suit to interfere with a show-cause notice, despite the existence of a special grievance redressal mechanism under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The Court held that while the ouster clause in Section 227(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 does not strictly bar the High Court of Sindh from entertaining civil suits, there exists an 'implied bar' under Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, requiring parties to exhaust special statutory remedies unless specific jurisdictional defects or exceptions are demonstrated. Finding no such exceptions, the Court rejected the plaint, ruling that a show-cause notice does not constitute an adverse order infringing rights, and parties must first respond to the notice before the relevant tax authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the ouster clause in Section 227(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 bar the High Court of Sindh from entertaining civil suits?
  • Can a civil suit be maintained to challenge a show-cause notice issued by tax authorities before the final order is passed?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with the proceedings of a special tribunal or statutory authority despite an implied bar under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a show-cause notice considered an adverse order that infringes upon legal rights sufficient to invoke the writ or civil jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Microfinance Ltd. & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2022 SHC 68, 2022 CLD 894, 2022 [M] CLR 867, 2022 PCTLR 924 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Medical Commission vs Province of Sindh and others2022 CLC 1848 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Developers Pvt. Ltd vs Karachi Development Authority & another2022 SHC 424 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Dental Association through President 9 and others vs The Province of Sindh through Secretary Finance Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 3 others2022 PTD 1491 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-18Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, through Secretary vs Mrs.2022 CLC 735 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-28Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority vs Mst. Gul Rukh Samina Butt &2022 SHC 590 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-28Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Beverage Ltd vs State Bank of Pakistan & Another2022 SHC 452 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
• P.T.C.L vs Federation of Pakistan & others2022 SHC 284, 2024 PLC 25 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-23
  NIRC jurisdictioncontempt of courtIndustrial Relations Actsubordinate legislationconstitutional petitionreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order of the NIRC Single Bench and a subsequent contempt notice issued to the President/CEO of the petitioner by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) for non-compliance with a reinstatement order. The core legal question was whether a member of the NIRC possesses the jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings and punish for contempt under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, given previous judicial pronouncements regarding subordinate legislation and Article 204 of the Constitution. The Sindh High Court held that the NIRC derives its contempt powers independently from Section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which is an independent primary statute rather than a subordinate legislation hit by the ruling in the Muslim Commercial Bank case (which dealt with the Federal Ombudsman Constitutional Reforms Act, 2013). The court established the principle that statutory tribunals possessing independent primary legislative mandates to punish for contempt are not constrained by limitations applicable to subordinate legislation flowing directly from Article 204 of the Constitution, though summoning the foreign CEO was deemed unnecessary at this stage provided an authorized officer appeared to ensure compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has the power to punish for contempt under Section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Is Section 57 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 considered subordinate legislation hit by the principles governing Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does a specialized tribunal's power to initiate contempt proceedings remain valid independently of the rules governing ombudsman or other subordinate bodies?
  Read full judgment →
• P.C. Nasir Hussain vs Hasnain Shah and 2 others2022 MLD 425 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11
  terrorismAnti-Terrorism Actjurisdictionpersonal enmityprivate vendettatransfer of casecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant challenged an order by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Sukkur, which transferred a criminal case involving an attack on police personnel to the Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether an act of violence against law enforcement, falling under Section 6(2)(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, automatically constitutes "terrorism" regardless of the underlying motive. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the Anti-Terrorism Court correctly determined the matter did not constitute terrorism. The Court emphasized that Section 6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, cannot be read in isolation. To qualify as terrorism, an action must satisfy the criteria in Section 6(2) and be designed to achieve the objectives specified in Section 6(1)(b) or (c) of the Act, such as coercing the government or terrorizing the public. The Court reiterated the principle that actions committed in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta, even if violent and grave, do not fall within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as they lack the requisite design or purpose to terrorize society.

  Questions settled

  • Does an act of violence against a police officer automatically constitute terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Must Section 6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 be read in conjunction with Section 6(1) to determine if an act constitutes terrorism?
  • Can an order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 be challenged via Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Orix Leasing Pakistan Limited through duly authorized attorney vs Province2022 MLD 1815 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-20Read full judgment →
• Obs Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Manager Legal vs Federation Of Pakistan2022 PTD 290 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-17
  rectification of mistakeWorkers' Welfare Fundtax refund adjustmentIncome Tax Ordinance 2001prospective effectconstitutional petitionapparent mistake
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging notices issued under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the validity of an FBR circular dated 25.05.2021, which prohibited the adjustment of Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF) liability against outstanding tax refunds. The core legal questions were whether Section 221 permits the rectification of previous assessments involving such adjustments and whether the circular is ultra vires. The Court held that the power of rectification under Section 221 is strictly limited to 'mistakes apparent from the record,' such as clerical or calculation errors, and cannot be invoked for contentious legal issues requiring deliberation or interpretation. Consequently, the Court ruled that notices issued under Section 221 to reverse past adjustments are unlawful. Furthermore, the Court determined that while the impugned circular is lawful, it possesses only prospective effect. The key principle laid down is that Section 221 cannot be utilized as a substitute for an appeal or to reopen assessments involving debatable legal questions, as such matters fall beyond the scope of simple rectification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power of rectification under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 extend to contentious legal issues requiring deliberation?
  • Can the Federal Board of Revenue prohibit the adjustment of Workers' Welfare Fund liability against tax refunds through a circular?
  • Does the FBR circular dated 25.05.2021 regarding the adjustment of Workers' Welfare Fund liability have retrospective effect?
  • Is the rectification of a deemed assessment under Section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 permissible for issues that are not clerical or calculation errors?
  Read full judgment →
• NP Waterproof Industries (Private) Ltd. Et others vs NP Spinning Mills Limited2022 SHC 442 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-21Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 846 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-18
  narcotics recoverychain of custodychemical analysiscriminal appealmalkhanaControl of Narcotics Substance Actwitness contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997, following the recovery of 80 bags of cannabis from the appellant’s truck. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the narcotics and whether alleged contradictions between the complainant and the investigation officer regarding sample transmission warranted acquittal. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction and sentence. The court held that minor, insignificant contradictions in witness testimony do not undermine the prosecution's case when the chain of custody is otherwise intact. It established that depositing recovered narcotics at a notified police station equipped with a malkhana (storeroom) and proper record-keeping facilities satisfies the statutory requirements of Section 27 of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997. Additionally, the court affirmed that the burden of proving police animosity rests on the accused, and in the absence of such proof, a positive chemical analyzer report regarding the contraband is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor contradiction between the complainant and the investigation officer regarding the transmission of samples for chemical analysis vitiate a narcotics conviction?
  • What constitutes compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 27 of the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997?
  • Is the failure to examine the in-charge of the police storeroom (malkhana) fatal to the prosecution's case in narcotics recovery matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin & Others vs Muhammad Usman & another2022 SHC 242, 2024 YLR 645 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
• Nina Industries Limited and 6 Others vs Not2022 CLD 630 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-25Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain Soomro vs The State2022 SHC 164, 2024 YLR 1233 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-14
  criminal appealmurderdelayed FIRocular evidenceabscondenceinterested witnessmedical evidencecommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether a twelve-hour delay in lodging the FIR, the acquittal of a co-accused on the same evidence, and the reliance on related witnesses invalidated the prosecution's case. The Court held that the conviction was sound, dismissing the appeal. It established that a delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal if the delay is explained by the exigencies of saving the victim's life. Regarding the acquittal of a co-accused, the Court ruled that different roles, such as being armed versus unarmed, justify disparate outcomes, meaning the acquittal of one does not mandate the acquittal of another. Furthermore, the Court clarified that relationship to the deceased does not automatically render a witness interested or unreliable; consistency and lack of motive to falsely implicate are the true tests. Finally, the Court held that while abscondence allows for a negative inference, no adverse inference arises from an accused's failure to testify on oath under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can an accused be convicted when a co-accused with a different role has been acquitted on the same set of evidence?
  • Does the failure of an accused to testify on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 create an adverse inference of guilt?
  • Is the testimony of a relative of the deceased inherently unreliable as an interested witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed Qureshi vs Sect: School Education & Literacy Dept: & Others2022 SHC 176 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan Limited vs The Federal Board of Revenue & others2022 SHC 560 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-29Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed vs Ziaullah and 2 others2022 MLD 286 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed S/o Sardar Muhammad vs The State2022 SHC 364 · Sindh High Court
  capital punishmenttest identification paradebenefit of doubtanti-terrorismcorroborative evidencestatement of accusedmedical evidencefair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for murder, attempted terror acts, and illegal arms possession. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of identification parades conducted without matching the First Information Report descriptions, the utility of corroborative evidence such as weapon recovery and medical reports in the absence of primary proof, and the mandatory requirement to put all incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, noting severe discrepancies in witness accounts, flawed identification procedures, and failure to prove sources of light. The Court laid down that heinousness of an offence cannot displace the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, that medical evidence does not prove identity, and that corroborative evidence has no independent weight when primary substantive evidence collapses. The convictions were set aside and the appellant was acquitted on the principle of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical evidence alone can establish the identity of an accused person in a criminal trial?
  • Does corroborative evidence such as the recovery of a weapon have any legal value when the substantive ocular testimony is disbelieved?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to put incriminating circumstances to an accused person during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a test identification parade be relied upon when the identifying witness fails to recognize the accused during the trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed Baqai & others vs Province of Sindh & others2022 SHC 250 · Sindh High Court
  constitutional petitionannual incrementspensionary benefitscivil servantsrule of consistencyequal protection of lawmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions were filed by retired college teachers seeking the grant of annual increments and resultant revision of their pensionary benefits, grievance having arisen from the denial of these increments based on a restrictive circular issued by the Finance Department, Government of Sindh. The core legal question was whether retired civil servants who were not parties to earlier successful litigation on the same subject were entitled to the same benefits under the principles of equality and consistency, and whether constitutional petitions were barred by the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The Sindh High Court held that the petitions were maintainable as they sought the implementation of binding judgments and that similarly placed employees must be treated alike without discrimination. The court ruled that once a point of law is settled by superior courts, its benefits must be extended across the board to all aggrieved persons, laying down the principle that the state cannot arbitrarily deny benefits to non-litigating civil servants when identical claims of their peers have already been accepted by the courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional petitions are maintainable for the implementation of settled judgments relating to terms and conditions of civil servants despite the bar under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Does the principle of equality before the law require the government to extend the benefit of a settled judicial decision to similarly placed civil servants who were not parties to the original litigation?
  • Are retired civil servants entitled to the usual annual increment in the year of retirement following the withdrawal of restrictive departmental circulars?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Chairman2022 MLD 509 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-09Read full judgment →
• National Refinery Limited and another vs Syed Niaz Ahmed2022 PLC (C.S.) 197 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-07
  pension claimservice appealdepartmental representationlimitation periodretrospective effecttransfer of serviceretirement benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges a judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in a suit whereby the pension claim of the respondent was decreed. The appellants raised two primary contentions: first, that the respondent's departmental representation was barred by time; and second, that the respondent's service with his parent employer was not pensionable, rendering his transfer a fresh appointment. The court examined the record and noted that the departmental representation had been disposed of on merits rather than dismissed as time-barred, and that the appellant pointed to no rule prescribing a specific limitation period for such a representation. The court further held that subsequent decisions of the Board of Directors altering pension eligibility terms could not be applied retrospectively to deprive an employee of terms guaranteed at the time of transfer. Finding no error in the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental representation can be treated as time-barred when it was originally disposed of on merits by the management?
  • Can a corporate board's decision regarding pension eligibility be applied retrospectively to alter terms guaranteed at the time of an employee's transfer?
  • Does the limitation period prescribed in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 apply to employees who are subsequently declared by the Supreme Court not to be civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) through Chairman, Islamabad and another vs Ruquia2022 MLD 1353 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-26Read full judgment →
• National Accountability Bureau vs Shahid Hussain2022 SHC 476 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-17
  acquittal appealnational accountabilitydouble presumption of innocenceforensic auditmismanagement versus corruptionPakistan Steel Mills
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two acquittal appeals filed by the National Accountability Bureau against the respondents who were acquitted by the Accountability Court in a reference relating to alleged corruption in the sale of Billets and HR Products by Pakistan Steel Mills at lower than international market prices. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused on charges under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, was based on a misappreciation of evidence or suffered from any perversity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals in limine, holding that the prosecution's own witnesses admitted the forensic audit report was defective, contradictory, and categorized the matter as mere mismanagement and negligence rather than corruption, which at best amounted to departmental misconduct. The court reiterated the settled principle that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, which cannot be dislodged unless the findings are perverse, arbitrary, or result in a miscarriage of justice. The key legal principle laid down is that mere mismanagement or negligence in official duties does not automatically constitute corruption or corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, without proof of corrupt intent, and findings of a trial court of acquittal will not be interfered with lightly.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere mismanagement and negligence in corporate affairs constitute corruption or corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • What is the standard of proof required for an appellate court to set aside a judgment of acquittal?
  • Can a forensic audit report characterized as defective and contradictory by prosecution witnesses form the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
  • Whether an evaluation report prepared without considering landed cost, freight charges, taxes, duties, and local prices is worthy of judicial reliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Bibi vs Province of Sindh & others2022 SHC 228 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Naseer Uddin Jatoi vs Miss Reham Asad through Attorney and 2 others2022 YLR 2243 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-25Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed @ Mullan vs The State2022 SHC 458, 2024 PCRLJ 196 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-13
  criminal appealmurderidentification paradebenefit of the doubtpolice confessioneyewitness improvementanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a belated identification parade conducted three years after the incident, the evidentiary value of an unrecorded police confession, and the credibility of a sole eyewitness who made significant improvements. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to severe legal flaws in the identification parade, inadmissible police confessions, and delayed statements lacking physical descriptions of the unknown culprits. The court laid down the principle that an identification parade conducted after an unreasonable delay and without adhering to settled judicial guidelines loses its evidentiary value, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade conducted after an inordinate delay lose its evidentiary value?
  • Is a confession made to a police officer while in custody admissible in evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of an eyewitness who made major improvements from their initial statement?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to prove the identity of an unknown accused named in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Nafees Ahmed vs Trustee of the Port of Karachi Through its Estate Manager2022 SHC 116 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-06Read full judgment →
• Nafees Ahmed through General Power of Attorney vs Trustee of the Port of Karachi through Estate Manager and 2 others2022 CLC 1333 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-06Read full judgment →
• Owais and another vs The State2022 PCRLJ 920 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-18
  police encounterbenefit of doubtsafe custody of weaponsindependent investigationcriminal appealanti-terrorismburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offences involving an alleged police encounter, including charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidentiary inconsistencies. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was unnatural and riddled with lacunae, noting the absence of injuries to police personnel despite an alleged exchange of fire, lack of independent witnesses, and failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of recovered weapons. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that police encounters require independent investigation, as the police cannot be investigators of their own cause. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, reiterating that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused when reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's narrative, and that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police encounter case be investigated by the same police party involved in the incident?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and transmission of recovered weapons to the forensic laboratory to secure a conviction?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses in a police encounter case create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused when evidence is insufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar Khemito and another vs National Accountability Bureau2022 PCRLJ 883 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-02
  post-arrest bailinordinate delayexpeditious trialNAB referenceright to fair trialunder-trial prisoner
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns post-arrest bail applications filed by two accused persons facing trial in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail due to the inordinate delay in the conclusion of their trial, given that they had been incarcerated for over two years with only four out of twenty prosecution witnesses examined. The Sindh High Court held that the prolonged incarceration without significant progress in the trial, for which the applicants were not responsible, constituted an inordinate and unconscionable delay. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicants, subject to the furnishing of solvent surety. The key principle laid down is that the right to an expeditious trial, as protected by the Constitution, must be meaningful, and where the delay in trial is shocking or unconscionable and not attributable to the accused, it serves as a valid ground for the grant of bail, even in non-bailable offences under NAB laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the conclusion of a trial constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the right to an expeditious trial applicable to under-trial prisoners in NAB cases?
  • Can bail be granted in non-bailable offences if the trial is not progressing within a reasonable timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar @ Ali Haider and Samiuddin vs The State2022 SHC 430, 2022 SHC 490, 2024 YLR 556 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27
  Control of Narcotic Substances Actrecovery of charasofficial witnessessafe custodychemical examinerprevious convictionenhanced punishmentcapital sentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  Appellants impugned their convictions and sentences under Sections 6, 9, 14, and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, passed by the Special Court-II (CNS), Karachi, whereby appellant Samiuddin was awarded life imprisonment and appellant Naeem Akhtar was sentenced to death. The prosecution alleged recovery of 100 kg of charas from a vehicle and 3213 kg from a godown. The core questions before the Sindh High Court were whether non-association of private witnesses, an investigating officer acting as complainant, and safe custody defects invalidated the convictions, and whether the death sentence awarded based on previous convictions without following statutory procedures was legally sustainable. The High Court affirmed the convictions, holding that official testimonies were credible, Section 25 of the CNS Act excluded Section 103 Cr.P.C., and safe chain of custody was proven. However, the Court ruled that awarding capital punishment on the basis of a previous conviction not charged under Section 221(7) Cr.P.C. or proved under Section 511 Cr.P.C. was illegal. Consequently, Naeem Akhtar’s death sentence was altered to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court award enhanced punishment or the death penalty based on an accused's previous conviction if such conviction was not charged under Section 221(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How must a previous conviction be formally proved during a criminal trial pursuant to Section 511 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the fact that the complainant also acted as the investigating officer vitiate a narcotics conviction in the absence of established prejudice or animosity against the accused?
  • Is a search and recovery under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 invalid for lack of private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Ali @ Bahar and others vs The State2022 SHC 386, 2024 YLR 1597 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-13
  murder convictiondying declarationocular evidencesentence commutationcriminal appealrecovery of crime weaponappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for the offence of murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, dying declarations, and recovery of crime weapons, and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the evidentiary circumstances. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence—comprising a reliable eyewitness, consistent dying declarations, and forensic evidence—sufficient to establish guilt. However, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, reasoning that where multiple assailants cause injuries, it is difficult to attribute a specific fatal injury to a particular accused, necessitating the alternate sentence. The Court affirmed that while a single reliable eyewitness can sustain a conviction, the rule of corroboration is one of abundant caution, and in cases of multiple assailants where specific fatal blows cannot be attributed, life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness?
  • Is a dying declaration made to private persons admissible as substantive evidence?
  • Does the inability to attribute specific fatal injuries to individual assailants warrant the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is the recovery of crime weapons mandatory for a conviction when other direct evidence is reliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Power Generation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Nadeem Textile Mills Ltd.2022 SHC 550 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-30Read full judgment →
• Nabeel Iftikhar vs Haji Masood and others2022 SHC 274 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Zam Zam LPG (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and 03 others2022 SHC 428 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. Zakwan Steel & others vs The Federation of Pakistan & others2022 SHC 288, 2022 PCRLJ 1729, 2023 PTD 9 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-27
  customs valuationLondon Metal Bulletintransaction valueregistered bank contractsequential methodimport dutydiscriminatory treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the methodology adopted by customs authorities in applying London Metal Bulletin (LMB) prices on the date of the Bill of Lading rather than the date of Registered Bank Contracts for assessing customs duties and taxes on imported steel products. The core legal question revolved around whether customs authorities could bypass transaction values and resort to LMB prices and whether Registered Bank Contracts should be treated on par with Letters of Credit as recognized modes of payment. The Sindh High Court allowed the petitions, holding that the reliance on LMB prices without following the mandatory sequential valuation methods stipulated under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 is unlawful and ultra vires. The Court established that Registered Bank Contracts are a recognized mode of payment, and customs valuation must primarily rely on the transaction value actually paid or payable, prohibiting arbitrary valuation and discriminatory treatment against importers utilizing bank contracts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether customs authorities can lawfully apply London Metal Bulletin prices on the date of the Bill of Lading instead of the transaction value based on Registered Bank Contracts?
  • Is reliance on the sequential valuation methods embedded in Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 mandatory for determining customs values?
  • Whether local manufacturers have the standing to seek enhancement of customs values under Section 25A of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does treating importers using Registered Bank Contracts differently from those using Letters of Credit violate fundamental rights to equality and due process under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Xavier Company vs Customs, Excise & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal2022 SHC 492 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. United Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2022 SHC 42 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-24
  trans-provincial establishmentreinstatementback benefitsdiscriminatory dismissalworkman statusNIRC jurisdictionwrit jurisdictionmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged concurrent findings by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which reinstated a bank employee dismissed for alleged misconduct. The petitioner-bank argued that the NIRC lacked jurisdiction, the employee was not a "workman," and the dismissal was justified. The High Court examined whether the NIRC, as a forum for trans-provincial establishments, correctly exercised jurisdiction and whether the dismissal violated the principle of non-discrimination. The Court held that the NIRC possessed the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. On merits, the Court affirmed the findings that the dismissal was discriminatory, noting that other employees involved in the same incident received only minor punishments, violating Article 25 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the status of a "workman" is determined by the nature of duties rather than designation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that concurrent findings of fact by competent fora, absent material illegality, are not subject to interference under Article 199. The judgment emphasizes that back benefits are not automatic but depend on the employee's assertion of not being gainfully employed elsewhere.

  Questions settled

  • Does the NIRC have jurisdiction to adjudicate grievance petitions involving trans-provincial establishments?
  • Is the status of an employee as a 'workman' determined by their official designation or the nature of their duties?
  • Can an employer be estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of a forum if they participated in the proceedings without objection?
  • Are back benefits automatically granted upon the reinstatement of an employee whose dismissal was set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Tahir Food Products vs Federation of Pakistan & 06 others2022 SHC 96 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sikandar & Co. vs Federation of Pakistan & two others.2022 SHC 308, 2024 PTD 188 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sakrand Sugar Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 SHC 9 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. National Development Finance Corporation vs Commissioner of2022 PCTLR 713 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Micro Innovations and Technologies (Pvt) Ltd. vs Federation of2022 SHC 542 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-12Read full judgment →