Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.
- Faheem alias Bara vs The State and another2022 MLD 1298 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for possession of an unlicensed weapon. The core legal questions involve the application of the rule of consistency when a co-accused tried on the same set of evidence has been acquitted by another court, and whether discrepancies in the description of the recovered weapon vitiate the conviction. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that once the prosecution evidence has been disbelieved regarding a co-accused in the same incident, the same evidence cannot be relied upon to convict another co-accused without independent, unimpeachable corroboration. Furthermore, the failure to record distinctive engravings on the recovered weapon in the arrest and recovery memo renders the recovery doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused facing the same allegations is acquitted by a court on the same set of evidence?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to note distinctive serial numbers or inscriptions on a recovered weapon in the recovery memo?
- Can prosecution evidence disbelieved against one accused be utilized to convict another co-accused without independent corroboration?
- Fahad vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 279 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the recovery of narcotics, the failure to associate independent witnesses from a populated area, the absence of proof regarding safe custody and safe transit of the recovered substance during a six-day delay before chemical analysis, and the propriety of the complainant acting as the investigating officer. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in witness testimonies, lack of safe custody evidence, and procedural flaws. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principles laid down are that failure to prove safe custody of a narcotic substance vitiates the chemical examiner's report, that a complainant should not investigate their own case to ensure fairness, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in sending a recovered narcotic substance to the Chemical Examiner without proof of safe custody vitiate the prosecution case?
- Is it legally appropriate for the complainant of a criminal case to also act as its Investigating Officer?
- What is the legal effect on a recovery when police fail to associate independent private witnesses from a populated area in violation of criminal procedure?
- Does the presence of material contradictions between the testimony of the complainant and the recovery mashir render the prosecution evidence unreliable?
- Excellent Security Limited through Director vs Federation of Pakistan2022 CLC 2133 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-24Read full judgment →
- Ever Shine Constructors vs Khairpur Special Economic Zone2022 SHC 220 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
- Engro Foods Ltd. through General Manager vs Registrar of Trade Union2022 PLJ Karachi 106 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the registration of a trade union under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (SIRA) by the Registrar of Trade Unions, arguing that the petitioner was a trans-provincial establishment subject exclusively to the federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA). The core legal question was whether the provincial Registrar possessed the jurisdiction to register a trade union for an establishment operating across multiple provinces, and whether such registration remained valid following the employer's recognition under federal law. The Court held that the question of whether an establishment is trans-provincial is a jurisdictional fact. Upon evidence that the petitioner was registered as a trans-provincial establishment under the federal IRA, the Court ruled that the federal law overrides the provincial SIRA by virtue of Article 143 of the Constitution. Consequently, the registration of the trade union under the SIRA was superseded, and pending proceedings for the determination of a Collective Bargaining Agent under the SIRA were declared to have abated. The key principle established is that provincial industrial relations laws cannot regulate trade unions within trans-provincial establishments.
Questions settled- Does the registration of a trade union under provincial law remain valid if the employer is subsequently established as a trans-provincial entity governed by federal law?
- Can an employer challenge the registration of a trade union in constitutional jurisdiction if the challenge is based on a jurisdictional defect?
- Are workers employed through a labour contractor considered employees of the establishment for the purpose of trade union formation?
- Does the federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012 override the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 regarding trade unions in trans-provincial establishments?
- Engro Foods Ltd vs Registrar of Trade Union & others2022 SHC 354, 2022 PLJ 106, 2024 PLC 11 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the registration of a trade union under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 by the Petitioner, Engro Foods Limited, which contended it was a trans-provincial establishment subject to Federal law. The core legal question was whether a trade union registered under provincial law remains valid when the employer is a trans-provincial establishment governed by the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court held that the petition was maintainable and that the Petitioner’s status as a trans-provincial establishment was established by its registration under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. Consequently, the Court ruled that the registration of the trade union under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 was overridden by the Federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The key principle laid down is that trans-provincial establishments are governed exclusively by Federal law, and provincial industrial relations legislation is overridden by Federal law pursuant to Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Accordingly, the registration certificate issued under the provincial law lost its legal effect, and pending proceedings for determining a Collective Bargaining Agent under the provincial law were ordered to abate.
Questions settled- Does the registration of a trade union under provincial law remain valid if the employer is subsequently determined to be a trans-provincial establishment subject to federal law?
- Are workers employed through a contractor considered employees of the establishment for the purposes of trade union formation under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013?
- Does the High Court have the authority to scrutinize the registration of a trade union in constitutional jurisdiction if jurisdictional defects are alleged?
- Does federal industrial relations legislation override provincial industrial relations legislation in the case of trans-provincial establishments?
- Employers Federation of Pakistan & others vs Government of Sindh &2022 KLR Labour & Services Cases 88 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged a notification issued by the Government of Sindh under the Sindh Minimum Wages Act, 2015, which increased the minimum monthly wage for unskilled adult and juvenile workers from Rs. 17,500 to Rs. 25,000, superseding the Sindh Minimum Wages Board's recommendation of Rs. 19,000. The core legal questions involved whether the Provincial Government was bound by the Board's recommendations or possessed the independent authority to fix higher minimum wages, and whether the notification was legally sustainable. The Sindh High Court held that the recommendations of the Minimum Wages Board are advisory in nature and that the Provincial Government holds ultimate statutory competence and responsibility under Section 6 of the Act to determine, modify, and notify minimum wage rates. The Court ruled that the Government acted within its lawful authority in setting the higher wage rate in response to prevailing inflation and socioeconomic welfare considerations, while also directing that the matter be referred back to the Board under Section 6(5) to address any employer grievances regarding equity. The key principles established include the discretionary and advisory role of the Minimum Wages Board vis-à-vis the overriding executive authority of the Government, and the supremacy of constitutional guarantees of a dignified livelihood over mere procedural technicalities in labour welfare legislation.
Questions settled- Whether the recommendations made by the Minimum Wages Board under the Sindh Minimum Wages Act, 2015 are binding upon the Provincial Government?
- Does the Provincial Government possess the legal competence under the Sindh Minimum Wages Act, 2015 to fix a minimum wage rate higher than that recommended by the Minimum Wages Board?
- Can a notification fixing minimum wages be challenged in constitutional writ jurisdiction on the ground of policy disagreement or departure from board recommendations?
- Whether the determination of minimum wages under the Sindh Minimum Wages Act, 2015 constitutes a legislative or an adjudicative function?
- Eaton Phoenixtec MMPL Co., Ltd vs Messrs. New Rabia Enterprises2022 SHC 530 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
- Dur Muhammad Shah, Advocate vs Aga Khan University Hospital through Management and 6 others2022 PLD Sindh 78 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
- Dua Fatima and another vs Home Department through Secretary Sindh2022 PLJ Karachi 97 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-20Read full judgment →
- Dr. Rehana Ali Shah vs Province Of Sindh, Sindh Local Government, District2022 PLD Sindh 31 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-08Read full judgment →
- Dr. Nadeem-ur-Rehman Siddiqui vs Government of Sindh & Others2022 SHC 564 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-05Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Asif Osawala vs Mrs. Qamar-Un-Nisa Hakro through Attorney and another2022 PLD Sindh 430 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-14Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mahreen Baloch vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home2022 YLR 1602 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dr. Irshad Ali Lodhi vs Province of Sindh & Ors2022 SHC 522 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-17Read full judgment →
- Dr. Habibur Rehman Soomro vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2022 SHC 40 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
- Dr. Amir Bux Channa & another vs Isra Islamic Foundation (Guarantee) Ltd.2022 SHC 548 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dr. Abdul Qadir A. Akhund vs M/s. Hermain Travels (Pvt.) Ltd2022 SHC 100 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
- Dr. Abdul Qadir A. Akhund vs M/s. Hermain Travels (Pvt.) Ltd, and another2022 KLR Civil Cases 236 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
- Dr. Abdul Karim Channa vs Federation of Pakistan2022 SHC 44 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former Medical Officer with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), filed a constitutional petition seeking the inclusion of his prior retainership-based service period towards his total qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether service rendered on a contractual or retainership basis, which was subsequently regularized, qualifies for pension calculation. The Court held that the petition was maintainable, noting that constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked against a public authority like the CAA even regarding non-statutory service regulations. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that temporary or contractual service followed by regularization must be counted towards pensionary benefits. It established that while pension eligibility requires meeting a minimum qualifying service threshold, the period of prior contractual service is to be included in calculating the quantum of pension once that threshold is met. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to include the petitioner's entire period of service, from his initial appointment, for the purpose of settling his pensionary dues within sixty days.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the Civil Aviation Authority regarding non-statutory service regulations?
- Can service rendered on a retainership or contractual basis be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits upon regularization?
- Does the period of contractual service count towards the calculation of pension quantum if the employee has met the minimum qualifying service threshold?
- Dollar Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs Mr. Kamran Akhlaq2022 SHC 384 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-15Read full judgment →
- Director, Directorate of Intelligence And Investigation FBR vs Malik Abdul2022 PTD 1760 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in a criminal case initiated for offences punishable under Section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969, concerning the fraudulent clearance of old and used concrete transit mixture trucks through fake Pre-Shipment Inspection (PSI) certificates. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the falsity of the PSI certificates and the guilt of the respondent. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case because the alleged verification of the PSI certificates—purportedly issued by Bureau Veritas in Dubai—was only sought from the Karachi office of Bureau Veritas rather than the Dubai office, and the author of the verification letter was not produced as a witness at trial. The court laid down the principle that prosecution allegations regarding documents issued abroad must be verified directly from the foreign issuing authority and supported by competent witness testimony, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether an acquittal judgment can be set aside when the prosecution fails to produce the author of a crucial verification document as a witness?
- Is verification of a foreign-issued Pre-Shipment Inspection Certificate legally sufficient when obtained only from a local office rather than the issuing foreign office?
- Does failure to properly verify documents through competent evidence warrant the dismissal of an appeal against acquittal?
- Director of Customs Valuation vs M/s. Hanna Dairies, I-3012022 SHC 304 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
- Din Farm Products (Pvt) Ltd vs Security and Exchange commission of Pakistan2022 SHC 392 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dilbar Chandio and Abdullah Brohi vs The State2022 SHC 336 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-02Read full judgment →
- Digri Sugar Mills Ltd vs The Additional Collector of Customs & Another2022 SHC 156 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-22Read full judgment →
- Dewan Abdullah Ahmed Farooqui vs Court of Family Judge South, Saddar2022 YLR 2095 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-06Read full judgment →
- Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue Services (Aec) & others vs M/s.2022 SHC 592 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-30Read full judgment →
- Deedar Ali Issran vs Abdul Wahid and others2022 SHC 248 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-22Read full judgment →
- Dawood-Ur-Rehman vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1141 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, arrested for smuggling Ketamine, filed a constitutional petition seeking bail, citing the prosecution's failure to file a challan within the statutory period. The core legal question was whether the offence, involving a substance reclassified as a psychotropic drug, fell under the jurisdiction of the Customs Court or the Special Court established under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court held that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, possesses an overriding effect over the Customs Act, 1969, in matters concerning narcotic and psychotropic substances. Consequently, the Court affirmed the decision of the Special Judge (Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling) to return the challan, ruling that such offences are exclusively triable by the Special Court established under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The key principle laid down is that where an offence involves narcotics or psychotropic substances, the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, prevail over other laws, necessitating trial before the specialized forum created under that Act to avoid double jeopardy and ensure legal consistency.
Questions settled- Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 have an overriding effect over the Customs Act 1969 regarding the trial of narcotic-related offences?
- Are offences involving psychotropic substances exclusively triable by a Special Court established under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Can a Customs Court return a challan for lack of jurisdiction if the offence involves substances regulated under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Danish Elahi and 2 others vs Mariam Kamran and 3 others2022 PLD Sindh 362 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
- Danish Azhar vs The Consumer Protection Court (South), Karachi and other2022 SHC 3, 2022 CLC 1203 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-14Read full judgment →
- Cyrus Cowasjee and 2 others vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through Administrator, Karachi2022 PLD Sindh 106 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the authority of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) to impose and collect 'mutation charges' on immovable property acquired by the petitioners through inheritance (via a will). The core legal question was whether the KMC possesses the statutory authority to levy such fees upon the transmission of property by operation of law, as opposed to a transfer between living persons. The Court held that the KMC lacks the authority to charge mutation fees in cases of inheritance. It reasoned that inheritance involves the automatic devolution of property by operation of law, which is distinct from a 'transfer' as defined under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Court emphasized that fiscal statutes must be strictly construed, and no tax or fee can be imposed without explicit statutory authorization. Since the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, only authorizes taxes on the transfer of immovable property and not on inheritance-based transmission, the impugned challan was declared illegal, and the KMC was directed to refund the collected amount.
Questions settled- Does the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation have the legal authority to charge mutation fees on property inherited through a will?
- Is the transmission of property through inheritance considered a 'transfer of property' under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
- Can a local government authority impose a fee or tax that is not explicitly authorized by the governing statute?
- Does the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, empower the KMC to levy mutation fees on properties acquired by operation of law?
- Commissioner Ir, Zone-IV vs M/s. Hamdam Paper Corporation (Pvt) Ltd.,2022 SHC 342, 2022 PTD 1781 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-22Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IV vs Byco Petroleum Pakistan2022 SHC 158, 2022 [M] CLR 874, 2022 PCTLR 1266 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves reference applications filed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue against concurrent findings of the Commissioner Appeals and the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, which had set aside default surcharges and penalties imposed on petroleum sector entities for slightly late payment of sales tax. The core legal question was whether the levy of default surcharge and penalty was warranted under the Sales Tax Act 1990 without establishing willful default or mens rea, particularly when delayed payments resulted from a severe national liquidity crisis caused by circular debt. The Sindh High Court held that penalties and default surcharges under fiscal laws are quasi-criminal in nature and cannot be imposed in the manifest absence of demonstrable intent, willful default, or culpable mens rea. The Court laid down that financial defaults arising from external, uncontrollable macroeconomic factors like government-induced circular debt do not attract penal consequences, and administrative authorities must establish the presence of mens rea before imposing default surcharge and penalties.
Questions settled- Whether default surcharge and penalty can be imposed under the Sales Tax Act 1990 without establishing willful default or mens rea?
- Does a liquidity crisis caused by circular debt constitute a valid ground for deleting default surcharge and penalties on delayed tax payments?
- Are penalties and default surcharges under fiscal statutes considered civil liabilities or quasi-criminal in nature?
- Is the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue the final arbiter of facts regarding the presence or absence of a taxpayer's intent?
- Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I vs Messrs Excell Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd2022 PTD 1535 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-20Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Mahvash and Jahangir Siddiqui2022 PTD 1806 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-25Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Dawood Islamic Bank Limited (Now Burj2022 PTD 1474 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-09Read full judgment →
- Commissioner (Legal Division) Large Taxpayers Units vs Pakistan2022 SHC 14 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-25Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs, Model Collectorate Of Customs (Preventive), Customs House, Karachi vs Niaz Muhammad and another2022 PTD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-07Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs vs M/s. Abdullah Traders and othersPTCL 2022 CL. 420 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs vs M/s Abdullah Traders2022 PCTLR 392 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs vs Mr. Kristof W. Duwaerts2022 SHC 478 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-26Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs vs Messrs Junaid Enterprises and others2022 PTD 1059 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs vs Messrs Bnn Enterprises2022 PTD 1418 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs vs Messrs A.R. & Company2022 PTD 1408 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs vs Alhaj Ajab Khan2022 SHC 11 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-27Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs, Karachi vs Messrs Samad Enterprises2022 PTD 796, 2023 PCTLR 1, PTCL 2022 CL. 781 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-30Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs vs Ms.2022 PTD 674, PTCL 2022 CL. 770 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Special Customs Reference Application challenged an order of the Customs Appellate Tribunal, which had condoned a delay in filing an appeal and ruled against the department regarding the recovery of short-levied duties. The core legal questions concerned whether the Tribunal lawfully condoned the delay in filing the appeal and whether Valuation Rulings could be applied to goods cleared outside the relevant statutory timeframes. The Court held that the Tribunal correctly condoned the delay because the respondent had not been properly served with the Order-in-Original, citing the principle that limitation periods commence from the date of knowledge when an aggrieved party is unaware of proceedings. Regarding the merits, the Court found that the department failed to establish the applicability of the Valuation Rulings, noting that the goods were cleared as a final assessment under Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969, and that the department could not retrospectively apply rulings without clear evidence of clearance dates or compliance with the 90-day data rule. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, affirming the Tribunal’s decision.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for filing an appeal commence from the date of the order or from the date the aggrieved party acquires knowledge of the order when they were not served?
- Can a Valuation Ruling be applied to goods cleared outside the 90-day window prescribed by the Customs Rules?
- Is a recovery action for short-levied duty sustainable under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, when the goods were already cleared under a final assessment pursuant to Section 80?
- Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs vs Messrs2022 PTD 836 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These reference applications impugned an order of the Customs Appellate Tribunal relating to the assessment of imported PVC Electric Insulation Tapes in jumbo rolls, specifically concerning whether the weight of the inner core packing should be included in the assessable net weight. The core legal question was whether the assessing officer could invoke Section 25(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1969 to add the weight of essential packing when customs values had already been determined under Section 25-A via a Valuation Ruling. The Sindh High Court held that once a customs value is statutorily determined under Section 25-A, assessing officers cannot resort to the transactional value provisions or general additions under Section 25(2)(b). The Court laid down the principle that Section 25(2)(b) applies exclusively to assessments made under the transactional value method (Section 25(1)) and cannot be invoked when an assessment is governed by an existing Valuation Ruling that explicitly accounts for essential packing tare weight.
Questions settled- Whether the weight of essential packing like an inner core can be added to the assessable weight under Section 25(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1969 when goods are assessed pursuant to a Valuation Ruling under Section 25-A?
- Does a Valuation Ruling issued under Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 preclude the assessing officer from invoking general valuation methods under Section 25?
- Whether the provisions of Section 25(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1969 are exclusively applicable when goods are assessed under the transactional value method?
- Collector Of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs vs Messrs2022 PTD 372 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
- Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs vs Customs2022 PTD 1153 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
- Collector Of Customs Preventive Model Customs Collectorate, Customs2022 P Cr. L J 480 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal filed by the State through the Collector of Customs against an acquittal judgment passed by the Special Court (Control of Narcotic Substances) in a narcotics case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant overturning the acquittal. The High Court found that the prosecution's evidence was riddled with material contradictions regarding the recovery, sampling, and handling of the alleged narcotics, and that the chain of custody was not established. The Court held that the acquittal was well-founded and that the appeal was frivolous, as the prosecution failed to identify any legal infirmity in the trial court's judgment. The Court emphasized that appeals against acquittal should only be filed when there are serious legal or factual defects, criticizing the mechanical filing of such appeals by state authorities. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and a cost was imposed on the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal.
Questions settled- Can an appeal against acquittal be maintained when the prosecution's evidence is riddled with material contradictions?
- Is the failure to prove the safe custody of narcotics a ground for dismissal of a prosecution appeal against acquittal?
- Does the filing of frivolous appeals against acquittal by state authorities warrant the imposition of costs?
- Collector of Customs (Enforcement) vs Ara Detergents & Chemicals Fze &2022 SHC 188 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Civil Aviation Authority through Director General, Karachi vs Muhammad2022 YLR 1348 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
- China Mobile Pakistan Limited (Cmpak Limited/Zone) through Legal2022 PLD Sindh 319 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-08Read full judgment →
- Chief Revenue Authority/Member (Rs&Ep) Board Of Revenue Sindh,2022 PLD Sindh 47 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-16Read full judgment →
- Chaudhary Khaqan Saadullah Khan vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior Islamabad and 2 others2022 PLJ Karachi 10 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-03Read full judgment →
- Captain S.M. Aslam vs Karachi Building Control Authority through Chief2022 YLR 1672 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
- Capt. Muhammad Ali Khan vs Port Qasim Authority & Others2022 SHC 360 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a constitutional petition seeking precedence in seniority over private respondents regarding employment at the Port Qasim Authority (PQA). The core legal question is whether seniority in service should be determined based on antecedents preceding regular service, such as a pre-employment assessment sheet, or from the date of regular appointment and joining. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a belated challenge to seniority lists is barred by laches and that service rendered prior to regularization has no impact on seniority, which flows from the date of regular appointment and joining as per applicable regulations and governing principles. The court laid down the principle that undue delay in challenging seniority lists manifests acquiescence, and that regular service seniority must be reckoned from the effective date of joining rather than prior contractual evaluations.
Questions settled- Whether seniority in a post can be determined upon antecedents preceding service rendered prior to regularization?
- Does an unduly belated challenge to seniority lists render a petition liable to dismissal on the ground of laches?
- Whether service rendered prior to regularization has any impact on the determination of seniority?
- Bursshane LPG (Pakistan) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary /2022 SHC 312 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-18Read full judgment →
- Bilquees Khalid and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal2022 CLC 2002 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-22Read full judgment →
- Bilqees vs The Secretary, Wafaqi Mohtasib Ombudsman's Secretariat and 2 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 235 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the permanent absorption and subsequent promotion of respondent No.3, an employee originally belonging to the Women Development Department, Government of Balochistan, into the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman)'s Secretariat, Islamabad. The core legal questions revolved around whether the Wafaqi Mohtasib is competent to permanently absorb a deputationist by way of transfer under Rule 14 of the Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat Officer's Service Rules, 2009, and whether such absorption violates the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding deputation and absorption. The Court held that permanent absorption of a deputationist or civil servant from another department/cadre into an organization not regulated in that manner, without a competitive process and outside the scope of valid recruitment rules, is illegal and contrary to the dicta of the Supreme Court. The Court laid down the principle that appointment by transfer is a temporary arrangement and does not contemplate permanent absorption, and that deputationists have no vested right to permanent absorption or to remain on a post indefinitely, and must be repatriated to their parent departments.
Questions settled- Whether the Wafaqi Mohtasib is competent to permanently absorb a deputationist by appointing her or him by transfer in the Establishment of the Wafaqi Mohtasib?
- Can a civil servant of a non-cadre post be transferred out of cadre to be absorbed into a cadre post meant for recruitment through a competitive process?
- Does Rule 14 of the Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat Officer's Service Rules, 2009 contemplate or permit the permanent absorption of a deputationist in the transferee department?
- Does a deputationist have a vested right to remain on a post indefinitely or claim permanent absorption in another department?
- Bashir Bughio and others vs The State2022 MLD 1405 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder and sentencing them to death and imprisonment for life, alongside a confirmation reference. The core legal question was whether a defective charge and a casual examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 caused prejudice to the accused, vitiating the trial. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court failed to frame charges containing material particulars regarding the specific roles of individual accused, thereby misleading them in their defence and causing serious prejudice. The court set aside the convictions and sentences, answered the confirmation reference in the negative, and remanded the case back to the trial court for a re-trial starting from the framing of a fresh, lawful charge. The key principle laid down is that a defective charge omitting material particulars of the offence and individual roles causes prejudice to the accused, warranting the setting aside of the conviction and a remand for retrial.
Questions settled- Does a defective charge that omits specific allegations against individual accused cause prejudice requiring a remand?
- Whether the failure to put incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the trial?
- Can an appellate court set aside a conviction and remand a criminal case for retrial due to errors in framing the charge?
- Bankers Equity Limited through Official Liquidator vs Bank Al-Falah Limited2022 CLD 1478 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Banking Court judgment and decree that held the appellant jointly and severally liable for a short-term finance facility extended by the respondent bank to a third party. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having exchanged correspondence with the bank regarding bridge finance, could be legally classified as a "customer" or "guarantor" under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, despite not executing any formal guarantee or mortgage deed. The High Court held that the Banking Court erred in its assessment. The Court ruled that the mere exchange of correspondence or "no objection" letters, without the execution of formal legal instruments, does not establish a relationship of financial institution and customer. Consequently, the appellant could not be held liable for the borrower's default. The judgment establishes the principle that banking jurisdiction under the Ordinance requires a formal, legally binding relationship; correspondence alone, absent a formal guarantee or mortgage, is insufficient to impose liability on a third party for a borrower's debt.
Questions settled- Can a party be held liable as a guarantor under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, based solely on correspondence without a formal guarantee deed?
- Does the exchange of 'no objection' letters regarding bridge finance create a customer relationship between a financial institution and a third party?
- Is a suit under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, maintainable against a party that has neither availed a finance facility nor executed a formal guarantee or mortgage?
- Baka Ullah Khan Samoo vs Province of Sindh through Home Department2022 PLD Sindh 308 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-28Read full judgment →
- Badar Zaman vs The State2022 YLR 1564 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court, which convicted the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of the weapon and the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the Sindh High Court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case. Specifically, the testimony of the complainant and the mashir regarding the circumstances of the arrest and the location of the weapon recovery were contradictory. The mashir’s testimony regarding his arrival at the scene differed from the complainant's account, and the location of the weapon recovery was inconsistently described. The Court held that these contradictions undermined the reliability of the prosecution's evidence. Emphasizing the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, ruling that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof.
Questions settled- Does a contradiction between the complainant and the mashir regarding the location of a weapon recovery create reasonable doubt?
- Is the accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce consistent evidence regarding the arrest of the accused warrant an acquittal?
- Badar Expo Solutions through Managing Director vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PLD Sindh 336 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
- Bachando s/o Aghedino by caste Keerio vs The State2022 SHC 238 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 2000 grams of charas. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution established the safe custody and transmission of the recovered narcotics and whether the conviction could be sustained given the lack of independent witnesses and material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody, specifically noting a five-day delay in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner without explanation, and observed that the police failed to associate independent witnesses despite having prior spy information. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principles laid down are that the prosecution must establish an unbroken and secure chain of custody for narcotics to rely on a Chemical Examiner's report, and that a 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 sending narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner without proof of safe custody vitiate the prosecution's case?
- Is the failure to associate independent witnesses fatal to a recovery case based on prior spy information?
- What is the legal consequence of a broken chain of custody regarding recovered narcotics?
- Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
- Azra Parveen vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 SHC 200 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
- Aziz-Ur-Rehman alias Babul vs The State2022 PCRLJ 828 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Aziz-Ur-Rehman, who is accused of committing rape, house trespass, and criminal intimidation under sections 376, 452, and 506-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of sexual assault, despite his claims of false implication and the lack of corroborative DNA evidence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the complainant’s FIR and subsequent statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were consistent, prompt, and confidence-inspiring. The court established that in cases of rape, which are typically committed in private, the victim's testimony alone can be sufficient to connect the accused to the crime. Furthermore, the court held that because the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and given the heinous nature of the crime, the applicant was not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The trial court was directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously.
Questions settled- Is the testimony of a rape victim sufficient to connect an accused to the crime in the absence of corroborative evidence?
- Does the delay in collecting DNA samples in a rape case automatically entitle the accused to bail?
- Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally disentitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Can a bail application be dismissed based on a tentative assessment of the FIR and the victim's statement?
- Azhar Ali Farooqi vs Federation of Pakistan and another2022 SHC 174 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-18Read full judgment →
- Ayaz Hussain s/o Sikandar Ali by caste Bhatti vs The State2022 SHC 110 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 4000 grams of charas. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically regarding the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area and the integrity of the chain of custody for the recovered narcotics. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the failure to associate independent witnesses during a public recovery, coupled with material contradictions in the testimonies of police officials regarding the incident, undermined the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, the Court held that a two-day delay in transmitting the samples to the Chemical Examiner, without establishing safe custody and transit, created a fatal gap in the chain of custody. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The Court reaffirmed that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does a failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery in a populated area invalidate the prosecution's case?
- What is the legal consequence of a break in the chain of custody regarding the transmission of narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody and transit of recovered narcotics?
- Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
- Ayaz Ali Rajpar and another vs Advocate General Sindh and 3 others2022 PLD Sindh 310 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-13Read full judgment →
- Aum Media Publisher, LLC through Authorized Officer and another vs Mohib2022 CLC 585 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
- Attaullah son of Bhawal Khan vs Ali Gulab son of Abdul Ghani2022 SHC 92 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-14Read full judgment →
- Atta Muhammad and others vs Ali Dino Rajper and others2022 SHC 66 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-14Read full judgment →
- Atlas Honda Ltd vs Pakistan & others2022 SHC 21, PTCL 2022 CL. 253, 2022 [M] CLR 848, 2022 PCTLR 905, 2022 PTD · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-18Read full judgment →
- Atlas Honda Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and two others2022 SHC 130 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-19Read full judgment →
- Atif Ahmed & another vs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2022 SHC 300 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-01Read full judgment →
- Associated Consulting Engineers Ace Limited And Ace Architectural And Town Planning Services Limited_ In the matter of vs Not2022 CLD 161 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-31Read full judgment →
- Assaddullah vs The State2022 PCRLJ 774 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, arising from an alleged recovery of a hand grenade and a Kalashnikov following spy information. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether material contradictions in police testimony, failure to associate independent mashirs in a populated area, discrepancies between recovery memos and expert reports regarding weapon numbers, and the failure to investigate the appellant's defense create reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that multiple infirmities and lacunae in the prosecution's case fatally undermined it, and a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal. The court laid down the principle that failure by police to associate independent witnesses on spy information, coupled with unexplained material discrepancies in recovery evidence and the overlooking of a plausible defense, entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of police officials to associate independent mashirs in a populated area on spy information creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
- Does a discrepancy between the recovery memo describing a weapon as numberless and the forensic report describing it with a rubbed number vitiate the recovery?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person?
- Whether the omission to investigate the defense plea raised by the accused weakens the prosecution case?
- Askari Bank Limited vs Tara Chand2022 CLD 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the order of the Banking Court whereby the respondent was acquitted under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a complaint filed under section 20(1)(a) and (b) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The trial court had based the acquittal on a Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) handwriting expert report declaring the respondent's signatures fake and on the respondent's travel history showing him abroad at the relevant time, all prior to the recording of evidence. The core legal question was whether an acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be sustained based on unexhibited documents and unexamined expert opinions without affording the complainant an opportunity to lead evidence. The Sindh High Court held that a handwriting expert's report does not automatically fall under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and requires formal proof and cross-examination, and that a plea of alibi or defense documents must be established through evidence during trial. The court set aside the acquittal order and remanded the matter back for a trial on merits.
Questions settled- Can a handwriting expert's report be used as evidence without examining its author and exhibiting the report during trial?
- Whether an acquittal under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is sustainable when evidence of the prosecution has yet to be recorded?
- Does section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to handwriting expert opinions in the same manner as chemical or serological examiner reports?
- How should a plea of alibi and challenges to the authenticity of documents be addressed during criminal proceedings?
- Ashique Hussain through Authorized Attorney vs The State and another2022 MLD 531 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Malir, Karachi, whereby an application under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the release of a bus involved in a traffic accident was granted subject to furnishing solvent surety equal to the value of the vehicle along with a personal recognition bond. The core legal question was whether a vehicle involved in a traffic accident can be detained as property used for the commission of an offence and whether requiring a surety amount equal to the vehicle's full value is justified. The Sindh High Court held that a vehicle involved in a vehicular accident is not property used in the commission of an offence under Section 516-A, Cr.P.C., and that detaining it or imposing excessive surety penalizes the innocent owner. The Court modified the impugned order, directing that the vehicle be released to its owner upon executing a personal recognition bond of Rs. 200,000, laying down the principle that vehicles seized in accident cases should be promptly returned after inspection under Section 95 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965.
Questions settled- Whether a vehicle involved in a traffic accident can be considered as property used for the commission of an offence under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a trial court demand solvent surety equivalent to the full market value of a vehicle for its release on superdari pending trial?
- What is the statutory time limit and procedure for inspecting and returning a vehicle involved in an accident under Section 95 of the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965?
- Ashique Ali Mari vs Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khairpur and 32022 YLR 644 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
- Ashique Ali and 2 others vs The State2022 YLR 1211 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jacobabad, which convicted the appellants for the murder of Karim Bux and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence provided by related witnesses, the impact of alleged contradictions and improvements in testimony, and whether the non-recovery of weapons from two appellants vitiated the prosecution's case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the prompt registration of the FIR and the corroboration of ocular testimony by medical evidence and circumstantial proof established the appellants' guilt. The court reiterated that the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them 'interested' or unreliable if their testimony is consistent and confidence-inspiring. Furthermore, it held that minor discrepancies in evidence do not undermine the prosecution's case, and the non-recovery of weapons is not fatal when other direct, natural evidence sufficiently connects the accused to the crime.
Questions settled- Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable or interested?
- Can a conviction be sustained when crime weapons are not recovered from all accused persons?
- Do minor contradictions and improvements in witness testimony necessitate the rejection of the entire prosecution case?
- Does the prompt registration of an FIR and immediate medical examination exclude the possibility of fabrication in a criminal case?
- Asadullah Solangi and another vs The State (NAB) through Director2022 PCRLJ 1032 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses criminal appeals filed by Asadullah Solangi and Ali Akbar Parhiar challenging their conviction and sentence under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for corruption and corrupt practices. The appellants, serving as revenue officials (Mukhtiarkars), were accused of facilitating the fraudulent sale and transfer of 237 acres of government land through fake record entries and unauthorized sale certificates. The core legal questions revolved around whether the National Accountability Bureau was competent to initiate the reference, whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the absence of personal financial gain absolves public office holders of criminal liability under the Ordinance. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution established the appellants' misuse of authority and connivance in bypassing legal formalities to usurp state assets. The court laid down that public office holders who facilitate corruption through negligence or misuse of authority are criminally liable even without direct personal gain, and that courts must maintain zero tolerance for economic corruption affecting state survival.
Questions settled- Whether the National Accountability Bureau is competent to initiate a reference on the basis of complaints and press clippings under Section 18(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Does the absence of personal financial gain exempt a public office holder from criminal liability under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
- Can a conviction for corruption be sustained against revenue officials who attest fraudulent mutation entries and issue sale certificates for government land without verification?
- What is the effect of an accused failing to depose on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in rebuttal of consistent prosecution evidence?
- Asad Ali Khan vs The Conservator of Forest & others2022 SHC 192, 2024 CLC 239 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
- Ary Communications Limited through duly Authorized Officer vs Council of Complaints, Islamabad through Secretary and 2 others2022 PLD Sindh 552 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-17Read full judgment →
- Arslan Aijaz vs Mst. Sanober and 2 others2022 YLR 450 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
- Arif Kamal and another vs The State2022 CLD 902 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions by a Special Court (Offences in Banks) for fraud involving fake insurance claims. The appellants, employees of the State Life Insurance Corporation and private individuals, were convicted for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal question was whether the Special Court possessed jurisdiction to try these offences, given that the fraud targeted an insurance company rather than a bank, and no bank employees were involved. The Court held that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction, as the offences were not committed in respect of or in connection with the business of a bank. The Court established that the mere use of bank accounts as an unwitting conduit for fraud does not bring an offence within the ambit of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, with liberty granted to the prosecution to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum.
Questions settled- Does a Special Court (Offences in Banks) have jurisdiction to try offences where the alleged fraud targets an insurance company rather than a bank?
- Does the mere use of a bank account as a conduit for fraudulent transactions constitute an offence committed in connection with the business of a bank under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984?
- Can a Special Court (Offences in Banks) exercise jurisdiction over an accused where no bank employee is involved in the alleged criminality?
- Arif Hussain vs University of Karachi2022 SHC 340, 2022 MLD 1892 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-17Read full judgment →
- Anwar Zaib and Others vs Returning Officer/The Cantonment Executive2022 MLD 1951 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-17Read full judgment →
- Anwar Khan & others vs Fozia Khan & another2022 SHC 402 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
- Anwar Ali Khaskheli and another vs The State2022 MLD 570 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons charged with murder, robbery, and destruction of evidence in Crime No. 63 of 2019. The applicants sought bail, arguing false implication, lack of eyewitnesses, delayed FIR, and that the recovery was planted. The prosecution opposed the application, highlighting that the accused were nominated in the FIR with specific roles, the offence carries capital punishment, and the case falls within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. The Court held that while there was a four-day delay in lodging the FIR, this did not mitigate the gravity of the offence where a life was lost. Upon tentative assessment, the Court found sufficient material connecting the applicants to the crime, noting that eyewitnesses had implicated the accused in the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, ruling that the case falls within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that the applicants failed to establish grounds for extraordinary relief.
Questions settled- Does a four-day delay in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail in a murder case?
- Is a bail application in a case involving capital punishment subject to the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence during the hearing of a post-arrest bail application?
- Ansar Ahmed Gorar vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2022 SHC 226 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, police personnel originally appointed in the Islamabad Capital Territory, Baluchistan Police, and Pakistan Railways Police and subsequently absorbed into the Sindh Police, challenged an office order issued by the Inspector General of Sindh Police repatriating them to their respective parent departments. The core legal questions involved whether inter-provincial transfer and absorption of police personnel are permissible under the law, whether the impugned repatriation order violates Supreme Court dicta, and whether the Inspector General of Sindh Police was competent to issue the order in compliance with apex court judgments. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the absorption of personnel across provinces and different police establishments was declared illegal by the Supreme Court in landmark judgments such as Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456). The court held that no provision in law permits inter-provincial or inter-establishment transfer and absorption of police officers, that the petitioners possessed no vested right to remain in the Sindh Police, and that executive authorities are constitutionally bound under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution to enforce Supreme Court judgments.
Questions settled- Whether inter-provincial transfer and permanent absorption of police personnel from other police establishments into the Sindh Police is permissible under the law?
- Does the Inspector General of Police have the authority to repatriate unlawfully absorbed police personnel in compliance with judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Whether police personnel absorbed from other provinces and federal units can claim a vested right or invoke the principle of locus poenitentiae against repatriation ordered pursuant to apex court verdicts?
- Does the expiration of a civil servant's lien with their parent department impede their repatriation following the judicial declaration that their initial absorption was illegal?
- Amjad Khan vs The State2022 MLD 520 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Amjad Khan under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, seeking enlargement on bail after being apprehended with 2200 grams of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the recovery of narcotics and the circumstances of the case. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail because the Investigating Officer retired, the prosecution failed to ascertain the status of cases shown in the CRO despite court directions, and no charge had been framed for over a year despite submission of the challan, combined with the fact that all witnesses are official police personnel. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration without framing of a charge for over a year, along with procedural failures by the prosecution and reliance solely on official witnesses, warrants the grant of post-arrest bail in narcotics matters.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when the trial has been delayed and no charge has been framed for over a year?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to identify the status of cases in the CRO and the retirement of the Investigating Officer constitute sufficient grounds for granting bail?
- Can an accused be kept in jail indefinitely in a case where all witnesses are official police personnel and trial proceedings are stalled?
- Amir Raheem S/o Muhammad Raheem Boneri vs Muhammad Bux @ Babu2022 SHC 372, 2024 PCRLJ 524 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under Section 395/397 Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, arising from an incident involving dacoity, a police encounter, and firearms recovery. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of a hostile complainant who admits to his signatures on recovery memos but fails to identify the accused at trial, and whether a conviction can be sustained based solely on the testimony of police eye-witnesses and corroborative recovery evidence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions, holding that the testimony of a hostile witness must be evaluated alongside other reliable evidence, and that the testimony of police officials, when credible and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court reaffirmed the principle that minor discrepancies do not vitiate a prosecution case and that the unblemished testimonies of police officials and recovery witnesses are as reliable as private witnesses unless mala fides are proven.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be maintained if the complainant is declared hostile regarding the identity of the accused at trial?
- Are the testimonies of police officials as credible as private witnesses in a criminal trial?
- What is the evidentiary value of minor contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses?
- Whether recovery of robbed articles and crime weapons from the spot along with firearm injuries sustained by the accused sufficiently corroborates the prosecution's case?
- Amir Hussain vs Jamaluddin and 4 others2022 YLR 1247 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-29Read full judgment →
- Amanullah Memon vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and another2022 PCRLJ 1217 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a builder, sought the removal of his name from the Exit Control List (ECL), arguing that his inclusion was unjustified following his full cooperation with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in a corruption investigation, which included surrendering land and receiving a pardon. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s right to travel could be restricted based on the apprehension that he might abscond and fail to testify in future proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner’s fundamental right to travel could not be curtailed on mere speculative fears of abscondence, especially given his strong social and business ties in Pakistan and his demonstrated cooperation. The Court observed that the provisions regarding pardon under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, do not inherently bar travel. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, ordering the removal of the petitioner's name from the ECL subject to the furnishing of a solvent surety, emphasizing that the state has legal mechanisms to secure attendance if necessary.
Questions settled- Does the grant of a pardon by the Chairman NAB under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 automatically restrict the beneficiary's right to travel abroad?
- Can the name of an individual be retained on the Exit Control List based solely on a speculative apprehension that they might not return for trial?
- What is the legal recourse available to the National Accountability Bureau if a person who has been granted a pardon fails to appear for trial?