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.

• Vikio son of Pir Bux alias Peroo Panhwar vs Mir son of Allahdino Panhwar2021 SHC 156 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtcircumstantial evidenceacquittaldelayed FIRrecovery evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin, which convicted the appellants for the murder of Allahdino under Section 302(b) and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the initial classification of the case as 'A-class' by the police. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' involvement. The court noted that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons, the subsequent implication of the appellants was delayed by one month, and the recovery of the alleged weapon and the deceased's torch occurred four days after arrest, rendering it unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of one month in recording statements of witnesses regarding the identity of culprits create reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's case relies solely on delayed recovery of incriminating items and questionable extra-judicial confessions?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Vijay Kumar and others vs The State2021 YLR 1021 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-24
  circumstantial evidencekidnapping for ransombenefit of doubtcriminal appealanti-terrorismsodomyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and sentences imposed by an Anti-Terrorism Court for kidnapping for ransom, murder, and sodomy. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s case, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The court found the 'last seen' evidence to be hearsay and contradictory, the alleged motive of ransom implausible given the complainant’s financial status, and the medical evidence regarding sodomy inconclusive due to the absence of DNA matching. Furthermore, the significant delay in lodging the FIR and the lack of direct evidence regarding the abduction or killing undermined the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete and exclude every hypothesis of innocence; where the evidence is weak, contradictory, or fails to inspire confidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence when the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of events?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt applicable when the prosecution's evidence regarding motive and 'last seen' witnesses is contradictory and hearsay?
  • Does the absence of DNA or sperm matching evidence preclude a conviction for sodomy?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman S/O Ahrar vs The State2021 SHC 526 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-13
  post-arrest bailSindh Arms Act 2013unlicensed pistolfurther inquiryindependent witnessespolice witnessesarms vs firearms
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, following the alleged recovery of an unnumbered T.T. pistol during a police search. The defense argued that the recovery was foisted, no independent witnesses were associated despite the location being a busy public area, and the matter required further inquiry. The Assistant Prosecutor General opposed the bail application on the grounds that the recovery was direct and the FIR was promptly lodged. The High Court observed that pistols fall under the definition of 'arms' under Section 2(c) rather than 'firearms' under Section 2(d) of the Act of 2013, making the applicability of Section 23(1)(a) versus Section 24 a matter for the trial court to determine. Additionally, all prosecution witnesses were police officials, the investigation was complete, and no independent mashir was joined. Finding that the case required further inquiry, the High Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pistol falls under the definition of 'arms' or 'firearms' under the Sindh Arms Act 2013?
  • Whether non-association of independent witnesses in a densely populated area during daylight justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be granted on the ground of further inquiry when all prosecution witnesses are police officials and investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Pathan vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1311 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-17
  terrorismsuicide bombingmurdercommon intentionexplosive substancesdeath sentence confirmationeyewitness testimonyanti-terrorism court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant, Usman Pathan, for offences including murder, attempt to commit murder, criminal conspiracy, and terrorism arising from a thwarted suicide bombing at an Eidgah in Khanpur. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and reliability of eyewitness testimony, the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions, the determination of the appellant's age, and the existence of a common intention to commit terrorist acts. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, prompt lodging of the FIR, recovery of a suicide jacket loaded with explosives on the spot, and corroborative medical and bomb disposal evidence. The court affirmed the convictions and death sentences, holding that the appellant's barbaric acts aimed at creating religious hatred and terror warranted a strict deterrent sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncontradicted testimony of eyewitnesses who apprehended an accused on the spot wearing a suicide vest is sufficient to sustain a conviction for terrorism and murder?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR vitiate the prosecution's case when the delay is satisfactorily accounted for by chaotic and stressful circumstances at the crime scene?
  • Whether the determination of an accused's age through an ossification test can be relied upon when the plea of minority was never raised during the trial?
  • Is a deterrent death sentence warranted for an accused involved in a planned suicide attack on a place of worship intended to spread religious terror and maximize civilian casualties?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Ali vs Secretary, Excise Department Government Of Sindh and others2021 YLR 910 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• University Track (Pvt) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Petroleum Islamabad and others2021 SHC 184 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• United Refrigeration Industries Limited and others vs Director, Directorate2021 PTD 1430, PTCL 2022 CL.98 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-08
  customs tariff classificationretrospective effectdepartmental practiceclassification committeeHS Codepolymeric MDItariff ruling
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several Reference Applications impugning a common judgment of the Customs Appellate Tribunal relating to the correct customs tariff classification of imported polymeric methylene polyphenylene isocyanates (Polymeric MDI). The core legal questions centered on whether the goods were correctly classifiable under HS Code 3824.9091 during the disputed period of July 2013 to March 2016 pursuant to existing classification rulings, and whether a subsequent determination altering the classification via Public Notice No. 9/2017 could apply retrospectively. The Sindh High Court held that the goods were rightly classifiable under HS Code 3824.9091 during the disputed period in line with valid national sub-headings and rulings by the competent Classification Committee, and that any departure from a settled departmental practice or tariff ruling can only apply prospectively and cannot retroactively invalidate past clearances or justify penalties for mis-declaration in good faith. The key principle laid down is that changes in customs classification and tariff rulings operate prospectively from the date of the ruling and cannot be applied retrospectively to past consignments cleared under a consistent, long-standing departmental practice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the goods in question were correctly classifiable under HS Code 3824.9091 during July 2013 to March 2016 pursuant to the classification rulings and committee letters?
  • Whether subsequent determination of classification through a public notice would apply retrospectively to past consignments?
  • Whether the department has the power to impose fine and penalty for mis-declaration when goods are cleared under a previously settled and valid departmental classification practice?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Shoaib Ahmed and 5 others2021 PLD Sindh 394 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-09Read full judgment →
• Umer Yamin vs Inspector General Of Police and another2021 PLC (C.S.) 415 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-17
  Son QuotaPolice recruitmentStanding OrdersCivil service rulesConstitutional petitionDeceased quotaProvincial government approval
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought a declaration of eligibility for appointment as a Junior Clerk in the Sindh Police Department under a 'Son Quota' policy, relying on Standing Order No. 260 of 2011. The core legal question was whether the Inspector General of Police (IGP) has the authority to create a 'Son Quota' for recruitment via Standing Orders without provincial government approval, and whether such appointments are legally permissible under existing civil service rules. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Standing Orders issued by the IGP without the approval of the Provincial Government are a nullity in the eyes of the law, as established by Supreme Court precedents. The Court further clarified that the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, provide for a 'deceased quota' but do not authorize a 'Son Quota' for such appointments. The key principle laid down is that recruitment in the police force must adhere to established recruitment rules and competitive merit, and the IGP cannot bypass these requirements through unauthorized Standing Orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Inspector General of Police issue Standing Orders for recruitment without the approval of the Provincial Government?
  • Does the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, provide for a 'Son Quota' for recruitment in the police department?
  • Are appointments to the post of Junior Clerk in the Sindh Police valid if made solely on the basis of a 'Son Quota' standing order?
  Read full judgment →
• Umer Din Mehar and others vs Province Of Sindh and others2021 PLD Sindh 298 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-10Read full judgment →
• Umar Rasheed Malik & Others vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2021 SHC 1166 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Umair Jam vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 606 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-11Read full judgment →
• Tufail Ahmed vs Election Commission of Pakistan & Others2021 SHC 1092 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Tri-Pack Films Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue And Another2021 SHC 560 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
• Trend International through Proprietor vs Mustafa Rehman and another2021 PLJ Karachi 56 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-25Read full judgment →
• Total Parco Pakistan Limited vs Pakistan & anotherPTCL 2021 CL. 576 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Yousaf and Muhammad Irfan vs The State2021 SHC 794 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-23
  criminal jail appealmurderidentification paradebenefit of doubtacquittaladverse inferencecircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a delayed and defective joint identification parade, the evidentiary value of unexamined material eye-witnesses, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in the face of major discrepancies and dropped original suspects. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants. The court held that an identification parade conducted in violation of prescribed rules, combined with a significant unexplained delay, lack of corroborative ocular or circumstantial evidence, and the failure to examine material witnesses, creates profound doubts in the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case through unimpeachable evidence, and any single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a joint identification parade conducted with a significant delay and in violation of prescribed rules?
  • Does the non-production and non-examination of material eye-witnesses by the prosecution warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of a defective identification test without independent corroborative evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case regarding the guilt of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abid Majeed S/o Abdul Majeed2021 SHC 1220 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-08
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocenceNAB referencecorruptionappellate interferencestandard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the State through the Chairman NAB under Section 32 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the Accountability Court in a corruption reference. The core legal question concerned whether the trial court’s acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented and whether the appellate court should interfere with such a finding. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court’s judgment was based on a reasonable view of the evidence. The prosecution failed to establish the respondent’s involvement or receipt of any financial benefit, and the investigation was criticized for "pick and choose" tactics. The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal creates a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Consequently, an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal judgment unless it is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from gross misreading of evidence. Since the trial court’s findings were sound and no glaring errors were demonstrated, the acquittal was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does an acquittal by a trial court create a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused?
  • Should an appellate court interfere with an acquittal if two reasonable views of the evidence are possible?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Prosecutor General Sindh vs Shahzad Riaz and others2021 P Cr. L J 656 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-30
  criminal revisionstay of criminal proceedingsconcurrent civil and criminal proceedingsanti-corruptionpremature acquittaladjournment sine die
  Summary & questions settled

  The State through Prosecutor General Sindh filed a criminal revision application assailing an order passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Karachi, whereby criminal miscellaneous applications filed by the accused under sections 249 and 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were allowed and a special corruption case was adjourned sine die pending the outcome of a related civil suit. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings must be stayed simply because a civil suit involving similar or identical subject matter is pending adjudication. The Sindh High Court held that there is no universal or invariable rule requiring criminal proceedings to be stayed during the pendency of civil litigation, and that both civil and criminal proceedings relating to the same transaction can proceed concurrently. The Court established the principle that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not negative criminal liability or bar a criminal court from proceeding on the merits of a case, provided the facts alleged disclose the commission of a criminal offence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit automatically operate as a legal bar to the continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of the same transaction?
  • Can a trial court adjourn a criminal case sine die pending the final decision of a civil suit involving similar subject matter?
  • Whether criminal and civil proceedings relating to the same matter can proceed simultaneously without causing a miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Assistant Director (ANF) vs III-Additional Sessions2021 PLD Sindh 530 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-12
  territorial jurisdictionplace of trialnarcotics casecriminal revisionordinary place of inquiryFIR registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sukkur, which transferred a narcotics case to the District Court of Khairpur based on territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses jurisdiction to try an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when the offence was committed outside its local limits, despite the FIR being registered at a police station within its jurisdiction. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to transfer the case. The Court held that the place of FIR registration does not confer jurisdiction upon a court if the offence occurred elsewhere. Relying on Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court established the principle that every offence must ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the offence was committed. The Court emphasized that the statutory language of Section 177 is mandatory, leaving no room for exceptions based on the location of the police station where the FIR was lodged.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of an FIR at a police station within a specific district automatically confer territorial jurisdiction upon the courts of that district to try the offence?
  • Does Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandate that an offence must be tried by a court within the local limits where the crime was committed?
  • Can a trial court transfer a case to another district if it determines it lacks territorial jurisdiction over the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• The Province Of Sindh through Secretary, Education and Literacy2021 PLD Sindh 13 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-09Read full judgment →
• The Government Of Sindh through Secretary, Land Utilization Department2021 YLR 1 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-12Read full judgment →
• The Director, Directorate General Of Intelligence And Investigation2021 PTD 195 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-30
  smugglingCustoms Act 1969statutory interpretationbetel nutcriminal revisionprohibited goodscustoms duty evasion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Special Criminal Revision Applications challenging an order by the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) which declared criminal proceedings regarding the seizure of betel nuts as coram non judice. The core legal question was whether the definition of smuggling under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 is restricted exclusively to specified or notified goods, or if it encompasses other goods imported in violation of restrictions or with the intent to evade customs duties. The Court held that the definition of smuggling is not limited to specified or notified items. It ruled that any goods brought into Pakistan in breach of existing prohibitions or restrictions, or with the intent to evade customs duties, constitute smuggled goods under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969. The Court emphasized that criminal and civil liability proceedings are distinct and can occur simultaneously. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, directing the trial court to proceed with the cases in accordance with the law, clarifying that the scope of smuggling is broad and not confined to specific categories of goods.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of smuggling under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 apply only to specified or notified goods?
  • Can criminal proceedings for smuggling be initiated for goods that are neither specified nor notified if they are imported in violation of restrictions or to evade customs duties?
  • Can criminal proceedings and civil liability proceedings under the Customs Act, 1969 be carried out simultaneously?
  Read full judgment →
• The Director Customs Valuation, Karachi vs M/s. Usman Traders 11 others2021 SHC 284, 2022 PTD 1314 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
• The Deputy Collector of Customs vs M/s. Pakistan Office Product & 232021 SHC 1106 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-01Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax Companies-IV, Karachi vs Kausar2021 PTD 849 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Companies-III, Karachi vs Ferozuddin2022 PTD 648 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IV, Corporate Regional Tax Office, Karachi and others vs Messrs MSC Switzerland Geneva and othersPTCL 2021 CL. 679, 2021 PTD 885 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-12Read full judgment →
• The Collector, Model Customs Through Additional Collector of Customs2021 SHC 234 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs, through Additional Collector of Customs (Law), Karachi vs Messrs Super Star Company2021 PTD 1094 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Hyderabad vs M/s.2021 SHC 16 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs, Mcc Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi vs Shahzad Ahmed2021 PTD 2146 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27
  customs appealacquittaljurisdictionsales tax evasionincome tax evasionspecial criminal acquittal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Collector of Customs filed a special criminal acquittal appeal against the order of the Special Judge Customs, Taxation Karachi, which acquitted the respondent in a case registered under the Customs Act, 1969 for alleged evasion of sales tax and income tax. The core legal question was whether the customs authorities had the jurisdiction to initiate criminal proceedings and register an FIR regarding tax evasion and matters falling under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Sindh High Court held that the customs authorities acted without lawful authority and jurisdiction, as matters regarding sales tax and income tax exemptions and evasion fall exclusively within the domain of the Commissioner Inland Revenue. The court affirmed the trial court's acquittal order, holding that the proceedings were incompetent and could not result in a conviction. The key principle laid down is that customs officials cannot initiate criminal proceedings or register FIRs for sales tax and income tax violations.

  Questions settled

  • Do customs authorities have the jurisdiction to initiate criminal proceedings and register an FIR regarding sales tax and income tax evasion?
  • Whether an acquittal order passed by a trial court in a case of no evidence warrants interference in a special criminal acquittal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, MCC Port Muhammad Bin Qasim vs M.M. Four2021 SHC 300, 2022 PTD 914 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-29Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs M/s. Habib Sugar Mills Limited2021 PTD 1873, PTCL 2021 CL. 393 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-26Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs M/s. Astrontech Inc2021 SHC 138, 2022 PTD 1629 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs Malik Traders Group2021 SHC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs Abdul Ghafoor S/o Noor Muhammad2021 SHC 708, 2022 PTD 402, PTCL 2022 CL.531 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-18Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs vs Messrs Dream Garments2021 PTD 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs MCC Port Muhammad Bin Qasim Karachi. vs M/s.2021 SHC 146 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs and 2 others vs Messrs A.U. Technologies and another2021 PTD 2042 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-20Read full judgment →
• The Additional Director, Directorate General Of Intelligence And Investigation-Fbr, Regional Office, Karachi and another vs Imran and another2021 PTD 1683 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-09
  smugglingcustoms dutyburden of proofmotor vehicle registrationseizure of vehiclesimport documentschassis tampering
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several Customs Reference Applications, Constitutional Petitions, and a High Court Appeal concerning the detention of motor vehicles by Customs Authorities on allegations of smuggling. The core legal questions concern whether vehicles registered with the Excise and Taxation Department can be seized as smuggled goods solely due to the absence of original import documents, and whether the burden of proof shifts to the authorities once the owner produces prima facie evidence of lawful possession. The Court held that the detention of these vehicles was illegal. It established that upon the production of valid registration books, auction documents, and payment challans, the owner discharges the initial burden of proof under Section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969. Consequently, the burden shifts to the Customs Authorities to prove the documents are forged or the vehicle is smuggled. The Court further ruled that authorities cannot demand import records beyond the five-year period stipulated in Section 211, nor can they rely on vague forensic reports regarding tampered chassis numbers to establish smuggling without concrete evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can Customs Authorities detain a motor vehicle registered with the Excise and Taxation Department on charges of smuggling solely because the owner cannot produce original import documents?
  • Does the production of registration books, auction documents, and tax challans by a vehicle owner discharge the initial burden of proof under Section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Are Customs Authorities legally entitled to demand import documents for motor vehicles beyond the five-year period prescribed by Section 211 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Is a vague forensic report indicating tampered chassis numbers sufficient to establish a charge of smuggling under the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Tassaduq Hussain Shah vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 81 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-11
  retracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencemurdersentence enhancementcriminal appealjudicial cautionlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction for murder, while the complainant sought sentence enhancement. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction. The Court held that a retracted judicial confession, if proven voluntary and truthful, is admissible and can form the sole basis for conviction, though corroboration is preferred. The Court found the prosecution's circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain linking the appellant to the crime. Regarding the sentence, the Court declined to enhance the life imprisonment to death, citing judicial caution where it remained unclear which specific act by the co-accused caused the death, and emphasizing that when doubt exists regarding the appropriate penalty, the lesser sentence is preferable to avoid potential miscarriage of justice. The conviction and sentence were maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
  • Is corroboration required for a retracted judicial confession to be admissible?
  • Should a sentence of life imprisonment be enhanced to death when it is unclear which co-accused caused the fatal injury?
  • What standard of proof is required for circumstantial evidence to sustain a murder conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Tarique and another vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 742 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-03
  honour killingcommon intentionocular evidencebenefit of doubtrelated witnessesmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of two appellants, a father and son, for the murder of the son's wife. The trial court had convicted both under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of related eyewitnesses, the impact of delayed FIR registration, and the applicability of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court upheld the conviction of the husband, finding the ocular evidence corroborated by medical reports and the recovery of the weapon, while explicitly rejecting the 'honour killing' defense. However, the Court acquitted the father, holding that the prosecution failed to prove common intention. The Court established that mere presence at a crime scene, without an overt act or evidence of shared purpose, is insufficient for conviction under Section 34. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not invalidate their testimony if they appear truthful, and that delay in FIR registration is not fatal when adequately explained by the circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship of an eyewitness to the deceased constitute sufficient grounds to discard their testimony?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case when the delay is explained by the circumstances of the incident?
  • Can a conviction under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained against an accused when no specific overt act is attributed to them and the weapon they allegedly carried was not used?
  • Does a confession of murder in the name of honour provide a legal justification for the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Tarique Ali s/o Muhammad Yousif Jatoi vs The State2021 SHC 820 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-19
  criminal jail appealhostile witnessbenefit of doubtmurderanti-terrorismunlicensed weaponmedical evidenceocular testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal assails the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder, terrorism, and arms offences under Sections 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given that key eyewitnesses, including the complainant, turned hostile and exonerated the appellant during the trial, and whether corroborative evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt because the primary eyewitnesses retracted their statements, medical evidence conflicted with the weapon alleged, and recovery witnesses did not support the prosecution. The court laid down the principle that when ocular and recovery evidence crumbles and lacks independent corroboration, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for a capital crime can be sustained when the primary eyewitnesses and the complainant turn hostile and exonerate the accused at trial?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to identify an accused or establish guilt in the absence of reliable and supportive ocular testimony?
  • Is the uncorroborated testimony of police officials sufficient to prove a criminal charge and recovery of a crime weapon when independent mashirs do not support the recovery?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when witnesses deny the contents of their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during their testimony before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Wali & Ors vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 764 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• Tariq Shafi vs The State2021 MLD 589 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-12
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequecriminal breach of trustdishonestydormant accountmalice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, who was accused in an FIR registered under Sections 489-F and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances surrounding the alleged dishonoured cheques and the underlying financial transaction. The Court observed that the complainant's claim was dubious, noting that the cheques were drawn on a bank that had already been absorbed into another entity, and that the account in question was dormant rather than having insufficient funds. Furthermore, the Court found that the essential ingredient of dishonesty required for Section 489-F was missing, and the complainant's conduct suggested malice. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, holding that a case for such relief had been successfully established. The key principle laid down is that for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the ingredient of dishonesty is a condition precedent, and where this is absent, the case for bail is strengthened.

  Questions settled

  • Is the ingredient of dishonesty a condition precedent for an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a cheque drawn on a dormant account be considered a dishonoured cheque for the purposes of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the trial court have the authority to cancel bail if the accused becomes an absconder after the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Masood vs Sher Muhammad Din & Others2021 SHC 578 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-09Read full judgment →
• Taqi Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and 07 others2021 SHC 544 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-03Read full judgment →
• Talib Husssa in Chachar vs The State2021 SHC 850 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-12
  post-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustfurther inquiryanti-corruptionmisappropriation of propertyprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Talib Hussain Chachar, who was charged under Section 409 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, regarding the alleged misappropriation of wheat. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his arrest and the evidentiary material available at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail, noting that the essential ingredients of Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860—specifically entrustment and dishonest misappropriation—were not prima facie established merely by the applicant's presence as a watchman at the scene. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the 18-19 day delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the investigation was complete, rendering further custody unnecessary. The key principle laid down is that while deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, the Court must conduct a tentative assessment to determine if the ingredients of the offense are prima facie met, and where they are lacking, bail should be granted as a rule rather than an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of an alleged crime as a watchman satisfy the ingredients of Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases involving the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the investigation is complete?
  • Can bail be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the essential ingredients of the charged offense are not prima facie established?
  Read full judgment →
• Talat Mehmood & another vs Bahria University, Karachi campus and 062021 SHC 828 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-16
  contractual employmentmaster and servantregularizationconstitutional petitionmaintainabilityuniversity employeetermination of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed on a contract basis as Security Incharge and Correspondence Assistant at Bahria University Karachi Campus, challenged their relieving orders through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking a declaration of permanent status and continuation in service till superannuation. The core legal question was whether contractual employees of a university governed by the principle of Master and Servant can claim regularization or challenge their lawful relieving upon contract expiry under writ jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that contractual employees have no vested right to regularization or permanent status, and their services governed by Master and Servant principles lawfully terminate upon the expiry of their contract. The court laid down the principle that High Courts cannot issue directions for regularization or permanent continuance of service unless the initial appointment was made through an open competitive process against a sanctioned post, and contractual employees are not entitled to show-cause notices or formal inquiries upon the natural expiration or conclusion of their agreed tenure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable for the regularization of contractual employees?
  • Does a contractual employee acquire a vested right to permanent retention or superannuation after serving for several years?
  • Whether the principle of Master and Servant applies to employment disputes involving Bahria University?
  • Are contractual employees entitled to a formal inquiry and show-cause notice prior to being relieved upon the expiration of their contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Talal Korejo vs The State2021 SHC 1344 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-21
  suspension of sentencenarcotics possessionbail pending appealcriminal appealshort sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, wherein the appellant was found guilty of possessing 140 grams of Charas and sentenced to one year and three months of rigorous imprisonment under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the appellant filed an application seeking the suspension of his sentence and release on bail. The core legal question before the Court was whether, given the relatively short duration of the sentence and the fact that the appellant remained on bail throughout the trial, the sentence should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal. The Court, upon considering the arguments and the record, held that the sentence should be suspended. Consequently, the Court admitted the appellant to bail, subject to the furnishing of surety and a personal recognizance bond. The decision reinforces the principle that where a sentence is short and the appeal is unlikely to be heard immediately, the appellate court may exercise its discretion to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the convict, provided the appellant was on bail during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended pending the hearing of a criminal appeal if the sentence awarded is short?
  • Is the fact that an appellant remained on bail during the trial a relevant factor for granting bail pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad and others vs Fateh Chand and others2021 SHC 1182 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Taimoor vs The State2021 YLR 808 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-15
  rapehostile witnessbenefit of doubtcriminal appealcorroborationocular evidencedelayed FIRacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction for rape under Section 376(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the complainant's hostile testimony and significant evidentiary gaps. The Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. It emphasized that while the testimony of a hostile witness is not entirely inadmissible, it requires strong, independent corroboration, which was absent here. The Court noted fatal contradictions in the ocular evidence, an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, and the lack of conclusive forensic evidence, such as DNA or semen matching, to link the appellant to the crime. Furthermore, the failure to examine disinterested witnesses led to an adverse inference under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right when the prosecution's case is riddled with discrepancies and lacunas.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a hostile witness be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR tarnish the authenticity of the prosecution's case?
  • Is the detection of human sperm on a vaginal swab sufficient to prove rape without DNA or semen matching?
  • What is the effect of failing to examine disinterested witnesses when they are available?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahira Hanif vs Province of Sindh and 04 others2021 SHC 442 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-03
  deputationabsorptioncivil servantvested rightrecruitment rulesgood governancerepatriation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a lecturer on deputation, sought absorption into the Sindh Government service after being removed from her parent department. The core legal question was whether a civil servant on deputation possesses a vested right to continue on deputation or to be permanently absorbed into the borrowing department. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that deputation is merely a temporary administrative arrangement between borrowing and lending authorities, not a pathway to permanent absorption. The court affirmed that no civil servant has a vested right to remain on deputation indefinitely or to be absorbed without strictly adhering to prescribed recruitment rules and codal formalities. Emphasizing the principles of good governance and merit-based recruitment, the court ruled that appointments to public offices must be made through competitive processes. Furthermore, the court determined that a deputationist removed from service by their parent department cannot continue serving on deputation. The judgment reinforces that state authority must be exercised fairly, and any deviation from statutory selection procedures undermines the principles of equal opportunity and public service.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to be permanently absorbed into the borrowing department?
  • Can a civil servant continue on deputation after being removed from service by their parent department?
  • Is deputation a valid mechanism for permanent appointment to a government post without following recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Tabros Pharma (Private) Limited through Duly authorized representative vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Health Services, Regulation and Coordination, Islamabad and 3 others2021 PLD Sindh 489 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• Syeda Shakira Raza w/o Ghulam Raza vs N/A2021 SHC 498 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Zaman Shah and others vs The State2021 MLD 2106 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailprohibitory clausecounter-FIRland disputetentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two bail applications: one for pre-arrest bail and one for post-arrest bail, arising from the same FIR regarding a property dispute. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail given the existence of a counter-FIR, the nature of the injuries, and the fact that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that since the injuries sustained were punishable by less than seven years and did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and because the complainant party had concealed injuries sustained by the accused party (as evidenced by a counter-FIR), the accused were entitled to bail. The Court emphasized that in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail should not be refused on flimsy grounds, and that determining the aggressor in a mutual conflict requires evidence to be recorded at trial. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail and granted post-arrest bail to the respective applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a counter-FIR regarding the same incident impact the grant of bail?
  • Should bail be refused in cases where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zainuddin vs Messrs Continental Limited, Karachi and 2 others2021 YLR 1738 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahoor-Ul-Hassan Shah vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 886 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-16
  pre-arrest baildishonored chequehabitual offendercriminal recordfinancial crimebail cancellationmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for confirmation of ad interim pre-arrest bail in a case involving charges under Sections 489-F and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the dishonor of cheques issued by the accused. The core legal question was whether the applicant, a habitual offender with a history of similar criminal conduct, was entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate mala fide on the part of the complainant or the investigation agency. Furthermore, the applicant's conduct during the proceedings—specifically fleeing the courtroom upon the disclosure of his criminal record—demonstrated a misuse of the court's concession. The court emphasized that the issuance of dishonored cheques constitutes a severe financial harm to victims and their families. Consequently, the court recalled the ad interim pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that bail is a discretionary relief that should be denied to habitual offenders who suppress vital information regarding their criminal history and fail to establish mala fide against the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be cancelled if the accused is found to be a habitual offender with a history of similar criminal conduct?
  • Is the suppression of vital information regarding previous criminal cases a valid ground for refusing or recalling pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the dishonoring of cheques, when part of a pattern of conduct, justify the denial of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Waqar Haider vs The State through Prosecutor General Sindh2021 MLD 997 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-31
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequepolice coercionulterior motivefurther inquiryterritorial jurisdictioncriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the applicant had established sufficient grounds for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, specifically regarding allegations of police coercion and ulterior motives in the registration of the First Information Report. The Court observed that the cheque in question was allegedly issued under duress while the applicant was in police custody regarding a previous, subsequently cancelled, First Information Report. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant's haste in lodging the current case, despite the cancellation of the previous one for lack of territorial jurisdiction, cast doubt on the voluntary nature of the cheque's issuance. Consequently, the Court held that the case required further inquiry and confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a cheque, such as potential police pressure or duress, create reasonable doubt, a case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a cheque under police pressure or duress constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a case for further inquiry be established when the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a cheque are disputed?
  • Is a trial court empowered to cancel bail and initiate proceedings against a surety without referring the matter back to the High Court if the accused becomes a fugitive?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Tanveer Hyder Zaidi vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 SHC 948 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Sheeran Ali and others vs The State2021 M LD 1753 · Sindh High Court
  criminal appealattempted murderassault on public servantanti-terrorism actbenefit of doubtillegal arms possessionpolice evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions rendered by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses involving assault on public servants, attempted murder, and illegal arms possession. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved the charge of attempted murder under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, whether the incident fell within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and whether the convictions for assaulting a public servant and illegal arms possession were sustainable. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the intent to murder, as the limited, long-range firing appeared intended to facilitate the appellants' escape rather than cause death, thus acquitting them of the Section 324 charge. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was inapplicable, as the incident lacked the requisite design or intent to cause terror. However, the Court upheld the convictions under Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 23(1)(a), Sindh Arms Act 2013, establishing that police evidence is credible in the absence of proven enmity and that the recovery of weapons and on-the-spot arrest provided sufficient corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Does firing shots from a long distance during an escape attempt necessarily constitute an attempt to commit murder under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 applicable to an incident involving a shootout between police and suspects where there is no specific design or intent to cause terror?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be accepted as credible evidence in a criminal trial in the absence of proven enmity between the police and the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahan Shah alias Syed Nasrullah Shah through Legal Heirs vs Syed2021 MLD 531 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Qabool Muhammad Shah vs The State2021 MLD 518 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-14
  quashing of proceedingsnon-appearance of witnessesdelay in trialacquittalcriminal miscellaneous applicationappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application arises from a criminal trial in which the applicant faced charges under Sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pursuant to an FIR registered in 2004. The core legal question concerned the legal consequence of the prolonged failure and deliberate avoidance of the complainant and key injured witnesses to appear and record their evidence over a span of fourteen years since the framing of the charge. The Sindh High Court held that the persistent refusal of the material witnesses to appear in court despite summons, public notices, and undertakings given to the Supreme Court demonstrates that the prosecution has no viable evidence and that the complainant is avoiding cross-examination. The Court laid down the principle that an unexplained and inordinate delay spanning over a decade caused by the non-appearance of essential witnesses warrants setting aside adverse trial court orders, allowing the application, and acquitting the accused due to lack of prosecution evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect on a criminal trial when the complainant and main injured witnesses continuously avoid appearing in court to depose for over a decade?
  • Can a trial court order the arrest of independent material witnesses to compel their attendance for recording evidence?
  • Whether prolonged failure of the prosecution to produce essential witnesses warrants setting aside trial orders and acquitting the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Zeeshan Zakir & Another vs The State2021 SHC 504 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-25
  pre-arrest baildishonored chequecivil nature of disputeprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustfraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by two applicants seeking confirmation of interim bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 489-F, 420, and 340 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of fraud and the issuance of a dishonored cheque, despite the fact that the cheque was issued by a co-accused and not the applicants themselves. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, noting that the primary allegation regarding the dishonored cheque was attributed to a co-accused who had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the Court observed that the dispute regarding the non-delivery of plots appeared prima facie civil in nature and that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle applied is that in non-prohibitory offences, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, provided no material evidence of habitual offending is substantiated.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dispute regarding the non-delivery of plots in a cooperative society prima facie civil in nature?
  • Does the grant of bail in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a rule?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted to an accused when the specific criminal act, such as issuing a dishonored cheque, is attributed to a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Tehseen and another vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 612 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-11
  terrorismsectarian violencedeath penaltyidentification paradecircumstantial evidenceAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal appealcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for his involvement in a terrorist attack on an Imambargah, which resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant was an active participant or an innocent passerby, the validity of the identification evidence, and whether the trial court's amendment of the charge caused prejudice. The Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was an active participant, citing his arrest at the scene with a firearm, his injuries consistent with the blast, and consistent eyewitness testimony. The Court ruled that the amendment of the charge did not cause prejudice to the accused, as it did not alter the fundamental nature of the case. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the offense fell squarely within the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, due to the sectarian nature and intent to create terror. Emphasizing the principles of deterrence and retribution in heinous crimes, the Court upheld the death sentence and dismissed the appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the basis of eyewitness testimony without a formal identification parade if the accused was arrested on the spot?
  • Does the amendment of a charge after the recording of prosecution evidence necessarily cause prejudice requiring the remand of a criminal case?
  • Is a police officer's testimony regarding the arrest of an accused on the spot considered reliable in the absence of enmity?
  • Does an attack on a place of worship with the intent to create sectarian terror fall within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Shah and Others vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 944 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Farooq vs The State2021 SHC 316 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali vs Mst. Khursheed Jehan and Others2021 SHC 356, 2022 CLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ahsan Thr. Mushabbir Hussain Mufti vs Muhammad2021 SHC 1236 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Mir Muhammad Shah vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary2021 MLD 12 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Mansoor Ali Shah vs The State2021 SHC 1280 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-15
  benefit of the doubtdelayed FIRdelayed 161 statementcriminal appealmurder convictioncctv evidencewitness inconsistencyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a dissenting judgment by the Sindh High Court in a criminal appeal arising from a murder and firearm injury case. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, given the delayed FIR omitting the appellant's name, delayed and inconsistent statements of prosecution witnesses, doubtful weapon recovery, unverified CCTV footage, and acquittal of a co-accused attributed a similar role. In his dissenting note, Irshad Ali Shah, J. held that the cumulative effect of these evidentiary flaws created serious doubts regarding the appellant's involvement. The court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of the charges. The key principles laid down include that a delayed FIR without the accused's name weakens the prosecution case, that late recording of police statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 reduces their evidentiary value to nil without plausible explanation, that disbelieving eyewitnesses regarding some co-accused requires independent corroboration to convict another with a similar role, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delayed FIR omitting the name of the accused create room to doubt the truthfulness of the prosecution allegations?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a belated statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a plausible explanation for the delay?
  • Can eyewitnesses who have been disbelieved regarding certain co-accused persons be relied upon to convict another co-accused with a similar role without independent corroboration?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind sufficient to entitle an accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Khaliluddin vs Rafiq Ahmed Qandhari and 6 others2021 CLC 877 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-23
  compromise decreeconsent orderestoppel by judgmentrejection of plaintexecution of decreeres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses a civil suit and connected execution proceedings arising from a breach of a compromise decree. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declarations that he is the rightful owner of the suit property, that the consent order and settlement agreement are null and void due to breach by the defendant, and claiming damages, while the defendant sought execution of the compromise decree. The core legal question was whether a compromise decree can be challenged and set aside through a subsequent suit, and whether a compromise decree operates as an estoppel. The court held that a compromise or consent decree is as binding on the parties as a decree passed after a contentious trial and operates as an estoppel by judgment, preventing parties from relitigating settled matters. The court laid down the principle that a party cannot resile from the terms of a compromise decree or reopen concluded disputes by filing a subsequent suit, and accordingly rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. while holding that execution of a compromise decree is not barred per se.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a compromise decree can be set aside through a subsequent civil suit?
  • Does a consent decree operate as an estoppel between the parties?
  • Is the execution of a compromise decree barred per se under the law?
  • Can a party resile from the terms of a compromise application after accepting them before the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Khadim Hussain Shah vs Muhammad Ismail & others2021 SHC 1186 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Jawad Arshad vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2021 SHC 1122 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Jamil Hussain Kazmi vs The Chief Sect: and Others2021 SHC 610 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Imran Ashfaque vs The State2021 SHC 62 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausefurther inquirydelay in FIRmala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal proceeding where the applicant sought pre-arrest bail following the dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry and mala fides, considering factors such as delay in lodging the FIR and whether the alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause. The court held that where an FIR is lodged with an unexplained or significant delay, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and the accused has joined the trial, a case for pre-arrest bail is made out. The key legal principle laid down is that the grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal is an exception, and pre-arrest bail is confirmed when further inquiry is warranted due to mala fides and delayed FIR reporting.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  • Is bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause considered a rule and its refusal an exception?
  • Does joining the trial and the absence of proof that the accused is a habitual offender support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Imdad Ali Shah vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 616 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Hssan Raza Safvi vs Atiqur Rehman Ghazali & Others2021 SHC 1198 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Hamid Mir through Attorney and another vs Board Of Revenue Sindh2021 YLR 1629 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Hajan Shah vs The State2021 MLD 1135 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-06
  corruptionmisuse of authorityillegal leasingplea bargaincriminal breach of trustsentencing reductionaccountability court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant, a former Project Director, for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The appellant was accused of misusing his official position to lease government-owned shops and fixtures at throwaway prices without public auction, causing significant financial loss to the state. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the charges of illegal leasing and misuse of authority beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution established a consistent chain of evidence, including audit reports and witness testimony, confirming the illegal nature of the leases. Furthermore, the court noted that the plea bargains entered into by the majority of the beneficiaries strongly corroborated the appellant's guilt. While maintaining the conviction, the court held that the original sentence was disproportionately harsh given the circumstances and the partial recovery of losses through plea bargains. Consequently, the court reduced the term of imprisonment from ten years to seven years and adjusted the fine accordingly, while upholding other penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that co-accused beneficiaries entered into plea bargains serve as corroborative evidence of the guilt of the primary accused?
  • Can a public official be convicted for corruption for leasing government property without public auction or publication?
  • Is a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment considered disproportionately harsh for corruption offenses where partial recovery of losses has occurred through plea bargains?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary2021 CLC 1474 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2021 SHC 508 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin and another vs Province Of Sindh through Chief2021 PLD Sindh 515 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin & another vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 488 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Farrukh Mateen vs Province Of Sindh through Senior Member and others2021 CLC 1047 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Cheezal Shah & Another vs President (Senwa) and Ors2021 SHC 213 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Babar Hashmi vs PPO/Secretary to Government of Sindh and 052021 SHC 460 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-03
  constitutional petitioncompulsory retirementterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction barservice tribunalcivil servantdisciplinary matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Police Constable, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the major punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a departmental penalty involving the terms and conditions of service in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212(2) and the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that compulsory retirement constitutes a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212(2) of the Constitution in favor of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that matters concerning disciplinary actions and terms and conditions of civil servants fall exclusively within the domain of the service tribunals, and writ petitions in such matters are not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution bar the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  • Does a service tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary matters of civil servants under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Asif Shah vs Ahmed Asif Siddiqui and 5 others2021 SHC 346 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Anwar Ali Shah vs Zarai Tarqiati Bank Ltd. through President and 22021 PLC (C.S.) 662 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-16
  pensionary benefitsdiscriminatory treatmentservice duesback benefitsconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by a retired bank employee seeking pensionary benefits and service dues. The core legal question was whether the respondent-bank could deny the petitioner full pensionary benefits and back benefits for a period of dismissal, despite previous orders from the Federal Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court, and whether such denial constituted discriminatory treatment compared to similarly situated colleagues. The Court held that the respondent-bank failed to comply with previous judicial directions and acted discriminatorily by excluding the petitioner from benefits granted to his peers. The Court directed the bank to recalculate the petitioner's service benefits, including the disputed period, and pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 485,170 along with accrued profits. The judgment reaffirms the principle that pension is a vested right earned through service, not a bounty, and that public institutions cannot arbitrarily discriminate between similarly placed employees regarding retirement entitlements, nor can they ignore established judicial mandates regarding service benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pensionary benefits can be denied to an employee based on a period of dismissal that was subsequently set aside?
  • Is it permissible for a public institution to discriminate between similarly placed employees regarding the payment of retirement benefits?
  • Does the right to pension constitute a fundamental right that cannot be treated as a mere bounty by the employer?
  • Can a respondent-bank unilaterally treat a period of dismissal as extraordinary leave without pay to exclude it from qualifying service for pension?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Altamash Mushtaque vs The State2021 MLD 1699 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-30
  criminal appealforged chequebenefit of doubtSection 342 Cr.P.C.delayed FIRadverse presumptionoffences in banksacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Sections 420 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for attempting to encash a forged cheque. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the impact of significant delays in lodging the FIR, the consequences of withholding material witnesses, and the legal effect of failing to confront the accused with incriminating evidence during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge, citing the unexplained delay in FIR registration, the failure to examine the bank's Operation Manager, and the absence of corroborative evidence like CCTV footage. Furthermore, the Court ruled that evidence not put to the accused during his Section 342 statement cannot be used to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant and ordering his immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine a material witness entitle the court to draw an adverse presumption against the prosecution under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can evidence that was not put to an accused during his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered for conviction?
  • Is an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case to the trial court to record a fresh statement of the accused to cure a procedural lacuna?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Altaf Hussain Shah and 3 others vs The State2021 YLR 2107 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmer Hameed vs Mst. Iqbal-un-Nisa Begum and 03 others2021 SHC 10 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmed Maaz and 3 others vs The Federation Of Pakistan2021 CLC 937 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-03
  constitutional petitionmedical college admission testultra viresCovid-19 pandemicstatutory interpretationPMC Actfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the Pakistan Medical Commission's official announcement scheduling the National Medical and Dental College Admission Tests (NMDCAT) on two different dates, namely 29.11.2020 and 13.12.2020, to accommodate candidates testing positive for Covid-19. The petitioners contended that holding the tests on two dates violated Section 18 of The Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, which provides for a single admissions test, and created unfairness regarding syllabus coverage and question difficulty. The Sindh High Court held that the phrase "a single admissions test" denotes a single attempt by each applicant and does not preclude holding the test on dates approved by the Council to accommodate Covid-19 positive students under extraordinary circumstances. The Court ruled that the PMC's decision was within its statutory powers under the PMC Act, did not infringe fundamental rights, and was justified by the pandemic. The petition was dismissed with directions to strictly follow Covid-19 standard operating procedures and to publish a single combined merit list.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Pakistan Medical Commission has the authority under Section 18 of The Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 to conduct the medical and dental college admission test on more than one date?
  • Does conducting admission tests on separate dates for Covid-19 positive and negative candidates violate any fundamental rights of the applicants?
  • Can the statutory powers of the Council, Board, and Authority under The Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 justify extraordinary measures during a public health emergency?
  • Whether holding admission tests on different dates creates illegal discrimination or differential treatment among applicants?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmed Maaz and 3 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Health, Islamabad and 2 others2021 PLJ Karachi 169 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Wahab vs VIIIth Additional District And Session Judge, Karachi2021 MLD 395 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-24
  illegal dispossessionbona fide civil disputelawful ownerlawful occupierabuse of processland grabbingcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged an order passed by the VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi, which dismissed a direct complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant sought restoration of possession of a property, alleging illegal encroachment by the respondents. The core legal question was whether the appellant, claiming ownership through a power of attorney and an incomplete sale agreement, qualified as a 'lawful owner' or 'lawful occupier' entitled to invoke the Act, and whether the Act applied to a dispute already subject to pending civil litigation. The Court held that the appellant failed to establish lawful title or possession, noting that the documents relied upon were insufficient and the property dispute was a bona fide civil matter already sub judice. The Court affirmed that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is intended to curb land grabbing by 'Qabza groups' and cannot be utilized to convert bona fide civil disputes into criminal proceedings to exert pressure. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as the appellant's attempt to invoke the Act constituted an abuse of the process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to bona fide civil disputes that are already sub judice before civil or revenue courts?
  • Can a complainant invoke the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 without establishing themselves as a 'lawful owner' or 'lawful occupier' under the Act?
  • Is an agreement to sell sufficient to confer legal title or possession for the purposes of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to disputes between co-owners or co-sharers?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Jabbar Shah vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1206 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Suzuki Motorcycles Pakistan Limited vs Malik Qaiser Zaman and 2 others2021 CLC 1361 · Sindh High Court · 2013-02-25Read full judgment →
• Surriya Kanwal vs The Federation of Pakistan & 04 others2021 SHC 1078 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-23Read full judgment →
• Suresh Kumar Hindu vs P.O Sindh & Others2021 SHC 592, 2022 MLD 1862 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →