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.

• Amanullah and 2 others vs The State2022 YLR 1681 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-13
  benefit of doubtdelayed FIRextra-judicial confessionsafe custody of case propertyanti-terrorismillegal arms possessionappellate jurisdictioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants for murder, attempted murder, and illegal arms possession under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal questions concern the evidentiary value of a delayed FIR, the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions, and the necessity of proving the safe custody of forensic evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the murder charges beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the FIR was delayed by over 29 hours without explanation, the ocular evidence was based on hearsay and dishonest improvements, and the extra-judicial confessions were inadmissible due to a lack of independent corroboration. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transit of the recovered weapons. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants of the terrorism and murder charges. However, regarding the illegal arms possession charges, the Court maintained the convictions but reduced the sentences to the time already served, citing the appellants' status as first-time offenders. The judgment reaffirms that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR without a plausible explanation justify the acquittal of the accused?
  • Is a confession made before the police admissible in terrorism cases without independent corroborative evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and transit of forensic samples entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone for first-time offenders?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State and 3 others2022 YLR 2486 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-25
  charge amendmentframing of chargecriminal procedurecognizable offenceFIRtrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal revision challenge regarding the amendment of a charge sheet in a case involving allegations of theft and physical assault between neighbors. The complainant sought to add sections 337-A(i), 337(ii), 459, and 460 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to the existing charge under sections 457 and 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court initially dismissed the application, and the appellate court partially allowed it, adding only the hurt-related sections while excluding the sections pertaining to grievous hurt or violence during house-trespass. The High Court examined the record and noted that the precise sequence of events—specifically whether the assault and theft occurred simultaneously or separately—remained ambiguous and required evidentiary determination. The Court held that at the charge-framing stage, the court should not conclusively rule out potential offences if the evidence suggests they might be applicable. Consequently, the Court ordered the inclusion of all requested sections in the charge, directing the trial court to determine the veracity of these allegations based on evidence produced during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court include additional sections in a charge if the evidence at the initial stage does not conclusively rule out those offences?
  • Is an FIR considered conclusive proof of the allegations contained therein for the purpose of framing a charge?
  • Should a court determine the applicability of specific penal sections before or after the production of evidence at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Allauddin Malik vs Late Dr. Abdul Jalil through Legal Heirs and 5 others2022 PLD Sindh 147 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-25Read full judgment →
• All Pakistan Solvent Extractors Association & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2022 SHC 190 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher Bangulani & another vs The State2022 SHC 120 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Shah S/O Zareen Khan & Another vs The State2022 SHC 48 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-23
  right of cross-examinationprocedural irregularityfailure of justiceremandcriminal trialadmissibility of evidencemashir
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction for murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court's failure to record the cross-examination of a key prosecution witness (a mashir of arrest and recovery) and the failure to properly cross-examine the medical officer constituted a fatal procedural irregularity amounting to a failure of justice. The High Court held that the right to cross-examination is a fundamental and valuable right, not a mere formality, and is essential for ascertaining the truth. The court determined that when a witness is not cross-examined, their testimony is generally inadmissible against the accused. Because the trial court failed to ensure this right or provide reasons for its omission, the proceedings were deemed flawed. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a de novo trial, directing the trial court to allow cross-examination of the relevant witnesses, record fresh statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and decide the case afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Is the evidence of a prosecution witness admissible if the accused was denied the opportunity to cross-examine them?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to ensure the cross-examination of a key witness constitute a failure of justice requiring a remand?
  • Is the right to cross-examine a prosecution witness a fundamental right in criminal proceedings?
  • Can a trial court rely on the testimony of a witness who was not cross-examined to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Naveed Shaikh through Attorney and 25 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Health Services Regulations and Coordination, Islamabad and 2 others2022 YLR 1504 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-02Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State2022 SHC 258 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-03
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRcontradictory evidenceacquittaleye-witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Matiari, convicting the appellants for murder and attempted murder while acquitting co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant delays in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements, inconsistent testimonies, delayed recovery of weapons, and the partial rejection of eyewitness testimony regarding co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring contradictions, delayed police procedures, unverified evidence, and lack of independent corroboration where co-accused were already acquitted on the same evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, extended the benefit of the doubt, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delayed recording of statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. reduces its evidentiary value unless plausibly explained?
  • Can eyewitnesses disbelieved regarding some co-accused be relied upon to convict other accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • What is the legal inference of non-examination of a material prosecution witness under Article 129 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 690 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscomplainant as investigating officerindependent witnesseschemical analysis delayfurther probeControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns the applicant's request for post-arrest release in a narcotics case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the alleged recovery of 4600 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the prosecution's reliance solely on official witnesses, the complainant acting as the investigating officer, and the absence of independent witnesses. The Court held that the case required further probe, thereby granting bail. The ratio emphasizes that while evidence from official witnesses is admissible, it requires minute scrutiny when no independent witnesses are associated despite the availability of the public in a populated area. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant acting as the investigating officer, combined with an unexplained delay in sending samples for chemical analysis and the applicant's claim of prior abduction, created sufficient grounds for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, ruling that continued detention was unnecessary pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that the complainant is also the investigating officer necessitate a more rigorous scrutiny of the prosecution's evidence?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area a valid ground for granting bail in a narcotics case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending samples for chemical analysis entitle an accused to further probe for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain Rajabali Limited vs Securities & Exchange Commissioner2022 SHC 28, 2022 CLD 999 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar Gopang and another vs The State2022 MLD 1308 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-16
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailprohibitory clausedelay in FIRprevious hostilityhurt cases
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application wherein the applicants sought pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 57 of 2019 registered at Police Station Badeh under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 452, 504, 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the offences charged fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether malafide, delay in lodging the FIR, and previous hostility warranted the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that since the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., there was an unexplained delay of 25 days in lodging the FIR, and previous hostility existed between the parties, the applicants made out a case for anticipatory bail. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where the charged offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause, and there is a reasonable possibility of false implication due to delay and prior enmity, provided the accused have not misused the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of 25 days in lodging an FIR support the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can previous hostility between parties be considered a ground for potential false implication when deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Azhar vs Arzoo Fatima and 5 others2022 PLD Sindh 1 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-07Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar Narejo vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2022 SHC 496 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-31
  wrongful terminationservice rulessubsequent acquittaldepartmental proceedingssuspensionPakistan Steelback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner from Pakistan Steel, which occurred following his conviction in a criminal case arising from a private dispute. The core legal question was whether the termination was lawful given the petitioner's subsequent acquittal by the High Court and whether the department should have invoked suspension rules rather than termination. The Court held that the termination was not in accordance with law. Relying on the principle that acquittal constitutes a significant subsequent development, the Court determined that the department was obligated to consider this development in its disciplinary assessment. The Court held that the petitioner should have been placed under suspension pursuant to Service Rule 6.6(ii) of the Pakistan Steel Officers Service Rules and Regulations rather than being terminated. Consequently, the termination order was set aside, and the department was directed to consider the petitioner's entitlement to back benefits or retirement benefits in accordance with the relevant rules. The judgment reaffirms that while disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal outcomes, authorities must account for subsequent acquittals when reviewing past disciplinary actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case constitute a subsequent development that must be considered by departmental authorities in disciplinary proceedings?
  • Should an employee committed to prison be placed under suspension rather than terminated under the Pakistan Steel Officers Service Rules and Regulations?
  • Is a termination order based solely on a criminal conviction sustainable after the employee is acquitted of the underlying charges?
  Read full judgment →
• Akram vs Vakeel Muhammad and others2022 CLC 1700 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
• Akram Ali and others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Local2022 CLC 1634 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-08Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zarin vs The State2022 MLD 796 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-27
  narcotics recoverysecret cavitiesburden of proofsafe custody of samplescriminal jail appealControl of Narcotic Substances Actpossession and knowledge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court-II (C.N.S.) Karachi, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine. The prosecution case was that 80 kilograms of Charas were recovered from secret cavities of a vehicle driven and owned by the appellant, who was intercepted at a toll plaza following a police encounter. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the police encounter, the reliability of the recovery from the vehicle, the presumption of knowledge under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics from the vehicle in the appellant's possession and control, that the burden shifted to the accused under the statute to rebut knowledge which he failed to do, and that minor delays in sending samples for chemical analysis do not vitiate the trial when safe custody is established. The key principle laid down is that once recovery from a vehicle under the control of an accused is proven, the statutory presumption shifts the burden to the accused to disprove knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution proved the recovery of narcotics from the vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 once the recovery of contraband from a vehicle under his control is established?
  • Whether a delay of six days in sending recovered narcotics for chemical analysis vitiates the conviction when safe custody is established?
  • Whether an accused driving a vehicle over a long journey is presumed to have knowledge of contraband concealed in secret cavities of the vehicle?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Meen vs The State2022 PLD Sindh 84 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-19
  narcotics controlillegal detentionexcise police powersinvestigation by seizing officersafe custody of charascriminal appealmandatory provisionsvitiated trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 6/9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, arising from an alleged recovery of charas from a rickshaw. The core legal questions involve the legality of the entire investigation and prosecution conducted single-handedly by an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer (AETO), the non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions regarding safe custody, recording of spy information, and the proper procedure for forwarding arrested persons and seized articles. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The Court held that Provincial Excise Police officers empowered under section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 do not possess the authority to investigate offences or detain accused persons in Excise police stations; instead, they must immediately forward the accused and seized property to the nearest local police station pursuant to section 27. The key principles laid down include the mandatory nature of recording and transmitting information to superior officers under section 21(2), the prohibition against Excise officers conducting independent investigations and detaining suspects in specialized stations, and the vitiation of trial proceedings resulting from such systemic legal flaws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Provincial Excise Police officers empowered under section 21 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 have the lawful authority to investigate offences and detain accused persons in Excise police stations?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to immediately forward an arrested person and seized narcotic articles to the nearest local police station under section 27 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does the non-production of an anonymous spy or informer render the prosecution's reliance on unverified spy information fatal to the case?
  • Whether a seizing officer who acts as the complainant, arresting officer, and investigating officer simultaneously vitiates the trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani vs National Accountability Bureau & another2022 SHC 344 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-18Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali vs Ali Nawaz and another2022 PLD Sindh 122 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-15
  compromisecompoundable offenseTazirQisaslegal heirsmurdercriminal revisioninheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the trial court's order declining to accept a compromise between the accused and certain legal heirs in a murder trial under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, punishable under Tazir. The core legal question was whether collateral relatives such as the brother and sister of the deceased, who are heirs of an heir rather than direct heirs, possess the right to resist a compromise entered into by the direct legal heirs of the victim under section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Yousaf v. The State (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 461), the High Court held that in cases of Tazir, only direct heirs of the victim possess the capacity to compound the offense, and such capacity does not devolve upon heirs of a deceased heir. The court laid down the principle that the distinction between Qisas and Tazir governs the right to compound offences, limiting compounding rights in Tazir strictly to direct heirs of the victim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the brother and sister of a deceased victim have the right to resist a compromise entered into between the accused and the direct legal heirs in an offense punishable under Tazir?
  • Does the capacity to compound an offense of qatl-i-amd under section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 devolve upon the heirs of a deceased heir in cases of Tazir?
  • What is the distinction between Qisas and Tazir regarding the devolvement of the right to compound or waive an offense upon the heirs of an heir?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan @ Kesso vs The State2022 SHC 150 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-21
  criminal jail appealquantum of punishmentreduction of sentencejudicial discretionreformationstolen propertycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 412 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine. The appellant's counsel did not press the appeal on merits but sought leniency, praying for the sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone, a proposition conceded to by the Additional Prosecutor General for the State. The core legal question revolved around the quantum of punishment and the exercise of judicial discretion in reducing the sentence keeping in view the principles of reformation, deterrence, and the circumstances of the case, including the acquittal of co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that since the offense falls under the category where punishment 'may extend upto' a certain limit, the court has the discretion to award a lesser sentence to afford an opportunity for reformation. Consequently, the court maintained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence and the default sentence for non-payment of fine to the period already undergone by the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can reduce a criminal sentence to the period already undergone when the appellant does not press the appeal on merits?
  • How does the concept of reformation influence the judicial discretion in determining the quantum of punishment under offenses where the penalty 'may extend upto' a certain limit?
  • Can the sentence in lieu of non-payment of fine be ordered to run concurrently with or be included in the sentence already undergone?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmer and others vs The State2022 PCRLJ 1279 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-03
  police encountercommon intentionmurderterrorismpolice witnessfirearm recoverypost-arrest bailcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for murder, attempted murder, assault on law enforcement personnel, and terrorism offences following a fatal armed encounter between a police party and miscreants. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in the armed encounter and shared a common intention to commit murder and terrorism, despite no specific fatal injury being attributed to any individual appellant. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants through prompt FIR lodging, credible eyewitness testimony of police officials corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, positive FSL reports linking recovered weapons to empties at the scene, and the failure of the defence to substantiate claims of false implication or alibi. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that where multiple accused participate with common intent in an armed attack resulting in deaths, exact attribution of the fatal shot is unnecessary for conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and relevant provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the evidence of police witnesses can be relied upon without corroboration by private witnesses in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to attribute a specific fatal injury to an individual accused preclude a conviction for murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in cases of a joint armed attack?
  • Whether a delay in sending recovered weapons and empties for forensic science laboratory testing is fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can a police encounter resulting in the death of law enforcement personnel attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Siraj Khan Durrani and others vs National Accountability Bureau2022 P Cr. L J 722 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-13
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailassets beyond known sources of incomebenamidarcorruption and corrupt practicesNational Accountability Bureaufurther inquiryfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses multiple petitions for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail arising from a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference concerning corruption, corrupt practices, and the accumulation of massive assets beyond known sources of income against Agha Siraj Khan Durrani, the Speaker of the Sindh Assembly, along with his family members, administrative associates, and alleged benamidars. The core legal questions revolved around whether the petitioners made out a case for bail based on merits, further inquiry, or alleged mala fides, and whether sufficient incriminating material existed to curtail their fundamental right to liberty under Article 9 of the Constitution. The court held that while abundant documentary and oral evidence—including statements of sellers, purchasers, and bank records—prima facie connected the principal accused and his cronies, servants, and managers to the acquired properties, no such direct nexus or knowledge of illicit financing was established regarding his family members and certain independent business brokers. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petitions of the principal accused and his active facilitators, while allowing the bail petitions of his family members and certain realtors on the ground that their cases entailed further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be granted pre-arrest bail in a corruption reference when sufficient documentary evidence and statements connect him to assets held beyond known sources of income?
  • Does an alleged irregularity or illegality in an investigation vitiate the proceedings after the trial court has already taken cognizance of the offence?
  • Whether family members of a public office holder can be denied bail solely on the basis that assets were purchased in their names by the principal accused, absent proof of their complicity or knowledge?
  • Does the issuance of a fresh call-up notice or conducting further investigation after the filing of a reference render the initial investigation legally void or warrant further inquiry for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed Gorar vs Adnan-ul-Karim Memon2022 SHC 108 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-01
  master and servantstatutory rulescompulsory retirementconstitutional petitionwrit of mandamusPIACdownsizing policyterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his compulsory retirement from the employment of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) effected vide letter dated December 31, 2006, along with the appellate order dated March 7, 2007. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of a constitutional petition against PIAC under Article 199 of the Constitution in the absence of statutory service rules, and the legality of the petitioner's premature retirement on the ground of a organizational downsizing and rationalization policy. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that PIAC's service regulations do not qualify as statutory rules because they were not notified with federal government approval and laid before parliament. Consequently, the relationship between PIAC and its employees is governed by the principle of 'master and servant,' rendering non-statutory terms unenforceable through a writ of mandamus, and limiting the aggrieved employee to seeking damages before a court of plenary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation for the enforcement of service terms?
  • Do the service regulations framed by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation constitute statutory rules of service?
  • Can an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation seek reinstatement in service along with back benefits in the absence of statutory service rules?
  • What is the nature of the legal relationship between the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and its employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed and another vs Province Of Sindh and others2022 MLD 413 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-24Read full judgment →
• Adnan Aziz Ahmed vs Rakil Ahmed Zaman & others2022 SHC 138 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-02Read full judgment →
• Adnan Ahmed vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary to the Government of Sindh and 8 others2022 PLD Sindh 542 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-17
  Combined Competitive Examinationdomicile certificatepermanent residence certificateSindh Urban Quotalocus poenitentiaeservice mattersconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking declarations and inquiries regarding alleged illegalities in the Combined Competitive Examination (CCE) 2013 conducted by the Sindh Public Service Commission. The petitioner alleged that private respondents were appointed on the Sindh Urban Quota despite possessing fake, multiple, or out-of-province domiciles. The core legal question was whether the private respondents held multiple or bogus domicile certificates and whether they were unlawfully appointed on that basis. The court held that the official authorities duly verified the domiciles and permanent residence certificates (PRCs) of the respondents, finding them genuine or properly surrendered in accordance with the law prior to fresh applications. The court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that vested rights of appointees acquired after completing all codal formalities and verification cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn based on mere assumptions, as protected by the doctrine of locus poenitentiae.

  Questions settled

  • Whether candidates possessing domiciles from other provinces can acquire a valid domicile of Sindh for public service quotas upon lawfully surrendering their previous domiciles?
  • Can appointment orders duly issued after fulfilling all codal formalities and verification be withdrawn based on unverified allegations?
  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae bar the arbitrary cancellation of vested rights acquired through lawful appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan Abbasi vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 376 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-28
  criminal appealretracted confessionqatl-i-amdbenefit of the doubtjudicial confessioncapital punishmentcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court for the offence of qatl-i-amd. The core legal question concerned whether a retracted judicial confession, unsupported by independent corroborative evidence, could sustain a capital conviction. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court determined that the appellant’s judicial confession was involuntary, as it was obtained through coercion, specifically the detention of the appellant's brothers by police. Furthermore, the court emphasized that even if a confession were voluntary, it requires independent, unimpeachable corroboration to support a conviction, which was absent in this case. The court noted significant procedural irregularities in the recording of the confession and the lack of circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime. Reaffirming the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence, the court held that the benefit of the doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession be the sole basis for a conviction in a capital case?
  • Does the detention of an accused's family members by police render a subsequent judicial confession involuntary?
  • Is independent corroborative evidence required to support a retracted judicial confession?
  • Does the benefit of the doubt in criminal cases constitute a right of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abrar Ahmed Siddiqi vs The State2022 PCRLJ 995 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-22
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryattempted murderconflicting versionsself-inflicted injurynon-bailable offenceprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail for the applicant, charged under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly stabbing his former wife. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of the incident, specifically the complainant's allegation of assault versus the statements of eye-witnesses suggesting the injury was self-inflicted. The Court held that because the weapon was not recovered and independent eye-witnesses supported the defense's version of a self-inflicted injury, the case necessitated further inquiry. The Court emphasized that when a case calls for further inquiry, bail is a right rather than a concession. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not mandate the refusal of bail if a tentative assessment of the evidence reveals a case for further inquiry. Consequently, as the investigation was complete and no risk of evidence tampering existed, the Court confirmed the applicant's interim bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of conflicting versions regarding the cause of an injury constitute a case for further inquiry?
  • Can bail be refused under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the case warrants further inquiry?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right when a case requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Iqbal vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 4 others2022 PCRLJ 1557 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-10
  anti-corruption establishmentjurisdictionprivate personpreliminary inquirypublic servantscheduled offencesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a private person, filed a constitutional petition seeking protection against the initiation of three inquiries by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sindh, and any subsequent registration of an FIR or arrest, on the primary ground that the Anti-Corruption Establishment lacks jurisdiction to conduct inquiries against a private individual. The core legal question was whether the Anti-Corruption Establishment has the jurisdiction to hold preliminary inquiries or investigate a private person associated with a public servant in the commission of a scheduled offence. The Sindh High Court held that under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 and the Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Act, 1991, the Anti-Corruption Establishment has the power to conduct preliminary inquiries not only against public servants but also against any private person who has acted jointly, abetted, or conspired with a public servant in the commission of scheduled offences. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Anti-Corruption Establishment have jurisdiction to conduct inquiries against a private person associated with a public servant?
  • Can the Anti-Corruption Establishment investigate attempts, abetments, and conspiracies involving private persons and public servants under the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961?
  • Whether the Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Act, 1991 extends the domain of the Anti-Corruption Establishment to private individuals acting jointly with public servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Zaheer vs The State and another2022 MLD 577 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubtbank fraudinadmissible evidencephotocopy documentsacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for fraudulent bank transactions under sections 420/468/471/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The Court found that the prosecution relied heavily on inadmissible photocopied documents, failed to produce direct evidence linking the appellant to the alleged fraud, and did not conduct a forensic examination of the relevant computer systems. Furthermore, the audit report cited was inconclusive regarding criminal intent, and the investigation appeared deficient. The Court emphasized the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, not concession. Finding significant gaps in the prosecution's case and noting the potential for the appellant to have been a scapegoat, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right or concession?
  • Are photocopies of documents admissible as evidence in a criminal trial without verification?
  • Does a failure to conduct forensic examination of electronic evidence create reasonable doubt in a fraud case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution relies solely on inconclusive audit reports and lacks direct evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Jehajo vs Punhoon2022 CLC 1386 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sajjad Khan and 07 others vs Sindh Building Control Authority and 072022 SHC 224 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-30
  service lawsuspension from servicedisciplinary proceedingsnatural justiceshow cause noticereinstatementdepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the suspension of the petitioners from service and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) without due process. The core legal questions were whether the suspension was valid in the absence of a timely charge sheet and whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice. The Court held that if a competent authority fails to frame a charge sheet within three months of a suspension order, and fails to issue a reasoned order extending the suspension, the employee gains a right to reinstatement. However, this right is not absolute if the employee fails to exercise it before the charge sheet is framed or the suspension is validly extended. The Court emphasized that suspension is an intervening, temporary arrangement, not a punishment. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the petition by consent, remanding the matter to the competent authority to constitute a new committee and conduct fresh disciplinary proceedings, ensuring the petitioners are afforded an opportunity of being heard, while setting aside the previous inquiry report.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee have a right to reinstatement if a charge sheet is not framed within three months of a suspension order?
  • Can an employer renew a suspension order after the expiry of the initial three-month period if the employee has not yet exercised their right to reinstatement?
  • Is a show cause notice considered a punishment under service law?
  • Does the failure to frame a charge sheet within the statutory period automatically revoke a suspension order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaque Brehmani vs Niaz alias Makhan and 3 others2022 YLR 1737 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-10
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtcontradictions in evidencepresumption of innocencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges an acquittal judgment passed by the trial court in a case arising from an armed affray resulting in a homicide. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt, or whether material contradictions, deviations from the initial report, and improvements in witness testimonies warranted an acquittal. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's evidence was fraught with significant discrepancies, material contradictions, and improvements, leaving the presence and specific roles of the accused highly doubtful. The court reiterated the principle that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and appellate courts should not interfere unless the trial court's findings suffer from perversity, arbitrariness, or cause a miscarriage of justice. Finding no such infirmity, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • When will an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  • Does an acquittal reinforce the presumption of innocence of the accused?
  • What is the effect of material contradictions and dishonest improvements in the testimonies of eye-witnesses in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem Shah vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary Ministry of Interior and 5 others2022 P Cr. L J 661 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-04
  quashing of charge sheetinvestigationtransposition of accusedFIRself-defencecriminal procedureInvestigating Officer
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought to quash a charge sheet filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that as the original complainant, his version of events (self-defence) should be the sole basis for the trial, and that his transposition as an accused was illegal. The core legal question was whether an Investigating Officer is bound by the complainant's version in an FIR when evidence gathered during investigation suggests otherwise, and whether a complainant can be transposed as an accused in the final report. The Court held that an Investigating Officer is not bound by the narrative in the FIR but must unearth the actual facts based on evidence. Consequently, if the investigation reveals the complainant's involvement, their status can be legally transposed to that of an accused. The Court affirmed that the Investigating Officer's duty is to collect evidence from all sources to form an independent opinion. The application was dismissed, as the trial court had already taken cognizance based on sufficient evidence, and no illegality was found in the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Investigating Officer bound by the version of events narrated in the First Information Report?
  • Can a complainant be transposed as an accused in the final report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the discovery of evidence contrary to the complainant's version authorize the Investigating Officer to change the status of the accused in the final report?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The State2022 MLD 469 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07
  post-arrest bailCNS Actheroin recoveryfurther enquirystatutory delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through a post-arrest bail application in a criminal case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question revolves around whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail where the recovered quantity of heroin is 680 grams, falling under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and the trial has not progressed significantly. The court held that the case falls within the purview of further enquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly noting the statutory threshold and the delay in the trial where the accused has been behind bars for seven months without framing of a charge. The key principle laid down is that where the recovered narcotic quantity falls outside the restrictive prohibitory clause and trial proceedings are unduly delayed without fault of the accused, the case warrants the concession of post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recovery of 680 grams of heroin under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 makes a case one of further enquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without framing of a charge constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nasir vs The State2022 YLR 2117 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-22
  narcotics controlsafe custodysafe transitindependent witnessesbenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportcriminal 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, recorded by the trial court. The core legal questions involved the reliability of police testimony based on spy information without associating independent witnesses, the establishment of safe custody and safe transit of the recovered narcotic substance to the chemical examiner, and the benefit of reasonable doubt arising from material contradictions and unexplained delays. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the unexplained failure to join available independent witnesses, delayed transmission of the sample to the chemical examiner without proving safe custody, and material contradictions in evidence. The court laid down the principle that an unexplained delay in sending samples for chemical examination, coupled with the failure to establish safe custody and transit, alongside a lack of independent corroboration in narcotics cases, entitles the accused to an acquittal based on the benefit of reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the police to associate independent witnesses despite their availability at the spot renders a narcotics recovery doubtful?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered narcotic samples to the chemical examiner vitiate the conviction?
  • Is the prosecution required to affirmatively establish the safe custody and safe transit of recovered contraband samples to the chemical examiner?
  • Can a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs Province of Sindh and others2022 SHC 260 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed alias Bohra and another vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 186 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-23
  extraditionsextra-judicial confessionpolice confessionbenefit of the doubtanti-terrorismchild murderrapecircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a six-year-old child, resulting in death sentences and life imprisonments. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given the absence of direct eyewitnesses, reliable last-seen evidence, and admissible extra-judicial confessions. The Court held that the extra-judicial confessions made to police officers while in custody were inadmissible in evidence, that recoveries and circumstantial evidence were uncorroborated or implausible, and that the prosecution failed to establish a secure link between the appellants and the crime. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, answered the death sentence confirmation reference in the negative, and acquitted the appellants on the basis of the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that heinousness of an offense cannot blur the standards of proof, and an accused must be acquitted if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding their guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Are extra-judicial confessions made by an accused to police officers while in custody admissible in evidence?
  • Does the heinousness of a crime permit a court to relax the standard of proof required for conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of disputed recoveries and retracted police confessions without independent corroborating evidence?
  • What is the effect of failing to exhibit a DNA report when semen is detected on the victim's clothes in a rape case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and 02 others vs Province of Sidh and 02 others2022 SHC 172 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kader, Muhammad Ilyas, Muhammad Siraj Cochinwala, Bilqees Bai, Waqar Ahmed, Abdul Rasheed, Muhammad Yousuf, Rafiq Essa, Asif Balwani and Tehmina Munaf vs Court of Xth Additional District Judge South Karachi2022 SHC 314 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Kader through Attorney vs Suleman and others2022 PLD Sindh 527 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State2022 MLD 724 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-20
  narcotic substancescharas recoverychemical examiner reportsafe custody of case propertymalkhanaburden of proofcriminal jail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 216 kilograms of charas concealed in a secret cavity of a roller loaded on a truck. The core legal questions involved whether the Chemical Examiner's report was rendered inconclusive for failing to mention full test protocols under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, and whether the prosecution failed to prove safe custody of the case property in the malkhana. The Sindh High Court held that the chemical report substantially met the requirements of Rule 6 and Form-II, and that prompt dispatch of the sample coupled with the failure of the appellant to raise tampering or discharge the shifting burden under Section 29 of the Act of 1997 sustained the conviction. The key principle laid down is that minor technical deviations in a chemical examiner's report do not vitiate a conviction where the report substantially complies with prescribed rules and statutory presumptions remain unrebutted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-mention of full test protocols in a Chemical Examiner's report render it inconclusive and unreliable under Rule 6 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Does the failure to produce malkhana register entries vitiate the prosecution's case regarding the safe custody of recovered narcotics?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 in narcotics recovery cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Asghar vs Learned Vth Adj, Khi East and another2022 SHC 494 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-04
  constitutional petitionevictionlocus standitrust propertymaintainabilityremand of caserent controllerjurisdictional defect
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts allowing eviction applications filed against the petitioners on grounds of personal need, unauthorized alterations, and subletting. The petitioners challenged these findings, arguing that the respondent lacked locus standi and that the eviction applications were not maintainable because the respondent filed them in his personal capacity rather than on behalf of the actual owner, a charitable trust. The Sindh High Court examined the record and observed that the Rent Controller failed to frame a crucial point for determination regarding the maintainability of the eviction applications despite a specific preliminary objection in the written statements. The Court held that the Rent Controller committed a jurisdictional defect by failing to frame and decide this fundamental question, rendering the concurrent findings unsustainable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the cases to the Rent Controller to frame a specific point for determination on maintainability, allow the parties to adduce evidence solely on that point, and decide the matter afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller is duty-bound to frame a point for determination regarding the maintainability of an eviction application when a preliminary legal objection is raised in the written statement?
  • Can a person file eviction proceedings in their personal capacity or as an attorney without pleading that they are a trustee or landlord when the premises are owned by a trust?
  • Does the failure of a Rent Controller to frame a fundamental issue regarding locus standi constitute a failure to exercise vested jurisdiction?
  • Can the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 undertake the exercise of framing additional issues and recording additional evidence that ought to have been done by the lower forums?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem and others vs Mst. Allah Dini and others2022 CLC 616 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and another vs StatePLJ 2022 Cr.C. 942 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-28
  criminal appealremand of caseadditional evidencemedico-legal certificatemedical boardhurtta'zir
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing injuries to the complainant and a witness. The core legal question revolves around the propriety of convicting the accused without the examination of the primary Medical Officer who issued the medico-legal certificates, whose absence was excused due to alleged illness supported by an unverified medical certificate, and the failure to bring the Medical Board's opinion on record regarding challenged injuries. The High Court held that examining the author of the medico-legal certificates and the Medical Board members is essential for a just decision and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for recording the necessary medical evidence and fresh adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Is it obligatory for the court to summon and examine a material witness like the Medical Officer who issued the medico-legal certificates for a just decision of the case?
  • Can a criminal case be remanded to the trial court for recording additional medical evidence when the primary Medical Officer was not examined due to alleged illness?
  • Whether the failure to produce the opinion of the Medical Board constituted to evaluate challenged medical certificates warrants a re-trial or rehearing of the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Muhammad Aalam and 3 others2022 YLR 1464 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Qureshi vs Mst. Rasheeda Begum & others2022 SHC 222 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdu Ahad Shaikh & 36 others vs Province of SIndh & Others2022 SHC 180 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-10
  regularization of servicecontractual employmentlegitimate expectationconstitutional petitionad-hoc appointmentcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, contract employees of the Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Housing Cell (SBBHC), approached the High Court of Sindh seeking regularization of their services. They argued that a Provincial Cabinet decision and policies of other provincial governments created a legitimate expectation of regularization, and that their long service and the conversion of SBBHC into an attached department of the Sindh Local Government justified permanent absorption. The respondents contended that the petitioners were appointed on a contract basis without a competitive process, and that their contracts had expired. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that mere length of service on an ad-hoc or contract basis does not automatically confer a right to regularization. The Court laid down the principle that regularization is not an automatically accruing right and must be supported by statutory legislation or a specific policy decision, subject to the availability of posts, budgetary provisions, and fulfillment of recruitment criteria. In the absence of a statutory basis, extraordinary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does long service on a contractual or ad-hoc basis automatically entitle an employee to regularization of service?
  • Can a contractual employee claim regularization under Article 199 of the Constitution in the absence of a statutory basis or policy decision?
  • Is a Provincial Cabinet's policy decision on regularization binding if the employee's appointment does not fall within the criteria or statutory timelines of the relevant regularization act?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Raza vs Province of Sindh & others2022 SHC 412 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-16Read full judgment →
• Abbas Haider Naqvi and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others2022 PCRLJ 941 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-08
  quashing of referenceaccountability courtdouble jeopardyregulated activityconstitutional petitionfag end of trialjurisdiction of NABregulatory penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by employees of Shell Pakistan Ltd. seeking the quashment of a reference pending before an Accountability Court, following the dismissal of their acquittal application under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners argued that the National Accountability Bureau lacked jurisdiction, that the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002 provided a complete code with overriding effect, and that the continuation of proceedings violated the principle of double jeopardy due to a prior penalty imposed on the company. The Sindh High Court held that since the trial was at its fag end with only the cross-examination of the last witness remaining, it would be premature and prejudicial to interfere under constitutional jurisdiction. The court further held that a regulatory penalty imposed on a corporate entity via a show-cause notice does not constitute a previous conviction or acquittal by a competent court so as to attract the bar against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution or Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition was accordingly dismissed on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether High Court can interfere under constitutional jurisdiction to quash a reference when the trial is at its fag end?
  • Does the imposition of a regulatory penalty on a company by OGRA attract the principle of double jeopardy regarding criminal proceedings against its employees under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Whether proceedings before an Accountability Court can be held to be coram non judice merely because the alleged acts pertain to a regulated petroleum sector?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas and others vs The State2022 SHC 232, 2024 PTD 232 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23
  compromisecompounding of offencesacquittalQisas and Diyatminor legal heirscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal against the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various provisions including sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties filed miscellaneous applications seeking permission to compound the offences and for the acquittal of the appellants based on a compromise. The core legal question was whether the parties could be permitted to compound the offences under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the appellants acquitted, given that the legal heirs of the deceased had pardoned the accused and waived their rights of Qisas and Diyat, subject to protecting the shares of minor legal heirs. The Sindh High Court held that since the offences were compoundable and the legal heirs had voluntarily pardoned the appellants, the compromise should be accepted. The Court laid down the principle that permission to compound offences under section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 may be granted and the accused acquitted pursuant to section 345(6), provided that the financial shares of minor legal heirs regarding Diyat are duly secured and deposited.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be compounded on the basis of a compromise between the parties?
  • Whether the court can permit the compounding of offences under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when minor legal heirs are involved?
  • What procedure must be followed to safeguard the Diyat shares of minor legal heirs upon the compromise of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Hussain vs The Accountability Court-IV and Others2022 SHC 520 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• A.M Qureshi vs Deputy Commissioner, Province of Sindh, Karachi2022 SHC 538 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• A. Razzaq Dawood and others vs Messrs Urban Properties Builders and others2022 CLC 209 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-05Read full judgment →
• Zunaira Rehman W/o Ali Rehman vs The Election Commission of Pakistan2021 SHC 736 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-05Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs SSP Complaint Cell Dadu & Others2021 SHC 900 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ali Mirani vs Zameer Hussain Detho and Others2021 SHC 1152 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-01
  criminal acquittal appealmurderdelay in lodging FIRnatural deathmedical board opiniondouble presumption of innocenceinterference in acquittaldismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 01.11.2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, whereby the private respondents were acquitted of murder charges. The prosecution alleged that the respondents pushed the deceased to the ground and kicked him to death while holding the appellant at gunpoint. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal order suffered from misappraisal of evidence or warranted appellate interference under the narrow scope governing appeals against acquittal. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, affirming the trial court's decision. It held that an unexplained delay of over one month in lodging the FIR could not be overlooked, and that the unanimous opinion of the medical board established that the deceased died of natural causes, which cannot constitute an offence. The court reiterated that appellate interference in an acquittal is exceedingly narrow and impermissible unless the findings are arbitrary, perverse, or cause a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of more than one month in lodging an FIR undermines the prosecution case in a criminal trial?
  • Can murder charges be sustained when the unanimous opinion of a medical board confirms that the deceased died a natural death?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Begum vs Government of Sindh & others2021 SHC 288 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
• Zohaib vs The State2021 YLR 851 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-14
  Anti-Terrorism Actbenefit of doubtcriminal appealjurisdiction of special courtsmurderreasonable doubtterrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant by the Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and related offenses. The core legal questions concerned whether the incident constituted an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and whether the trial court possessed proper jurisdiction given the procedural irregularities in the case's transfer. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of terrorism, as the incident lacked the requisite public fear or sense of insecurity. Furthermore, the court found the prosecution’s case riddled with infirmities, including the absence of forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime, lack of established motive, and significant discrepancies in police documentation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Anti-Terrorism Act requires strict construction, where the element of public terror is a sine qua non. Additionally, it reiterates that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an act of murder committed in private, without creating public fear or insecurity, qualify as an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can an ordinary court of session directly transfer a case to a Special Anti-Terrorism Court without adhering to the procedural requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Zohaib Arif Farooqui vs The State2021 SHC 68 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequesfurther inquirymalafideprohibitory clausedelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal case registered against the applicant, Zohaib Arif Farooqui, for allegedly issuing dishonoured cheques to the complainant, Muhammad Salman. After being denied pre-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the applicant approached the Sindh High Court through an application under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail on grounds of malafide, delayed FIR, and the offence falling outside the prohibitory clause. The High Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of a business or account settlement dispute, and the fact that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warranted the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is delayed without plausible explanation and a monetary dispute over account settlement exists alongside an offence outside the prohibitory clause, a case for further inquiry and pre-arrest bail is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay?
  • Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether a dispute over the settlement of accounts between parties forms a valid ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Usmani and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Federal2021 PLC (C.S.) 591 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-07
  regularization of servicecontract employeesconstitutional petitionequal treatmentmaster and servantcorporate employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by contract employees seeking regularization of their services in Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. (SSGC) and parity with their colleagues whose services were regularized pursuant to a previous judgment of the High Court, which was maintained by the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether contractual employees whose contracts expired are entitled to regularization and equal treatment when a policy for regularization exists within the corporate entity. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioners are entitled to similar treatment and directed the competent authority of the respondent-company to consider their cases for regularization without discrimination, in light of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. The key principle established is that where an employer organization has adopted a policy for regularizing contract employees, similarly situated employees cannot be arbitrarily excluded from consideration, provided they meet the requisite criteria.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees have a right to regularization in the absence of a statutory provision?
  • Are similarly placed contract employees entitled to equal treatment regarding regularization under an employer's policy?
  • Does a constitutional petition lie for the regularization of employment in a corporate entity governed by statutory rules or policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Anjum & 10 others vs Province of Sindh and another2021 SHC 390, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1024 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-02
  recruitment policywrit jurisdictionvested rightPolice Constable appointmentadministrative discretionwaiting listconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought directions to the Sindh Police department to appoint the petitioners as Police Constables (BPS-05), arguing they were eligible candidates who should have been selected from a waiting list for vacant positions. The core legal question was whether candidates who were not declared successful in the recruitment process possess a vested right to be appointed against vacancies arising from the non-joining of selected candidates, and whether the High Court should compel such appointments. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioners failed to establish a vested right to the posts. It affirmed that an advertisement for recruitment constitutes an invitation to apply rather than an offer, and that even successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment. The Court emphasized that the discretion to fill vacancies rests with the competent authority, and judicial interference is unwarranted absent proof of mala fides or illegality. Consequently, the Court declined to substitute its discretion for that of the administrative authority, leaving the petitioners to participate in future recruitment processes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate acquire a vested right to appointment merely by participating in a recruitment process?
  • Can the High Court compel the appointment of candidates from a waiting list against vacant posts?
  • Is an advertisement for government recruitment considered an offer or an invitation to apply?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding administrative discretion in recruitment?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeba Hassan and Others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2021 SHC 952 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-15Read full judgment →
• Zarina Iqbal vs Haji Jaffar and 6 others2021 MLD 863 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-16Read full judgment →
• Zamir vs The State2021 SHC 666 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-06
  narcotics recoverycharaslife imprisonmentsafe transmission of samplesburden of proofminor discrepanciescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail 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 life imprisonment following the recovery of a large quantity of charas from a vehicle. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, and whether minor discrepancies and typographical errors in the charge and police records vitiated the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the consistent and confidence-inspiring testimonies of the prosecution witnesses proved the recovery of 110 kilograms of charas, and that minor discrepancies and typographical errors were curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court laid down the principle that courts should adopt a dynamic approach in appreciating evidence in narcotic cases, ignoring minor discrepancies that do not impact the material aspects of the case, and noted that once the prosecution establishes its case prima facie, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor typographical errors in the vehicle registration number mentioned in the charge vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does a failure to record the exact time in a Malkhana entry render the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples doubtful?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • How should courts approach minor discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakir Hussain Larik vs Province of Sindh & another2021 SHC 115 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• Zain Ali vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1002 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-28
  narcotic substancespossession of narcoticsburden of proofchemical examiner reportcriminal appealSection 103 CrPCtransportation of narcotics
  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 transporting 563 kilograms of charas and 1.5 kilograms of opium in a vehicle. The core legal questions concerned whether the driver of a vehicle is liable for narcotics found in secret cavities, the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotics cases, and the validity of the chemical examiner's report. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the driver of a vehicle is responsible for its contents, including narcotics, as they are in control of the vehicle. The Court affirmed that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that police officials are competent witnesses. Furthermore, the Court held that once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The conviction was maintained as the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle legally responsible for narcotics discovered within secret cavities of that vehicle?
  • Does the requirement for independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to searches and arrests made under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely on the ground that they are interested witnesses in narcotics cases?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs The State2021 SHC 1258 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-10
  post-arrest bailarms actpolice witnessesfurther inquirytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Zahid Hussain seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No.151/2021 registered at Police Station Ranipur under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, following the dismissal of his earlier bail pleas by the lower courts. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the challan had been submitted, no further investigation was required, all witnesses were police officials without independent corroboration, and he had no prior criminal record. The Sindh High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and that no probability of tampering with evidence existed since the investigation was complete. The court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that tentative assessment of material at the bail stage must favour the accused where investigation is complete, witnesses are police officials, and the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the challan has been submitted and the accused is no longer required for investigation?
  • Does the lack of independent public mashirs in a police-led recovery make the case one of further inquiry?
  • Whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain Shah Naqvi vs Additional I.G. Sindh Police and 07 others2021 SHC 446 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali Mastoi vs The State2021 SHC 1140 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-08
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailgas theftshort sentencefinancial liabilitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the suspension of a five-year sentence awarded to the appellant, Zahid Ali Mastoi, by the Special Judge for Utility Court, Larkana, in relation to a conviction under the Gas Theft Control and Recovery Act, 2016. The core legal question was whether the appellant's sentence should be suspended pending the final adjudication of his appeal, given the short duration of the sentence and the appellant's willingness to deposit the outstanding financial liability. The Court held that since the sentence was relatively short and the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future due to case pendency, the sentence should be suspended. The Court granted the suspension of the sentence, admitting the appellant to bail subject to the furnishing of a solvent surety and a personal recognizance bond, while mandating the deposit of the remaining financial liability within a specified timeframe. The key principle established is that in cases involving short sentences, the suspension of sentence pending appeal is appropriate where the appeal is unlikely to be heard promptly and the appellant demonstrates a commitment to fulfilling financial obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended pending appeal when the sentence is of a short duration?
  • Is the deposit of outstanding financial liability a relevant factor for the suspension of sentence in gas theft cases?
  • What are the consequences of failing to comply with a court-ordered payment schedule after the suspension of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ahmed vs Somiyo2021 MLD 1969 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
• Zaheer-Uddin Ahmfd Quraishi and 13 others vs The Province Of Sindh2021 PLC (C.S.) 507 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-04
  pension restorationcommuted pensionpensionary benefitscivil service pension rulesarrears of pensionstatutory bodycontempt proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired employees of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (SESSI), challenged the respondent's calculation of their restored commuted pension, contending that the institution failed to correctly apply Supreme Court precedents regarding pension increases and arrears. The core legal question was whether the respondent's calculation of pensionary benefits, which restricted arrears and increases to a specific date, complied with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Court, upon reviewing the calculation reports provided by the Accountant General Sindh and the respondent, held that the respondent had complied with the law and the directives of the Supreme Court. The Court determined that the petitioners' specific claims regarding the quantum of their pension were misconceived, as the respondent's calculations aligned with the established ratio. The key principles laid down are that upon the expiry of the commuted period, a pensioner's right to full pension is restored, including any increases granted during the intervening period, and that arrears are payable from the date of restoration, but not for any period prior to such restoration.

  Questions settled

  • Is a retired civil servant entitled to the restoration of their full pension upon the expiry of the commuted period?
  • Does the restoration of a commuted pension include increases granted by the government during the intervening period of commutation?
  • Can a pensioner claim arrears for the period prior to the restoration of their commuted pension?
  • Is the calculation of pension benefits by the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (SESSI) in compliance with the Supreme Court's directives?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed son of Sharif Ahmed Malik and Khaleel son of Sharif Ahmed2021 SHC 250 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed Hisbani vs Province of Sindh and another2021 SHC 230 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Zaheen Cooperative Housing Society Limited through Joint Secretary vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary, Cooperative Department and 4 others2021 CLC 1345 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-14Read full judgment →
• Zaffar vs The State2021 YLR 1918 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-04
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtballistic reportstatement of accusedocular and medical conflictacquittalanti-terrorism court
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from jail appeals and a constitutional petition against the conviction and sentences of the appellants for offences including murder, terrorism, and arms possession. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the evidentiary value of delayed forensic and ballistic reports, the consequences of failing to put incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the principle of consistency in view of co-accused acquittals. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, delayed recovery and transmission of crime weapons to the forensic laboratory, and the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence without independent corroboration. The key principles laid down include that evidence not put to an accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against them, that eyewitnesses disbelieved as to co-accused require unimpeachable independent corroboration to convict others, and that delayed or mishandled ballistic evidence cannot safely support a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a piece of evidence or circumstance not put to an accused person during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered against them?
  • Whether eyewitnesses disbelieved with respect to an acquitted co-accused can be relied upon against other co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Does a significant and unexplained delay in sending crime empties and recovered weapons to the forensic laboratory render the ballistic expert report unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a material conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the nature and location of injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali Kayani and others vs Ahmed Saleem Khan and others2021 CLC 389 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• Zabiullah Alias Zubair and 2 others vs The State2021 YLR 2190 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-25
  post-arrest bailineffective firingfurther probepolice encounteranti-terrorismunlicensed weaponsbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from post-arrest bail applications filed by three accused persons seeking bail in multiple crimes involving sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, Anti-Terrorism Act, and Sindh Arms Act. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of ineffective firing, lack of private witnesses, and police-only testimony. The Sindh High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as no injuries were sustained during the alleged encounter, no independent witnesses from the thickly populated area were associated, and the accused were no longer required for investigation. The court thus granted post-arrest bail to the applicants, laying down that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail if the case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry and benefit of doubt at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere heinousness of an offence is sufficient ground to refuse post-arrest bail?
  • Does an alleged police encounter involving ineffective firing and no injuries make out a case for further probe under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted where the prosecution case rests entirely on police officials without independent corroboration from a populated locality?
  Read full judgment →
• Zabardast Khan Mehar vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 738, 2022 MLD 840 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-05Read full judgment →
• Yunus Textile Mills Ltd vs Pakistan and Others2021 PTD 1055, 2021 SHC 302 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-11Read full judgment →
• Yasha Ullah Khan Afghan vs Election Commission of Pakistan & Another2021 SHC 1096 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-23Read full judgment →
• Yaseen Khan & Others vs Insp. General of Sindh Police & Others2021 SHC 1234 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-09Read full judgment →
• Xiamen Golden Dragon Bus Company Ltd. through Authorized Attorney2021 YLR 1886 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Xiamen Golden Dragon Bus Company Ltd & Another vs Sindh2021 SHC 466 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
• Wazir Rehman vs Trustees of the Port of Karachi2021 SHC 424 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ali Industries Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and others2023 PTD 576, 2022 PCTLR 1745 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20Read full judgment →
• Wazeer Ali Khushk & others vs Province of Sindh & another2021 SHC 420 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-19
  civil servant promotiondeferment of promotionpending criminal casesanticorruption trialmisconductdepartmental proceedingsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Junior Clerks in the Police Department of the Government of Sindh seeking directions for promotion to the rank of Senior Clerk, which had been deferred due to the pendency of criminal cases against them. The core legal question was whether a civil servant facing pending criminal charges and corruption allegations is entitled to be considered for promotion, or if such promotion can be lawfully deferred until the finalization of those proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the deferment of promotion due to the pendency of criminal proceedings or inquiries is legally justified under the applicable rules to ensure a clean administration and maintain service discipline, and that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel promotion when serious charges of misconduct are pending. The court laid down the principle that while consideration for promotion is a right, actual promotion is not a vested right, and deferment of promotion due to pending criminal or disciplinary proceedings is valid. Furthermore, the court directed the respondents to conclude departmental proceedings within a specified timeframe and ordered the trial court to expedite the pending criminal trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant facing pending criminal charges is entitled to be considered for promotion or if such promotion can be lawfully deferred?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained to compel departmental authorities to promote a civil servant who is facing serious charges of misconduct?
  • Whether departmental proceedings can continue simultaneously alongside criminal proceedings against a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Hyder S/O Ali Hyder & Another vs The State2021 SHC 808 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-17
  post-arrest bailGutka and Manpuri Actprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal bail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application wherein the applicants seek post-arrest bail in Crime No. 03 of 2021 registered at Police Station Thatta under the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail when the maximum punishment for the charged offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the State does not oppose the application. The Sindh High Court held that since the maximum sentence provided under Section 8(1) of the Act is three years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and the State consented, the case fell within the rule of granting bail rather than refusal. The court laid down the principle that offences carrying punishments not exceeding the prohibitory clause generally warrant the grant of bail as a rule, making refusal an exception, particularly when further inquiry is warranted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when the punishment for an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the possession and transportation of raw mainpuri powder attract the penal provisions of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail as a rule when the State does not oppose the bail application for an offence carrying a maximum sentence of three years?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Ahmed vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 125 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Waqas Behlum vs Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT) and 06 others2021 SHC 226 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammd Rahimoon and another vs The State2021 YLR 288 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-17
  abduction for ransomextortionbenefit of the doubtcontradictions in evidenceidentification paradecriminal appealanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 6(2)(e)(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, along with related weapons and ATA charges. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the charges of abduction, extortion, and related offences beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from major flaws, including unexplained delays in recording witness statements, material contradictions between the FIR and depositions, lack of medical or forensic corroboration, and doubtful recoveries. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, laying down the principle that significant contradictions, delayed statements, and lack of corroborative evidence in abduction and extortion cases undermine the prosecution's case and entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained delays in recording statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vitiate the credibility of eye-witness testimony?
  • Does an alteration of the core narrative from extortion to ransom between the FIR and deposition destroy the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for abduction and related offences be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant when material contradictions exist?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade where the identifier fails to specify the role of the accused during the identification process?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Mohammad son of Sain Bux Waswano vs The State2021 SHC 76 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtmurder convictionwrongful restraintFIR delaywitness credibilityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) and Section 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged evidentiary inconsistencies. The High Court observed significant flaws in the prosecution's case, including an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the failure to examine a crucial witness, and the recording of Section 161 CrPC statements prior to the formal FIR. Furthermore, the court noted the implausibility of the witnesses' conduct, the weakness of voice identification, and the delayed recovery of the weapon. Citing the principle that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused rather than a concession, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that when evidence is doubtful, the accused is entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of a witness statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the registration of an FIR invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right when the prosecution evidence creates reasonable doubt?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine a key witness warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Wakeel vs The State2021 SHC 998 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-28
  narcotics possessionchain of custodychemical examiner reportweight discrepancyprivate mashirscriminal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1025 grams of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given significant evidentiary discrepancies. The High Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The ratio of the decision is that a material discrepancy between the weight of the narcotics recorded at the time of seizure and the weight reported by the Chemical Examiner creates a fatal break in the chain of custody, rendering the chemical report unreliable. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the failure to associate private witnesses during the recovery process, despite having prior information, and inconsistencies in the testimony of police officials regarding the source of intelligence, further eroded the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, affirming that the prosecution must prove the chain of custody is safe, secure, and indisputable to secure a conviction in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the weight of narcotics recorded at seizure and the weight reported by the Chemical Examiner invalidate the chain of custody?
  • Is the prosecution required to associate private witnesses during a recovery process when prior information is available?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be sustained if the chain of custody is proven to be broken?
  Read full judgment →
• Wakeel Khan vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 394 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-26
  post-arrest bailabetmentfurther inquiryproperty disputeinadmissible evidencecriminal conspiracytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns the request for post-arrest bail by the applicant, Wakeel Khan, who was charged under Sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his step-brother. The core legal question was whether the applicant, implicated primarily for abetment based on a property dispute and the statement of a co-accused, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The court reasoned that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient incriminating material to establish a prima facie case of abetment, noting that the applicant was not present at the crime scene and that the reliance on a co-accused's statement was legally inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the court determined that the applicant's guilt required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where evidence of abetment or instigation is lacking, and the prosecution's case relies on inadmissible statements, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted bail when the prosecution's case for abetment lacks sufficient incriminating material?
  • Is a statement made by a co-accused admissible as evidence to implicate an accused for the purpose of denying bail?
  • Does the absence of an accused from the scene of the crime, when charged with abetment, constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Wakeel Ahmed Jaffery vs Hafeezullah Pahore & another2021 SHC 1148 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-16
  criminal transfer applicationtransfer of caseanti terrorism courtsuspension of police officialsconsent order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal transfer application was filed by police officials seeking the transfer of their case from the Anti Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, to another court of competent jurisdiction, along with the recalling of an order placing them under suspension, alleging bias and lack of lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the case should be transferred to ensure a fair trial and how the suspension order should be addressed. The Sindh High Court, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, decided to transfer the case to the Anti Terrorism Court, Larkana, for disposal according to law within two months, while holding that the grievance against the suspension order must be challenged separately in accordance with the law. The key principle laid down is that matters concerning administrative suspension should be agitated through independent appropriate legal remedies, whereas case transfer can be ordered by consent to secure the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be transferred to another court of competent jurisdiction with the consent of the parties?
  • Where should a challenge against an illegal suspension order be brought when the main criminal case is transferred?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajihuddin vs The State2021 MLD 1809 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-04
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidencebelated eye-witnessrecovery without independent witnessconfession before policeacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a belatedly introduced eye-witness, the sufficiency and linkage of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of alleged police confessions, and the requirement of independent witnesses for recoveries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring infirmities, including the introduction of a doubtful eye-witness after five years, lack of independent corroboration for recoveries, and an alternative property dispute involving the deceased's family. The court established that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading exclusively to the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the introduction of a new eye-witness at a belated stage of the trial through an application creates sufficient doubt to vitiate a conviction?
  • Does the absence of independent private witnesses during the recovery of a crime weapon render the recovery legally defective?
  • What constitutes a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence necessary to sustain a conviction in a murder trial?
  • Is an admission of guilt made before police officials admissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajahat-ur-Rehman vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 192 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• Wahid Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 1272 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
• Waheed Gul Khan vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1284 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ali vs Syed Ali Taqi Shah and another2021 CLC 444 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-11
  cancellation of bailfurther inquiryQatl-e-Amdcriminal investigationmisuse of bail concessionColumn No. 2
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the private respondent by the trial court in a case involving Qatl-e-Amd. The private respondent had been nominated in the FIR with a specific role but was subsequently declared innocent by the police during the investigation and placed in Column No. 2 of the charge sheet. The trial magistrate later joined the respondent in the trial, and the trial judge granted him bail based on the principle of further inquiry. The complainant argued that the bail grant was improper given the specific allegations in the FIR. The High Court, however, dismissed the application, holding that the principles governing the grant of bail and the cancellation of bail are distinct. The Court emphasized that since the respondent was found innocent during the investigation and had not misused the concession of bail, recalling the bail would be harsh. The Court affirmed that bail once granted should not be cancelled without compelling reasons, such as the misuse of the concession, especially when the case involves further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Are the legal principles governing the grant of bail and the cancellation of bail distinct?
  • Does the fact that an accused was found innocent during the police investigation and placed in Column No. 2 of the charge sheet constitute a valid ground for maintaining bail?
  • Can bail be cancelled if the accused has not misused the concession of bail granted by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →