Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Muhammad Ali Soomro vs The State2022 MLD 1315 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-08
  pre-arrest bailembezzlementcriminal investigationequitable remedycognizable offenceprima facie evidencecorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, a former cashier at the Social Security Hospital, Hyderabad, who is accused of embezzling over 7.2 million rupees from the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail despite facing serious allegations of financial misappropriation supported by prima facie evidence, including tampered cheques and a prior admission of guilt. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant failed to establish grounds for pre-arrest bail. The Court reasoned that the investigation was ongoing, and the applicant's custody was necessary to facilitate the recovery of evidence and prevent the tampering of records. The Court reaffirmed the principle that pre-arrest bail is an equitable remedy intended to protect the innocent from the abuse of legal process, not a mechanism to hamper legitimate criminal investigations or shield individuals against whom prima facie evidence of a cognizable offense exists. Consequently, the interim bail previously granted was recalled.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when prima facie evidence connects them to a cognizable offense?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted if it hampers the ongoing investigation process?
  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR automatically entitle an accused to the concession of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali & Company (Deceased) through Legal heirs and others vs Ali Akbar and 2 others2022 YLR 2396 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Federation of Pakistan and 07 others2022 SHC 182 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Siyal and 4 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief2022 PLC (C.S.) 1378 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-03
  regularization of servicecontractual employeesconstitutional petitionmaster and servantlegitimate expectationcompetitive recruitment process
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by contractual Auditors of the Auqaf, Religious/Minorities Affairs, Zakat and Usher Department, Government of Sindh, seeking regularization of their services. The petitioners argued they were initially appointed through a transparent, competitive process in 2002, had served for a significant period, and possessed a legitimate expectation of regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, and a Provincial Cabinet decision. The respondents opposed the petition, citing the master-servant relationship and lack of a statutory right to regularization for contractual employees. The Court held that since the petitioners had undergone a competitive recruitment process and the posts they occupied had been sanctioned by the Finance Department on a regular budget, their contractual status had effectively ceased. Relying on the principle that employees fulfilling criteria and working satisfactorily should be regularized, the Court allowed the petition, directing the competent authority to regularize the petitioners' services in line with the Finance Department's proposal and established Supreme Court precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contractual employee who was initially appointed through a transparent competitive process have a right to regularization when the posts are sanctioned on a regular budget?
  • Can the High Court direct the regularization of contractual employees when the Provincial Cabinet has decided in principle to initiate such a process for qualified staff?
  • Does the conversion of contractual posts to regular budget posts by the Finance Department alter the employment status of contractual employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajaz vs Muhammad Azam & Others2022 SHC 240, 2022 PLD Sindh 572 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faisal vs The State2022 YLR 1163 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-13
  narcoticsheroin recoveryconscious possessionvehicle ownershipchemical examinerpolice witnessControl of Narcotic Substances Actcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court-II (C.N.S.) Karachi, whereby the appellant Muhammad Faisal was convicted under section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine for possessing 25 kilograms of heroin out of a total recovery of 110 kilograms from a car owned by him. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's conscious possession and knowledge of the narcotics recovered from his vehicle, and whether procedural non-compliance vitiated the trial. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that an owner-passenger travelling in a vehicle containing a large quantity of narcotics in an accessible part like the boot is presumed to have knowledge and conscious possession thereof, and that the exclusion of section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 validates searches conducted without independent private witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an owner-passenger of a vehicle can be attributed with the knowledge and conscious possession of narcotics recovered from the boot of the vehicle?
  • Does the exclusion of section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 render a search valid without independent private mashirs?
  • Are provisions relating to search and investigation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 directory in nature?
  • Whether police testimonies alone are sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in the absence of private corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aftab vs Muhammad Asif and others2022 CLC 2101 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aamir and another vs The State2022 YLR 484 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-15
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRinterested witnessesAnti-Terrorism Actpolitical rivalryeye-witness reliabilityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentences handed down by an Anti-Terrorism Court for murder, attempted murder, and property damage arising from a politically motivated incident during a by-election. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the appellants' involvement beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant delay in FIR registration, the reliability of eye-witnesses, and the existence of political rivalry. The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of the doubt. The Court held that an unexplained, substantial delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case, as it provides opportunity for fabrication and consultation. Furthermore, eye-witness testimony from interested parties, which is inconsistent with medical evidence and lacks corroboration, cannot be relied upon to sustain a conviction. The Court emphasized that the right to an expeditious hearing of an appeal is a constitutional mandate, and where prosecution evidence is unreliable and tainted by political bias, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained, substantial delay in lodging an FIR provide sufficient grounds for acquittal?
  • Can eye-witness testimony from political rivals be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Is the right to an expeditious hearing of an appeal a component of the right to a fair trial under the Constitution?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the distance of firing warrant the rejection of eye-witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Mudasir Nazar vs The State2022 MLD 1146 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-27
  pre-arrest bailmurderdomestic violenceprohibitory clausecriminal proceduremalice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged murder of his sister-in-law, who was subjected to domestic violence and poisoning. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the extraordinary equitable relief of pre-arrest bail despite being nominated in the FIR with specific allegations of domestic violence and facing charges falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate mala fide or absence of tentative assessment connecting him to the crime, and that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a substitute for post-arrest bail in heinous offences. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy rooted in equity, not to be granted in every run-of-the-mill criminal case, especially when prima facie evidence supports the charge and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused nominated in an FIR for an offence carrying capital punishment can be granted pre-arrest bail when prima facie evidence supports the allegations?
  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute for post-arrest bail in heinous criminal cases?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to be demonstrated by a petitioner seeking the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaria Begum vs Zafar Iqbal2022 SHC 536 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmeen vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited & others2022 SHC 543 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Syeda Nafeesa Tahir through Constituted Attorney vs Mst. Mehmooda2022 CLC 1811 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Syed Sheerin vs The Province of Sindh and others2022 SHC 216 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shehnaz Sultana vs Kamal Ahmed Qureshi & others2022 SHC 510 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz vs Iqbal Hussain and 10 others2022 CLC 556 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shah Bano through Attorney and 18 others vs The Director General and 11 others2022 CLC 640 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Yousuf vs The Director Fia Sindh Karachi and 7 others2022 MLD 486 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia vs Station House Officer, Police Station Waleed, Larakana and 52022 YLR 1125 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29
  habeas corpuschild custodyguardian courthizanatinterim custodyjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This case arises from a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant-mother seeking custody of her three minor children from the respondent-father and setting aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. The core legal question was whether the High Court or Sessions Court can grant interim custody of minors under Section 491 Cr.P.C. in the absence of exceptional circumstances and when the minors are residing outside the court's territorial jurisdiction with their father. The court held that while the Guardian Court is the final arbiter for child custody, Section 491 can be invoked as an interim measure only in exceptional circumstances involving the illegal removal of a child from lawful custody and true urgency. The court decided that since the children were residing with their father in Karachi and no exceptional urgency or illegal removal was established, the application was rightly dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction and lack of exceptional grounds, leaving the applicant to approach the appropriate Guardian Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Guardian Court considered the final arbiter for adjudicating the question of custody of children?
  • Can jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to seek interim custody of minors in the absence of exceptional circumstances?
  • Does a High Court have jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the minors are residing outside the limits of its appellate criminal jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazia Ghunio vs Naveed Ahmed Sadhayo and Others2022 CLC 1829 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Lailan Khatoon and another vs Imran Ali and others2022 MLD 1034 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kanwal vs Dr. Muhammad Suhail2022 CLD 1063 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Zehra vs Muhammad Sheroz2022 SHC 80, 2022 MLD 1506 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farah Naz vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 3 others2022 PLC (C.S) 1266 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-11
  Voluntarily Separation SchemePTCLpensionary benefitsconstitutional petitiondoctrine of lachesseparation bonus
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by the widow of a deceased employee of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), seeking various post-retirement and ancillary benefits including bonuses, farewell grants, burial charges, benevolent grants, group insurance, and family pension following her late husband's acceptance of the Voluntarily Separation Scheme (VSS) in 2007-2008. The core legal questions pertained to the maintainability of the constitutional petition in light of binding precedents regarding employees who opted for the VSS, whether an employee who received a separation bonus is entitled to further pensionary and ancillary benefits, and whether the petition was barred by laches. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that employees who voluntarily availed of the VSS and received separation benefits cannot simultaneously claim pensionary and ancillary benefits. The court reaffirmed the principle that the VSS is a binding contract, and raising such claims after receiving benefits is barred by the doctrine of laches and settled jurisprudence from the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when the aggrieved party has voluntarily availed benefits under the Voluntarily Separation Scheme?
  • Can an employee who accepted a separation bonus under the Voluntarily Separation Scheme subsequently claim pensionary and ancillary retirement benefits?
  • Does the acceptance of the Voluntarily Separation Scheme constitute a binding contract preventing subsequent challenges to post-retirement benefits?
  • Whether a petition filed four years after the accrual of the cause of action regarding service benefits is barred by the doctrine of laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakhmina vs The Government of Sindh through Home Secretary and others2022 MLD 1192 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aysha Begum vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Housing and Town Planning and others2022 YLR 2219 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asma Nadeem vs Federation Of Pakistan and 5 others2022 PLD Sindh 264 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Almas Bano vs Pakistan International Airlines Corp & others2022 SHC 186 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Adeeba Khan vs The State Through FIA2022 MLD 496 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-06
  post-arrest bailbank embezzlementprohibitory clausebail for womenwhite collar crimeforgeryparallel banking
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, a former Branch Manager of a commercial bank, who was refused bail by the Special Court in a case concerning the embezzlement of Rs. 4.75 million through fraudulent term deposit certificates and parallel banking under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. The core legal question was whether the accused woman was entitled to the concession of bail under the statutory proviso for females given the heinous nature of the economic crime and the incriminating material on record. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the statutory leniency for women in non-bailable offences is discretionary and must be weighed against the gravity, societal impact, and specific role attributed in the offense. The court laid down that financial crimes causing massive losses and impairing public trust in the banking system fall within the prohibitory clause, rendering refusal the rule and bail an exception, particularly where tentative assessment connects the accused prima facie to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory provision allowing leniency for women in non-bailable offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle every female accused to mandatory release on bail?
  • Whether an accused involved in a financial embezzlement case falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be granted bail without establishing exceptional circumstances?
  • What is the scope of tentative assessment and deeper appreciation of evidence while deciding a post-arrest bail application in white-collar crimes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst Sahiba Khatoon Through Her Lrs vs Muhammad Soomar Memon &2022 SHC 90 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ms. Qaiser Jehan Begum vs Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA)2022 MLD 308 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
• Ms. Gulnar vs Muhammad Yousuf Barakzai & others2022 SHC 298 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Zulekha & another vs Province of Sindh & others2022 SHC 400 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sardar Begum Farooqui through Legal Heirs and another vs Dr. Azhar2022 PLD Sindh 565 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-25
  paternity disputeDNA testlegitimacy of childQanun-e-Shahadatcivil procedurepresumption of legitimacyHigh Court Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal challenged an order dismissing an application under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought a DNA test to determine the respondent’s paternity. The core legal question was whether the court should compel a DNA test to challenge a person's legitimacy in a civil suit, particularly when the parents never disputed such paternity during their lifetimes. The Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the application was frivolous, belated, and lacked evidentiary support. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that DNA testing is a personal right, permissible only in exceptional circumstances. Relying on Article 128 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the Court affirmed that birth during a valid marriage serves as conclusive proof of legitimacy, which cannot be easily challenged. The judgment underscores that courts must prioritize societal cohesion and the sanctity of family bonds over speculative paternity disputes. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the impugned order, noting that allowing such requests would open a floodgate of litigation and undermine established legal presumptions regarding legitimacy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order a DNA test to determine paternity when the parents of the individual never challenged it during their lifetime?
  • Does the birth of a child during a valid marriage constitute conclusive proof of legitimacy under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is a court required to grant a request for a DNA test if it is filed at a belated stage of the proceedings without substantial evidence?
  • Can a third party, such as a cousin, seek a DNA test to challenge the paternity of another person in a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sara Jalil vs Muhammad Jamil Baber and 2 others2022 CLC 569 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-09
  specific performancebalance sale considerationdiscretionary reliefreadiness and willingnesssuit dismissalprocedural fairnessleave-refusing order
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal challenged an order dismissing an application for the dismissal of a suit for specific performance. The appellant argued that the respondent (plaintiff) failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the court-ordered timeframe, citing Supreme Court precedents requiring such deposits. The core legal question was whether a suit for specific performance must be dismissed for failure to deposit the balance sale consideration when the court's original order did not explicitly warn of such consequences for non-compliance. The Court held that the suit could not be dismissed, noting that the order directing the deposit lacked a specific warning regarding the consequences of non-compliance. Relying on the principle that specific performance is a discretionary relief, the Court emphasized that a plaintiff must be put on notice that non-deposit would be deemed an inability to perform the contract before such a drastic penalty is imposed. Furthermore, the Court clarified that leave-refusing orders do not constitute binding law and distinguished the cited precedents based on the specific facts of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for specific performance be dismissed for failure to deposit the balance sale consideration if the court order did not explicitly warn of such consequences?
  • Does a leave-refusing order from the Supreme Court constitute binding law?
  • Is the deposit of balance sale consideration mandatory at the time of institution of a suit for specific performance?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to put a plaintiff on notice that non-deposit of sale consideration will be deemed an inability to perform the contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Samina Yaqub vs Jalil Ahmad Kapoor & Others2022 SHC 246 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Nighat Naeem and others vs Karachi Development Authority and others2022 SHC 126, 2025 CLC 858 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-08Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Nasira Khalique and 7 others vs Mst. Rabia Sharif through L. Rs.2022 YLR 1531 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-22
  civil revisiongift mutationnikahnamaburden of prooftransfer of propertyconcurrent findingsinheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the applicants' suit regarding a residential property. The core legal question involved the validity of a property transfer effected in favour of the respondents on the basis of a gift allegedly contained within or attached to a nikahnama executed decades prior, without the participation or notice of the admitted original owner. The Sindh High Court held that a nikahnama is a contract strictly between the bride and bridegroom, and third-party property cannot be alienated through it without explicit, proved authorization or a validly established gift satisfying the essential ingredients of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession, supported by proper evidence. The Court laid down that beneficiaries of a disputed gift bear a heavy burden to prove its validity and original transaction through cogent evidence, that third parties cannot be bound by recitals in a nikahnama merely due to witness signatures, and that statutory authorities cannot transfer title clandestinely without due notice to the living owner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a third party can be bound by recitals concerning property alienation contained in a nikahnama they merely signed as a witness or wakeel?
  • Does the burden lie upon the beneficiary to prove the validity and legality of a disputed gift through cogent and reliable evidence?
  • Can a property be legally transferred by a development authority on the basis of an unregistered gift declaration without putting the living owner on notice?
  • Is a revisional court competent to interfere with concurrent findings of fact when there is a prima facie misreading and departure from settled legal principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Geeta Narayana Shahani through legal heir Raju Bhagwan Butaney vs Shyam Prem Shahani another2022 SHC 72 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mrs. Faryal Talpur vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others2022 PLD Sindh 116 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-26Read full judgment →
• Moulvi Iqbal Haider vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary and others2022 SHC 586 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Moula Bux alias Moulai Mallah and another vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 370 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-10
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailfurther inquiryabsence of independent mashirchemical examiner reportcriminal bail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two criminal bail applications where one applicant sought pre-arrest bail and the other sought post-arrest bail arising out of an FIR registered under sections 269, 270, and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail in the absence of independent witnesses, lack of weight specification for alleged recovered substances, and absence of a chemical examiner report. The court held that the case called for further inquiry into the guilt of the applicants, bringing their case within the ambit of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where vital corroborative evidence is missing at the tentative assessment stage, the accused persons are entitled to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail when no independent mashir is cited as a witness from populated areas?
  • Does the absence of a chemical examiner's report bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest and post-arrest bail be granted when the investigation is completed and no misuse of interim bail is alleged?
  Read full judgment →
• Moosa Jumani vs Viith Additional District Judge (Mcac), Karachi South2022 YLR 1493 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
• Moin Us Samad Khan vs Tanveer Qazi and another2022 SHC 366 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Shoaib alias Shahoo and others vs The State2022 YLR 1837 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-16
  anti-terrorismmurderbenefit of doubtdelayed identification paradeextra-judicial confessionacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentencing them to life imprisonment for the murder of a police constable during a protest in 2011. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons, identification parades were held after a delay of over six years without prior description, no crime weapons were recovered, and no specific role of firing was attributed to the appellants by the eyewitnesses. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants due to unreliable evidence, unexplained delays in identification, and lack of incriminating recoveries. The court laid down the principle that a criminal charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can an identification parade conducted more than six years after the incident, without a prior physical description or hulia in the initial statement, form the sole basis for a safe conviction?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to recover crime weapons or matching empties from the crime scene create a reasonable doubt requiring the acquittal of the accused?
  • Is an extra-judicial or police-recorded admission of guilt admissible when not recorded before a judicial magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when an FIR is initially registered against unknown persons and material witnesses fail to attribute specific roles of firing to the accused during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Anwar vs Pakistan & others2022 SHC 270 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ahmad Ansari vs Interglobe Commerce Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., &2022 SHC 280 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Miss Uzma Amjad Ali and Mrs. Asma Mahmood Dr. Nafees Zubair and others vs Mrs. Saeeda Bano, Miss Uzma Amjad Ali and Mrs. Asma Mahmood and others2022 SCP 596, 2024 MLD 1115 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mirza Shahnawaz Agha vs Securities and Exchange Commission Of Pakistan through Additional Registrar2022 CLD 1017 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-16
  Section 265-K CrPCacquittalcriminal complaintwinding upSecurities and Exchange Commission of PakistanPakistan Penal Codecorporate fraudspecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal revision applications challenging an order of the Special Court (Offences in Banks) which dismissed the applicant's requests for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions were whether the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan could prosecute corporate officers under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 instead of the Companies Ordinance 1984, and whether criminal proceedings against company directors must cease upon the company entering liquidation. The Court dismissed the applications, holding that the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan is empowered to prosecute under the general law, specifically the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the special law does not address the specific allegations of fraud and misappropriation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that winding-up proceedings do not preclude criminal prosecution of directors. The Court affirmed that criminal trials should proceed when allegations require evidence for adjudication and that the existence of a special law does not automatically exclude the application of the general law unless the special law explicitly covers the alleged offences.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan prosecute corporate officers under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the Companies Ordinance 1984 does not cover the specific allegations?
  • Does the winding-up of a company under the Companies Ordinance 1984 bar criminal proceedings against its directors?
  • Is a Special Court (Offences in Banks) competent to take cognizance of a complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza Shah Nawaz Agha vs Securities and Exchange Commission Of Pakistan (SECP) through Joint Registrar of Companies and another2022 PCRLJ 1303 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-16
  juristic personcriminal complaintsubstitution of complainantbody corporateSECPprosecutioncorporate litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged a trial court order allowing the substitution of an authorized officer representing the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) in a pending criminal complaint. The applicant contended that the law does not permit the substitution of a complainant in criminal proceedings. The core legal question was whether a body corporate, having initiated a criminal complaint, could validly continue the prosecution through an officer different from the one who initially filed the complaint. The Court held that the SECP, as a body corporate and juristic person, possesses the right to sue and be sued. Because a juristic entity must act through natural persons, it is not required to be represented by the same individual from the inception of a case until its conclusion. The Court reasoned that litigation is a protracted process, and requiring the same officer to remain involved despite potential retirement, transfer, or death would be impractical and defeat the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court's order, permitting the substitution of the authorized representative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a body corporate initiate criminal proceedings in its own name?
  • Is a body corporate required to be represented by the same authorized officer throughout the duration of a criminal trial?
  • Does the substitution of an authorized representative in a criminal complaint filed by a juristic person constitute an illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza Hamayoon vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1648 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30
  bank fraudsentencing discretionmitigating circumstancesmisappropriationcriminal appealdefault of finespecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction and sentence imposed by a Special Court (Offences in Banks) regarding the misappropriation and embezzlement of funds by a bank teller. The appellant, having been convicted under sections 409 and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, initially contested the conviction but subsequently conceded the prosecution's case, requesting only a reduction in sentence based on mitigating factors. The core legal question concerned the appropriate exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing, specifically whether mitigating circumstances warranted a reduction of the imposed term. The Court held that while the conviction was soundly based on consistent evidence, sentencing is not a mechanical exercise but requires a conscious application of mind to factors such as the gravity of the offence, the accused's remorse, and potential for reformation. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence, emphasizing that imprisonment in default of fine is a punishment for non-payment, not a substitute for the fine itself, which remains recoverable under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is sentencing a mechanical exercise or does it require a conscious application of judicial discretion?
  • Does serving a term of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine discharge the liability to pay that fine?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence based on mitigating factors even when the conviction is maintained?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2022 SHC 70, 2022 CLD 352 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad Tahir Zehri vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2022 SHC 588 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mir Karam Ali Khan & 28 others vs Province of SIndh and Others2022 SHC 198 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23
  departmental promotion committeelength of serviceeligibility versus fitnessservice tribunal jurisdictionseniorityconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioners assailing the minutes of the meeting dated 31.08.2021 of the Departmental Promotion Committee of the Irrigation Department, whereby their promotion to Executive Engineer (BPS-18) was deferred on the ground that they lacked the requisite five years of service in BPS-17. The petitioners contended that their seniority was ignored and that private respondents were adjusted against direct recruitment quotas. The respondents raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arguing that service matters exclusively fall within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Sindh High Court evaluated the rival contentions and held that the petitioners indeed lacked the mandatory length of service required for promotion to BPS-18, rendering their claim premature. The Court reiterated that eligibility is distinct from fitness, and that promotion requires both statutory criteria and an unblemished service record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain service matters of civil servants in view of the bar contained in Article 212?
  • Is a civil servant who lacks the requisite length of service eligible for promotion to a higher grade?
  • What is the distinction between eligibility for promotion and fitness for promotion under civil service law?
  • Can seniority be claimed from a retrospective date when regular appointment has not been made from such date?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Hassan Kalhoro vs Muhammad Chuttal alias Imran and another2022 PLD Sindh 165 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-28
  judicial immunityindependence of judiciaryjudicial officers protectioncriminal prosecution of judgessanction for prosecutiondirect complaintpublic servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal revision application challenging an order by an Additional Sessions Judge that directed a Judicial Magistrate to entertain a direct complaint against a Senior Civil Judge. The respondent, a revenue official, alleged that the judge abused and detained him during court proceedings. The core legal question was whether a judicial officer is subject to criminal or civil proceedings for acts performed during the discharge of official duties. The High Court held that judicial officers are protected by immunity for acts done in good faith while exercising judicial powers. The Court emphasized that such immunity is essential for the independence of the judiciary and to ensure judges can perform duties without fear. The Court ruled that no criminal or civil action lies against a judge for judicial acts, noting that the respondent failed to obtain the mandatory sanction required under the law for prosecuting public servants. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, declared the proceedings against the judge void, and directed disciplinary action against the respondent for hindering judicial independence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judicial officer be prosecuted for acts performed in the discharge of official judicial duties without prior sanction?
  • Does the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 provide immunity against both civil and criminal proceedings for judicial acts?
  • Is a judge liable for criminal or civil action for acts done in good faith while exercising judicial powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Ghulam Abbas Jakhrani vs Director General Nab and 2 others2022 PCRLJ 781 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-09
  post-arrest bailinordinate delayNAB referencebenamidarexpeditious trialright to libertyaccountability court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference, citing lack of incriminating evidence and inordinate delay in the trial. The petitioner, accused of being a benamidar for the main accused, argued that he had no connection to the alleged offences and that his incarceration for over 29 months without significant trial progress violated his rights. The Court examined the trial record, noting that only 7 out of 49 witnesses had been examined in over two years, with the majority of delays not attributable to the petitioner. The Court held that the lack of sufficient incriminating material, combined with the inordinate and unconscionable delay in the trial, entitled the petitioner to bail. The Court emphasized that the right to an expeditious trial under Article 10A of the Constitution must be meaningful and that prolonged incarceration without trial progress is unjust. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate and unconscionable delay in the conclusion of a trial constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  • Is an accused person entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to produce sufficient incriminating material to justify continued detention?
  • Does the right to an expeditious trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 protect an under-trial prisoner from prolonged incarceration due to delays not caused by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Abdullah Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan2022 SHC 352 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-13Read full judgment →
• Mian Trust through Representative/Trustee vs Lyari Expressway2022 CLC 543 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mian Asad Omer Maggo vs Hewlett-Packard Singapore (Sales) Pvt Limited2022 CLD 918 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Jabbar and another vs The Chairman, National Accountability2022 YLR 1040 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-28Read full judgment →
• MFG Insurance Company Limited vs Securities & Exchange Commissioner2022 SHC 26, 2022 CLD 1055 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zarif Khan Hussain Zai And Brothers through Authorised2022 PTD 779, PTCL 2022 CL. 862 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Aslam vs P.I.A.C & Ors2022 SHC 268 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-01
  PIAC service rulesmaster and servant principlecompulsory retirementconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitystatutory rulesreinstatementdownsizing policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioner, a former Deputy General Manager Human Resources at Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), challenging his compulsory retirement dated December 31, 2006, and the subsequent appellate order rejecting his departmental appeal under a downsizing policy. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against PIAC under non-statutory service rules, whether an employee of PIAC can seek reinstatement rather than damages, and the legality of the premature retirement. The court held that PIAC is a statutory body, but its service regulations (such as the PIA Employees (Service & Discipline) Regulations, 1985) are non-statutory as they lack statutory framing requirements like notification in the official gazette. Consequently, the relationship between PIAC and its employees is governed by the principle of 'master and servant,' and an aggrieved employee cannot seek reinstatement or invoke constitutional jurisdiction for the enforcement of terms of service, but is restricted to claiming damages before a court of plenary jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) for the enforcement of service terms?
  • Do the service regulations framed by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) have statutory force?
  • Can an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) seek reinstatement in service along with back benefits upon termination or compulsory retirement?
  • What is the nature of the employment relationship between the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) and its employees in the absence of statutory service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zahir Khan And Brothers (ZKB) vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary, Investment Department, Karachi and 3 others2022 PLD Sindh 135 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Yunus Textile Mills Limited through Constituted Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad and 4 others2022 PCTLR 1509 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Spectrum Enterprises through Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PTD 732 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority (Sida) vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad Zone, Hyderabad and another2022 PTD 1679 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sakrand Sugar Mills Limited through Authorized2022 PTD 901 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Quick Contractor and Traders and others vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PTD 1302 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Murtaza Town Residence Society Association through General2022 PLD Sindh 282 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Manaco International through Proprietor vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PTD 1391 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kaim Khani and Brothers through Managing Partner vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Higher Technical Education and Research and School Education Department and 4 others2022 YLR 2188 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Heal the World through Chief Executive vs Federation of Pakistan2022 CLC 1901 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Harris Silicones and Glass (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PTD 1163 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-14
  Customs Act 1969Goods DeclarationRe-assessmentShow-cause noticeCustoms Computerized SystemPost-clearance auditDue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a demand notice generated via the Customs Computerized System regarding the re-assessment of four Goods Declarations from 2013. The core legal question was whether customs authorities possess the jurisdiction to re-assess Goods Declarations under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969, after the goods have been cleared and released, and whether such action is valid absent a show-cause notice or opportunity for a hearing. The Court held that the impugned action was unlawful and set aside the demand. It ruled that the power of re-assessment under Section 80(3) is strictly limited to the 'checking' phase of the Goods Declaration and ceases once the goods are released. Consequently, any post-clearance recovery must be initiated through proper statutory channels, such as a show-cause notice under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. The Court affirmed that demand notices issued without the prerequisite show-cause notice lack lawful foundation, emphasizing that statutory powers must be exercised strictly within the prescribed time and procedural mandates to ensure due process.

  Questions settled

  • Can customs authorities re-assess Goods Declarations under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969, after the goods have been released?
  • Is a show-cause notice a mandatory prerequisite for creating a demand for evaded duty and taxes?
  • Does the power of re-assessment under Section 80(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, extend beyond the initial checking of the Goods Declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Getz Pharma (Pvt.) Limited and others vs Novartis Ag and others2022 CLD 61 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bayer Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited through Legally Authorized Officer and others vs Province of Sindh through Member Board of Revenue and others2022 MLD 1680 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Tariq Constructors (Private) Limited through authorized Officer2022 PTD 1444 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Akhter Eye Hospital (Pvt.) Ltd.through Chief Accountant vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-v2022 PTD 1253 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Akhter Eye Hospital (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Accountant vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone-v2022 PCTLR 1532 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Adamjee Impex through Hamza Anwar Lakhani vs Shaikh2022 YLR 2255 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali vs The State and others2022 PCRLJ 749 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-22
  rule of consistencycriminal revisioncompromise in non-compoundable offencesacquittalhouse trespassamicable settlementappellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant challenged his conviction under Section 456, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his trial for offences including Sections 458, 506/2, and 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had acquitted his co-accused on the same evidence but convicted the applicant. The core legal questions were whether this conviction violated the "rule of consistency" and whether a compromise could be accepted for non-compoundable offences. The Court held that the conviction violated the rule of consistency, as the prosecution evidence disbelieved for the co-accused could not reliably support the applicant's conviction. Additionally, the Court accepted the compromise between the parties, holding that non-compoundability of certain offences should not be read in isolation. It established the principle that where parties have amicably settled disputes to restore peace and harmony, courts may exercise discretion to accept compromises in non-compoundable offences, treating them as merged with compoundable ones to promote societal welfare. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the applicant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency prohibit the conviction of an accused when co-accused have been acquitted on the same set of evidence?
  • Can a court accept a compromise in non-compoundable offences if the parties have amicably settled their dispute?
  • Should non-compoundability of an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be read in isolation or in the context of the overall settlement between parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehar Ali Solangi vs The State2022 SHC 162 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-07
  criminal appeal abatementdeath of appellantsentence of fineanti-corruptioncriminal breach of trustdelay in FIRbenefit of doubtposthumous acquittalconstitutional dignity
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, convicted under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, passed away during the pendency of his criminal appeal. The core legal question was whether a criminal appeal abates entirely upon the death of the appellant under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly when a sentence of fine was also imposed, and whether the appeal could be examined on merits to protect the estate, reputation, and service benefits of the deceased. The court held that while the sentence of imprisonment abates upon death, the appeal against a sentence of fine survives to protect the legal heirs' rights to the estate and back benefits, and that the conviction could be challenged on merits. Examining the case on merits, the court found multiple unexplained delays in lodging the First Information Report, glaring discrepancies in prosecution evidence, and a lack of tangible proof regarding misappropriation. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and fine, acquitting the appellant posthumously to benefit his legal heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal appeal abate upon the death of the appellant under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a sentence of fine is imposed along with imprisonment?
  • Can the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be applied in criminal proceedings when specific provisions exist in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the right to challenge a criminal conviction and clear one's reputation survive after the death of the accused for the benefit of legal heirs?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging a First Information Report in a criminal case?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to establish the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust through concrete or tangible evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited through Authorized Attorney vs Iqbal Ahmed and 62022 CLD 1499 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ali vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Water and Power2022 PLC (C.S.) 150 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-20
  constitutional petitioncompulsory retirementmisconductHESCOWAPDA rulesmaster and servantnatural justicefunctional test
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Executive Engineer at Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (HESCO), challenged an office order imposing a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service due to alleged poor performance and failure to meet targets, without holding a regular inquiry. The core legal questions involved whether HESCO is a person amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199, and whether the penalty of compulsory retirement for poor performance without an inquiry and without constituting 'misconduct' under the applicable rules was lawful. The court held that HESCO is amenable to constitutional jurisdiction as a state-controlled enterprise performing public functions, and that failure to achieve recovery targets does not constitute 'misconduct' under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, rendering the penalty illegal and in violation of natural justice. The court laid down the principle that corporate entities performing public statutory functions are amenable to judicial review, and that disciplinary penalties cannot be imposed for performance deficiencies under the guise of misconduct without proper inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Hyderabad Electric Supply Company (HESCO) is a person amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does failure to achieve recovery targets and poor performance constitute 'misconduct' under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
  • Can a major penalty of compulsory retirement be imposed upon an employee without holding a regular and proper inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ali and Mst. Uzma vs The State2022 SHC 468 · Sindh High Court
  murderabetmentcriminal conspiracyidentification paradecall data recordconfession before policebenefit of the doubtunlicensed pistol
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Sessions Judge/MCTC, Tando Muhammad Khan, convicting the appellants Mazhar Ali for murder and Mst. Uzma for instigation under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside appellant Mazhar Ali's conviction under Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal questions involve the reliability of circumstantial evidence, delayed FIR, identification, and the admissibility of video-recorded confessions before police officers and unverified Call Data Records. The Sindh High Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the case against appellant Mazhar Ali through consistent eyewitness testimony, prompt medical corroboration, recovery of the crime weapon, and positive forensic reports, the case against appellant Mst. Uzma suffered from fatal flaws, including delayed and doubtful implication, lack of independent proof of abetment or conspiracy, and inadmissible video-recorded statements made before the police in non-compliance with constitutional safeguards. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals of Mazhar Ali while modifying the fine to compensation, and allowed the appeal of Mst. Uzma, granting her the benefit of the doubt and acquitting her.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution case when the FIR is initially registered against an unknown accused?
  • Does a video-recorded conversation admitting guilt before a police officer constitute admissible evidence without fulfilling constitutional safeguards?
  • Is Call Data Record (CDR) alone sufficient to establish criminal conspiracy or abetment without a verified conversation transcript or independent evidence?
  • Whether failure to supply documents under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the reliance on such documents during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Maulana Ibadur Rehman Abbasi vs Jehangir Adam and others2022 SHC 264, 2024 CLC 151 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-07Read full judgment →
• Master Juman Buriro vs The State2022 YLR 299 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-29
  kidnapping for ransomidentification paradebenefit of doubtrule of consistencyAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals challenging the judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted the appellants for kidnapping for ransom under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence, the validity of the identification parade, and the application of the rule of consistency. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found significant lacunas, including an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, a flawed identification parade conducted jointly without following Supreme Court guidelines, and the failure to prove the recovery of alleged ransom money. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that a co-accused had been acquitted on the same evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, and must be extended whenever reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency require the acquittal of co-accused when prosecution evidence against them is identical to that of an already acquitted co-accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the identification parade is conducted jointly for multiple accused without following established Supreme Court guidelines?
  • Is the recovery of alleged ransom money valid if the prosecution fails to record the denomination of currency notes or conduct an identification parade for the recovered items?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, combined with other evidentiary discrepancies, entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Masheer Ahmed and another vs Sabir Hussain Shah and 2 othersPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 824 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-21
  Ex-officio Justice of PeaceFIR registrationPolice Rules 1934Criminal investigationCognizable offenceStation House OfficerDiscretionary powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to an order passed by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace directing the Station House Officer (SHO) to record a statement and register an FIR if a cognizable offense is disclosed. The core legal question is whether such a judicial direction mandates the compulsory registration and investigation of an FIR, even when police reports suggest the allegations are false or doubtful. The Court held that while an SHO must record a statement upon receiving information of a cognizable offense, they are not duty-bound to investigate every case. Under Rule 24.4 of the Police Rules, 1934, an SHO possesses the discretion to decline investigation if they have reasonable grounds to believe the alleged offense is doubtful or false, provided they record their reasons in the station diary. The Court clarified that a direction to 'record a statement and act accordingly' does not equate to a mandatory order to register an FIR. Furthermore, the practice of noting 'lodged on court direction' in FIRs should be reserved for specific, clear-cut judicial orders to prevent misuse.

  Questions settled

  • Does a direction by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace to record a statement and act accordingly mandate the registration of an FIR?
  • Is a Station House Officer duty-bound to investigate every cognizable offense reported to them?
  • Under what circumstances may a Station House Officer refuse to investigate a reported cognizable offense?
  • What is the proper procedure for a Station House Officer when they suspect a reported cognizable offense is doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed Solangi vs Board of Revenue & others2022 SHC 508 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ahmed vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 57 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionborderline quantityprohibitory clausepolice witnessescriminal bail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Mansoor Ahmed, who was charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 1030 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that the quantity of narcotics recovered marginally exceeded the threshold for a lesser offense under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, placing the case in a 'borderline' category. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. It reasoned that the quantity recovered was only marginally above the limit for the lesser offense, and that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that all witnesses were police officials, with no independent public witnesses cited despite prior information. The key principle laid down is that in cases involving borderline quantities of narcotics between Section 9(b) and 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, bail may be granted if the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offense involving a quantity of narcotics that marginally exceeds the threshold of Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 considered a borderline case for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Does the absence of independent public witnesses in a narcotics recovery case involving only police officials entitle an accused to bail?
  • Does an offense under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 necessarily fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mannan and others vs The State2022 YLR 2359 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-17
  murderattempted murderinjured eye-witnessidentification in darknessnon-recovery of weaponrelated witnessdeath sentence confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  The Sindh High Court heard appeals against the convictions and sentences passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge (Model Criminal Trial Court) Karachi South in a case involving murder, attempted murder, and hurt under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, armed with pistols and knives, assaulted the complainant and his son, and subsequently stabbed and killed the complainant's other son when he arrived to rescue them. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated, that poor light prevented correct identification, and that no weapons were recovered. The High Court, upon reassessing the evidence, found that the eye-witnesses (including injured witnesses and independent bystanders) were natural, reliable, and had sufficient opportunity to identify the appellants due to close proximity, notwithstanding the poor light. The Court held that the absence of weapon recovery is not fatal when reliable eye-witness testimony exists, and that minor contradictions do not dent the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, maintained the convictions, and confirmed the death sentence of the primary accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether darkness or poor light at the crime scene automatically invalidates the identification of the accused by eye-witnesses?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of related eye-witnesses in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Does the non-recovery of the weapon of offence fatal to the prosecution's case when reliable eye-witness testimony is available?
  • Whether minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is it a universal rule that a death sentence cannot be awarded if no motive for the murder is proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Manjhi & Others vs The State2022 SHC 256 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30
  criminal appealprocedural irregularityrecording of evidenceamendment of chargeprejudice to accusedtrial de novoinjured witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi, for murder and causing injuries. The core legal question concerns the procedural validity of the trial court's decision to copy and paste previously recorded evidence after amending the charge to include newly joined accused persons, rather than recording the evidence afresh in the presence of all accused. The High Court held that this procedure violated the mandatory requirement under Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which necessitates that evidence be taken in the presence of the accused. Furthermore, the court noted the failure to examine a key injured witness without establishing incapacity through medical evidence, causing prejudice to both the defense and the prosecution. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment, remanded the case for a fresh trial, and directed the trial court to record evidence on the amended charge de novo, ensuring compliance with legal procedures within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court copy and paste evidence recorded before the amendment of a charge to use against newly joined accused persons?
  • Does the failure to record evidence in the presence of the accused violate the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it mandatory to medically ascertain the incapacity of an injured witness before dispensing with their examination at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Naeem Iqbal, advocate vs M/s M.M Aqil Awan, advocate2022 SHC 106 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-15
  Constitutional petitionRepatriationCivil servant statusService Tribunal jurisdictionProvincial Assembly employeesArticle 199 jurisdictionService terms and conditions
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Secretary in the Sindh Provincial Assembly, challenged a notification repatriating him to his parent department, the Intelligence Bureau. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner, as an employee of the Provincial Assembly, fell within the definition of a 'civil servant' subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the repatriation order was lawful. The Court held that while employees of Provincial Assemblies are generally considered civil servants, the instant matter concerned the legality of a repatriation order based on the erroneous premise that the petitioner was a deputationist or absorbed employee, despite his initial appointment through a competitive process. Consequently, the Court determined that the matter did not exclusively fall within the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction and was maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court set aside the impugned notification, ruling that the petitioner was not a deputationist and was entitled to continue his duties in the Assembly.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of the Provincial Assembly considered civil servants for the purpose of Service Tribunal jurisdiction?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to challenge a repatriation order of a Provincial Assembly employee?
  • Can a repatriation order be sustained if the employee was appointed through a competitive process rather than absorption or deputation?
  Read full judgment →
• Madni Ahmed Ali Arfat Siddiqui vs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and another2022 SHC 436, 2023 PLJ Karachi 19, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 431 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-03
  Master and Servant doctrineService regulationsPublic sector recruitmentVested right to promotionJudicial review of policyMaintainability of suitSection 24-A General Clauses Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, an employee of Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL), challenged a public recruitment notice for senior management positions, arguing that the defendant was obligated to prioritize internal promotion over external hiring according to its service rules and succession planning. The core legal questions were whether the suit was maintainable given the "Master and Servant" employment relationship and whether the recruitment process violated the defendant's internal service regulations. The court held that the suit was maintainable because public sector entities, even when governed by non-statutory rules, must act fairly, justly, and reasonably under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. However, on the merits, the court dismissed the suit. It ruled that the defendant possessed the executive discretion to hire externally for specialized senior management roles to ensure operational efficiency. The court established that an employee holds no vested right to promotion for specialized positions, and judicial interference in such policy decisions is unwarranted absent clear evidence that the recruitment process violated established service regulations or policies.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit filed by an employee of a public sector entity maintainable despite the 'Master and Servant' doctrine?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to promotion for senior management positions in a public sector organization?
  • Can a court interfere with the executive discretion of a public sector entity to recruit externally for specialized positions?
  • Does the duty to act fairly under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 apply to non-statutory service regulations of a public sector entity?
  Read full judgment →
• Lucky Cement Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2022 PCTLR 1380 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The State2022 MLD 1980 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-12
  criminal appealoffshoot caseacquittalSindh Arms Actevidentiary contradictionsconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat, which convicted the appellant, Liaquat Ali, under Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having been acquitted in the main case from which the present arms possession charge originated as an offshoot, was entitled to acquittal in the instant case as well. The Sindh High Court, noting the prosecution's concession regarding evidentiary contradictions and the appellant's prior acquittal in the main case (Crime No. 67/2020), allowed the appeal. Relying on the principle established in Manjhi v. The State (PLD 1996 Karachi 345), the Court held that when an accused is acquitted in a main case, they are entitled to acquittal in a case that is merely an offshoot of the primary proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, discharging his bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal in an offshoot case if they have already been acquitted in the main case?
  • Does the acquittal of an accused in a primary criminal case necessitate the acquittal of the same accused in a related case arising from the same incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs The State2022 YLR 1662 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-28
  dishonoured chequebail applicationprohibitory clausefugitive from lawSection 489-F PPCnon-bailable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicant seeking release in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail, particularly given the argument that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant failed to establish grounds for relief. The Court observed that the applicant had remained a fugitive from justice for eight years, and sufficient material existed on record to implicate him. The Court established the principle that bail is not a matter of right in non-bailable offences, even if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Where exceptional circumstances exist, such as the presence of strong evidence or the accused's status as a fugitive, the Court may decline to grant bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decline bail for an offence that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an accused who has remained a fugitive from justice for a significant period have a right to be released on bail?
  • Is bail a matter of right in non-bailable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali alias Khabar and others vs Habibullah and others2022 CLC 1583 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-18Read full judgment →
• Lal Bux and others vs Government of Sindh and others2022 SHC 54 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-28Read full judgment →
• Lal Bux @ Lal son of Ghulam Qadir Pitafi vs The State2022 SHC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-20
  narcotic substancechain of custodysafe custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtpolice witnesscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of charas. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the recovered narcotics and whether the conviction could be sustained based solely on the testimony of police officials in the absence of independent corroboration. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the Court found that the nine-day delay in transmitting the samples to the Chemical Examiner, coupled with the absence of evidence regarding the safe custody and transit of the narcotics during that period, created a fatal gap in the chain of custody. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that while police testimony is admissible, the failure to associate independent witnesses in a public place, alongside material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, necessitated the appellant's acquittal. The principle laid down is that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the transmission of narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner, without proof of safe custody, vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of police officials sufficient for conviction in a narcotics case where no independent witnesses were associated despite their availability?
  • Does the failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for recovered narcotics render the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable for conviction?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt if only a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Kse Stockbrokers Association and others vs Securities & Exchange2022 SHC 104 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →