Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.
- Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd.through Authorized Officer_Attorney vs Messrs Data CNG Filling Station, Larkana2021 MLD 568 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-18Read full judgment →
- Suhaila Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan & 03 others2021 SHC 432 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-26Read full judgment →
- State through Prosecutor General Sindh and another vs Imran Sawati and others2021 P Cr. L J 915 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision arises from the dismissal of an application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by which the prosecution sought to examine Joint Investigation Team (JIT) members and introduce a JIT report at the final stage of a murder trial. The core legal question was whether the court should permit the prosecution to introduce new evidence at the conclusion of a trial to fill evidentiary gaps. The High Court upheld the trial court’s order, dismissing the revision applications. The court held that Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be utilized to fill lacunas in the prosecution’s case at the fag end of proceedings, as this prejudices the accused and violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10A, Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The court further established that a JIT report is equivalent to a report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, possessing no independent evidentiary value, and that judicial intervention to allow such late evidence undermines the court's role as a neutral umpire in an adversarial system.
Questions settled- Can the prosecution invoke Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to introduce new evidence at the final stage of a trial?
- Does a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report possess independent evidentiary value in criminal proceedings?
- Is it permissible for a court to allow the prosecution to fill evidentiary lacunas at the conclusion of a trial?
- Does the failure to include witnesses in the initial calendar of witnesses preclude their examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- State through Chairman National Accountability Bureau vs Syed2021 P Cr. L J 1282 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional Petition challenged an order by an Accountability Court that released an accused on a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond due to the National Accountability Bureau's (NAB) failure to file a Reference within the 90-day statutory period. The core legal question was whether an Accountability Court possesses the jurisdiction to order the release of an accused on a PR bond or grant bail in cases under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, particularly when a Reference is delayed. The High Court held that the Accountability Court lacks the jurisdiction to grant bail or order the release of an accused on a PR bond. The Court clarified that the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 is a special law, and provisions like Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are inapplicable to NAB proceedings. The Court affirmed that jurisdiction to grant bail in NAB cases rests exclusively with the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, and Accountability Courts cannot circumvent this by ordering release on PR bonds.
Questions settled- Does an Accountability Court have the jurisdiction to release an accused on a Personal Recognizance bond for failure to file a Reference within 90 days?
- Is Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
- Which court has the exclusive jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused in a case under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
- Soomar alias Liaquat Ali son of Gulab vs Raza Muhammad son of Shah Bux2021 SHC 164 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, taking into account delayed FIR, contradictions in medical and ocular evidence, lack of explanation for specific injuries, and exculpatory testimony by the deceased's widow. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, as multiple material flaws, unexplained delays, and inconsistencies undermined the trustworthiness of the prosecution's case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentences, laying down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether the prosecution's failure to explain material delays in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements creates sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal?
- Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the cause of a fatal injury entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of a belated recovery when the core prosecution case is doubtful?
- What is the legal effect of the deceased's widow testifying as a court witness that she does not know who killed her husband?
- Sohail Hameed vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Islamabad and others2021 MLD 2085 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-31Read full judgment →
- Sohail Hameed vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 1100 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-31Read full judgment →
- Sohail Abbasi vs Mst. Khshboo and others2021 CLC 1904 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
- Sohail & others vs Pakistan National Shipping2021 SHC 418 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sobia Aamir through Attorney vs Registrar Of Trade Marks and another2021 CLD 1022, 2022 PLJ Karachi 31 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-01Read full judgment →
- Siraj Ahmed and another vs Azizullah2021 SHC 1312 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicants, Siraj Ahmed and Wajid Ali, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 269/2021, registered at Police Station A-Section Ghotki, for offences under sections 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants' initial request for pre-arrest bail was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC) Ghotki, primarily because the medical evidence supported the injuries, specifically a nasal bone fracture categorized as Shujjah-i-Hashimah. However, during the proceedings before the High Court, the applicants produced a letter from a Special Medical Board dated 22.11.2021, which suspended the validity of the initial medical certificate. The core legal question was whether the suspension of the medical evidence warranted the confirmation of bail. The Court held that the suspension of the medical certificate created a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that these observations were tentative and would not prejudice the trial.
Questions settled- Does the suspension of a medical certificate by a Special Medical Board constitute sufficient grounds to establish a case for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the primary medical evidence supporting the injuries has been declared invalid or suspended?
- Sir Syed Cooperative H.S Ltd vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 SHC 1214 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
- Sip Munwar Ali & others vs Fazal Muhammad & others2021 SHC 1138 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
- Sindh Petroleum And Cng Dealers Association and others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 PTD 713 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-11Read full judgment →
- Sindh Club Karachi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax South Zone, Karachi2021 PTD 658 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-02Read full judgment →
- Sindh Agriculture University Tando Jam vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 776 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sikandar Vighio vs The State2021 SHC 1238 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal case registered against the applicant, Sikandar Vighio, and others for house trespass and theft of gold ornaments, goats, and clothes. Having been refused pre-arrest bail by the trial court, the applicant approached the Sindh High Court through a bail application under Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of delayed FIR registration, weak identification evidence, and the acquittal of co-accused with similar roles. The Court held that a case for pre-arrest bail on the point of mala fide was made out due to the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, weak identification under a solar light bulb, and the prior acquittal of co-accused. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicant was confirmed. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay in FIR registration, weak identification evidence, and the acquittal of co-accused with similar roles constitute valid grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail.
Questions settled- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR justifies the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused persons with a similar role provide a ground for granting pre-arrest bail to the remaining accused?
- Whether weak identification evidence under a solar light bulb makes out a case for pre-arrest bail on the point of mala fide?
- Sikandar Ali Mugheri vs DSP Sultan Ahmed Chandio and others2021 SHC 1318 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal acquittal appeal was filed before the Sindh High Court impugning the judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Qamber, which acquitted the private respondents of charges involving house-trespass, dacoity, abduction for ransom, and unlawful assembly initiated via a direct complaint. The core legal question was whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal suffered from any perversity, illegality, or gross misreading or non-reading of evidence to justify appellate interference. The High Court observed that the direct complaint had been filed with an unexplained delay of six days. Additionally, the appellant was a condemned prisoner facing death penalty in a murder case registered by one of the private respondents, demonstrating that the complaint was instituted mala fide to exert pressure for a compromise. The appellant and his witnesses also substantially contradicted the version set up in the complaint. Reaffirming that interference in acquittal judgments is exceptionally narrow and limited, the High Court held that the trial court's findings were neither arbitrary nor cursory, and dismissed the appeal in limine.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal in a criminal case?
- What is the effect of an unexplained delay in filing a direct criminal complaint?
- Can a criminal complaint be deemed mala fide when filed by a convicted individual to pressure the opposing party into a compromise in another criminal case?
- Sicpa Sa vs Federation of Pakistan and four others2021 SHC 1014 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-20Read full judgment →
- Shunaid Akbar s/o Akbar Ali vs Muhammad Waseem2021 SHC 1133 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-14Read full judgment →
- Shumaila Salman Shah vs Federation Of Pakistan through Minister, Ministry2021 PLD Sindh 476 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-23Read full judgment →
- Shumaila Salman Shah and 4 others vs Federaton Of Pakistan through M_o. Federal Education and Professional Training and others2021 PLJ Karachi 155 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-23Read full judgment →
- Shumaila Salman Shah & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 478 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-21Read full judgment →
- Sht. Santoshi and another vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 123 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
- Shoukut Ali vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through Administrator2021 MLD 1243 · Sindh High Court · 2012-11-30Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad Khaskheli vs 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge and 6 others2021 YLR 1759 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Criminal Acquittal Appeal challenged the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge-II, Kotri, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 324, 353, 394, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, justifying appellate interference. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted material contradictions, unreliable witness testimony, and the absence of credible identification evidence. The court reaffirmed the principle that an accused acquitted after a full trial earns a "double presumption of innocence." Consequently, appellate courts must not interfere with an acquittal judgment unless it is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, fanciful, or suffering from gross misreading of evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized that interference is not warranted simply because a different conclusion might be reached upon re-appraisal of the evidence.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment?
- Does an accused person earn a double presumption of innocence after being acquitted by a trial court?
- Is an appellate court permitted to reverse an acquittal judgment simply because a different conclusion is possible upon re-appraisal of evidence?
- What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding appeals against acquittal?
- Sher Khan Pahore vs Executive Engineer Highways Division, Jacobabad2021 MLD 1393 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-23Read full judgment →
- Sher Ali vs Syed Hamid Ali and another2021 SHC 780 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
- Sindh Games Association (Regd.) vs Province of Sindh and three others2021 SHC 1314, 2022 CLC 2083 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-17Read full judgment →
- Shehnaz Zaidi vs Federation of Pakistan & two others2021 SHC 422 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
- Sharif Ahmed Qureshi vs Wing Cdr. (R) Mazhar Mirza and 7 others2022 YLR 572 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-03Read full judgment →
- Sharafat Ali vs Mst. Shahjahan Begum and another2021 MLD 1484 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-15Read full judgment →
- Shamsuddin alias Shaman & others vs Rabnawaz (deceased) through his2021 SHC 1184 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shamroze Khan vs NAB and Others2021 SHC 352, 2022 MLD 18 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-24Read full judgment →
- Shamim Akhtar vs Govt of Sindh & Ors2021 SHC 201 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
- Shamdas and others vs Muhammad Hassan and others2021 SHC 986 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
- Shakir Ali and another vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman, Islamabad and another2021 PLC (C.S.) 683 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, employees of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), challenged notifications imposing the major penalty of removal from service and subsequent orders dismissing their departmental appeals by the President of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of removal from service could lawfully be imposed upon a civil servant without conducting a formal inquiry and without providing an opportunity of cross-examination. The Sindh High Court held that except in special circumstances, a civil servant must not be awarded a major penalty without a proper inquiry, and that the discretionary power to dispense with an inquiry must be exercised reasonably with plausible, communicated reasons rather than arbitrarily. The Court ruled that relying solely on a fact-finding inquiry report without joining the employee violates the principles of natural justice and Article 10-A of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court set aside the removal orders and the appellate rejections, remanding the matters for a de novo regular inquiry.
Questions settled- Can a major penalty of removal from service be lawfully imposed on a civil servant without conducting a formal and regular inquiry?
- Whether the competent authority is required to record and communicate plausible reasons when dispensing with a departmental inquiry?
- Does the reliance on a fact-finding committee's report without joining the affected employee violate the principles of natural justice?
- Are appellate authorities such as the President of Pakistan duty-bound to record reasons when deciding statutory service appeals?
- Shakeel Ahmed Malik vs Muhammad Azam and others2021 SHC 1178 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Sajid and another vs Roohullah Jan and 5 others2021 YLR 1688 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-05Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Farrukh Hussain vs Mst. Farah Nishat and 3 others2021 YLR 1363 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-08Read full judgment →
- Shahjahan Lashari S/O Muhammad Essa vs The State2021 SHC 536 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of Crime No. 388/2021 registered at Police Station Baghdadi Karachi South under Sections 6 and 9(c) of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, concerning the alleged recovery of 2,500 grams of charas from the applicant. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the large quantity of narcotics recovered and the applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Court held that since the recovered quantity of charas exceeded the statutory threshold and fell within Clause (c) of Section 9 of the Act of 1997, attracting the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and Section 51 of the Act of 1997, the applicant was not entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the recovered quantity of narcotics falls within the prohibitory clause and is supported by a positive chemical examiner's report, bail will generally be declined, and the non-association of public witnesses alone does not warrant bail at the pre-trial stage.
Questions settled- Whether an accused found in possession of narcotics exceeding the limit prescribed in Clause (c) of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the non-association of public witnesses during the recovery of narcotics constitute sufficient ground for the grant of bail?
- Whether the bar contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 applies to offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Shahid Wahab Siddiqi vs Syed Farhaj Ahmed and 2 others2021 YLR 1060 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged a judgment whereby his acquittal under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was accompanied by a refusal to restore possession of the subject property, which had been taken from him as interim relief during the trial. The core legal question was whether an interim order passed under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act survives the dismissal of the main criminal complaint and acquittal of the accused. The Sindh High Court held that an interim order is provisional and temporary in nature, and upon the dismissal of the complaint, the interim order automatically ceases to exist and merges into the final order, necessitating the restoration of status quo ante. The court laid down the principle that a criminal court exercising jurisdiction under the Illegal Dispossession Act cannot determine civil title or ownership, and upon acquittal or dismissal of the complaint, any interim possession granted to the complainant must be reversed and property restored to the person from whom it was taken.
Questions settled- Does an interim order of dispossession passed under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 survive the dismissal of the main complaint and acquittal of the accused?
- Is a criminal court exercising powers under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 competent to adjudicate upon civil title and ownership of the disputed property?
- What is the legal effect of an interim order upon the final disposal of a criminal case?
- Whether the unproven testimony of a sole attorney is sufficient to establish ownership and illegal dispossession in criminal proceedings?
- Shahid vs LD j.m 3 mtmc tando allahyar & others2021 SHC 167 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two transfer applications concerning criminal cases pending before separate Magisterial Courts in Hyderabad and Tando Allahyar. The applicant sought the consolidation of these cases, which involve allegations of theft and misuse of a cheque, to avoid conflicting judgments. The core legal question was whether two cases arising from the same transaction, currently pending in different jurisdictions, should be tried together by a single court. The Court held that, pursuant to the principles of criminal procedure, persons accused of different offences committed during the course of the same transaction should be tried jointly. Finding that the alleged theft and subsequent misuse of the cheque constituted a single transaction, the Court determined that no prejudice would be caused by consolidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the withdrawal of the case from the Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Hyderabad, and its transfer to the Judicial Magistrate-III, Tando Allahyar, for joint disposal within one month, thereby ensuring procedural efficiency and consistency in the adjudication of related offences.
Questions settled- Can cases involving different offences committed during the course of the same transaction be tried jointly?
- Does the transfer of a case to another court for joint trial cause prejudice to the parties involved?
- Is it appropriate to transfer a case to a different jurisdiction to avoid conflicting judgments?
- Shahid Shafi vs Messrs Quice Food Industries Public Limited Company, Karachi and 7 others2021 YLR 208 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-30Read full judgment →
- Shahid Ali vs The State2021 SHC 904 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
- Shahid Ahmed Khan Qaboolio vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 922 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
- Shahban Jhangwani And Others vs The State2021 SHC 108 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by several accused persons in connection with F.I.R. No. 37/2020 registered at Police Station Naperkot, involving offences under sections 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-H(2), 114, 504, 506(2), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries, the delayed registration of the F.I.R., and the existence of prior enmity between the parties. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the injuries sustained did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as they were punishable by imprisonment of up to five years. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the three-day delay in registering the F.I.R. and the admitted enmity between the parties constituted sufficient grounds to bring the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, necessitating a tentative assessment of the evidence.
Questions settled- Does a three-day delay in the registration of an F.I.R. constitute sufficient grounds to bring a case within the ambit of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Are offences punishable by imprisonment of up to five years considered outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is deep appreciation of evidence permissible when deciding a bail application?
- Shahana Bano vs Govt. of Sindh and Others2021 SHC 608 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-08Read full judgment →
- Shah Jhana Khan Niazi vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 190 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
- Shah Faisal vs The State2021 YLR 244 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, and sentencing him to death for the murder of two policemen. The core legal questions involved the reliability of chance eyewitnesses, the legal validity of an identification parade conducted after an unexplained delay while the accused remained in police custody, and whether circumstantial and forensic evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to untrustworthy eyewitness testimony, flawed identification parade procedures, inadmissible police confessions, and missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and answering the confirmation reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of an uncorroborated chance witness whose presence is unexplained can be relied upon for sustaining a capital conviction?
- Does an unexplained delay in conducting an identification parade while the accused remains in police custody vitiate its evidentiary value?
- Can a confession made before a police officer be treated as admissible evidence against an accused person?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
- Whether medical evidence alone without reliable eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove the identity of the assailant in a murder trial?
- Shafquat Hussain vs The State and another2021 MLD 1914 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a Criminal Transfer Application filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the transfer of summary proceedings related to FIR No. 222 of 2019, registered under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, from the Court of the Consumer Protection Court/Judicial Magistrate, Khairpur. The applicant sought the transfer on the grounds of apprehended bias and a perceived hostile attitude from the presiding Magistrate, alleging a lack of hope for justice. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed to justify the transfer of the case to another jurisdiction. The Court held that the applicant failed to produce any substantial material or evidence to substantiate the allegations of prejudice or bias against the Magistrate. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for being devoid of merit. The principle laid down is that a transfer of proceedings under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires concrete, substantial evidence of bias or prejudice, and mere apprehension without supporting material is insufficient to warrant the transfer of a case.
Questions settled- Is a mere allegation of a hostile attitude by a Magistrate sufficient ground to transfer a criminal case under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the evidentiary threshold required to justify the transfer of a case due to alleged judicial bias?
- Shafique Ahmed Shah vs The Administrator Karachi Metropolitan2021 PLC (C.S.) 949 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioner, who contended that despite the successful completion of his appointment process and the issuance of a posting order, he was not being allowed to join his duties and his departmental representation remained undecided. The core legal question concerned the propriety of invoking constitutional jurisdiction in service matters relating to posting and transfer. The Court held that petty issues regarding posting or transfer should not be brought directly to the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, without first exhausting departmental remedies before the Secretary or Head of the relevant department. The Court disposed of the petition with directions to the competent authority to decide the petitioner's representation within fifteen days, and further laid down the principle that aggrieved employees must first approach the departmental head regarding posting and transfer grievances before approaching the High Court, which is barred from entertaining such constitutional petitions unless the alternative departmental remedy is exhausted.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition be filed directly before the High Court seeking posting or questioning transfer without exhausting departmental remedies?
- What is the procedure to be followed by an employee aggrieved by delay in posting or by a transfer order?
- Within what timeframe must the Secretary or Head of a department decide an application or representation regarding posting or transfer?
- Shafi Mohammad Khan vs Abdul Rehman and 5 others2021 MLD 416 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-16Read full judgment →
- Shabbir vs The State2021 SHC 262 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This post-arrest bail application under Section 497 Cr.P.C. arises out of a case registered against the applicant following the alleged recovery of an unlicensed .30 bore pistol by the police, which was purportedly used in the murder of a police constable. The applicant contended that he was innocent, that the weapon was foisted upon him, that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and that he had already been granted bail in the main murder case while remaining in custody for over six months. The State opposed the bail on the ground that the recovered firearm was connected to a murder. The High Court observed that the allegation of foisted recovery along with the applicant's prior grant of bail in the main murder case and six-month period of custody brought the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing a surety bond.
Questions settled- Whether an accused who has been granted bail in a main murder case is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry in a connected case of recovering an unlicensed weapon?
- Does the alleged foistation of a weapon combined with prior bail in the primary offence constitute sufficient ground for bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
- Shabbir Ahmed vs The State2021 YLR 1392 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused person who has been in custody since March 2015 in connection with several criminal cases pending before an Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether the prolonged detention of the accused, coupled with the vacancy of the presiding officer's court and the accused's deteriorating health, necessitated the transfer of the cases to another court and a directive for medical treatment. The Court held that the right to an expeditious and fair trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. Consequently, the Court ordered the withdrawal of the cases from the vacant Anti-Terrorism Court and their transfer to another Anti-Terrorism Court for expedited disposal. Furthermore, the Court directed the prison authorities to provide necessary medical facilities to the applicant, emphasizing that the object of criminal prosecution is not to punish under-trial prisoners indefinitely. The principle laid down is that the judiciary must ensure timely justice to prevent the erosion of public confidence and to protect the fundamental rights of the accused.
Questions settled- Does the right to an expeditious and fair trial constitute a fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can a High Court transfer cases from a vacant Anti-Terrorism Court to another court to ensure timely disposal?
- Is the state obligated to provide medical treatment to an under-trial prisoner suffering from a chronic illness?
- Shabbir Ahmed Memon & others vs Parvez Ahmed Memon & others2021 SHC 1322 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmed Arif and another vs Rizwan Riaz and 2 others2021 PLD Sindh 286 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-19Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmed Arif & another vs Rizwan Riaz & others2021 SHC 468 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Province of Sindh & 03 others2021 SHC 392 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-02Read full judgment →
- Seamax Marine Services vs The Ministry of Maritime Affairs & two [02]2021 SHC 1066 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-14Read full judgment →
- Seamax Marine Services through Authorized Attorney/Partner vs Ministry2022 PLD Sindh 521 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-14Read full judgment →
- Sartaj vs The State2021 MLD 963 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the appellant's wife. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction and whether the death sentence remained appropriate given the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular evidence credible and corroborated by medical evidence confirming death by strangulation. However, the Court held that because the prosecution failed to prove the motive and the real cause of the occurrence remained shrouded in mystery due to suppression by both parties, the extreme penalty of death was unwarranted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction but allowed it to the extent of the sentence, commuting the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The judgment reaffirms the principle that when a specific motive is asserted but not proven, such failure may react against the imposition of the death penalty.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive for a murder warrant the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
- Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when the ocular evidence is corroborated by medical evidence of strangulation?
- Is the death sentence mandatory in a murder case where the real cause of the occurrence remains shrouded in mystery?
- Sarfraz alias Bhoora vs The State2021 YLR 836 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, along with other allied offenses, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and reliability of the identification of the accused, the presence of credible evidence linking him to the kidnapping for ransom and the subsequent police encounter, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and participation of the appellant, noting that he was not named in the FIR, the primary eyewitness/abductee did not identify him in court and was declared hostile, and no incriminating material connected him to the crime or the ransom call. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, laid down the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and allowed the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an accused can be convicted for kidnapping for ransom when he is not named in the FIR and the primary abductee-witness fails to identify him during the trial?
- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and abductees, to implicate the accused warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt?
- Whether the mere recovery of abductees and rescue site evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction without a credible link to the specific accused?
- Sarfraz Ahmed vs The State2021 MLD 599 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Criminal Jail Appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the possession of 17 kilograms of heroin, punishable under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of police testimony, the impact of the absence of independent witnesses, and the burden of proof regarding the accused's knowledge of the narcotics found in his vehicle. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It affirmed that police evidence is reliable absent proof of enmity. Crucially, the Court held that under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once the recovery of narcotics from the accused's vehicle is established, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of knowledge. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the requirement for independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is excluded for narcotics offenses by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
Questions settled- Does the absence of independent witnesses invalidate a recovery under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Is Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applicable to offenses under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle is established?
- Can police officials be considered reliable witnesses in a narcotics case in the absence of proven enmity?
- Sardar Abdul Hameed vs The Province of Sindh and others2021 YLR 867, 2021 SHC 210 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
- Sapphire Textile Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & othersPTCL 2021 CL. 468 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
- Sapphire Textile Mills Limited through Company Secretary vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division and Ex-Officio Chairman, FBR, Islamabad and othersPTCL 2021 CL. 468, 2021 PTD 971 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The present constitutional petitions challenged the vires of section 5A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which imposed a tax on undistributed profits or reserves of certain public companies. The core legal question was whether matters pertaining to the regulation of corporate behavior regarding dividend distribution could legitimately be enacted through a money bill under Article 73 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, bypassing the regular legislative process. The Sindh High Court held that section 5A was introduced not for general revenue generation, but to supplement company law by incentivizing or regulating dividend distributions by public companies—a subject falling under the regulatory remit of the Companies Act, 2017. The Court ruled that utilizing a money bill for such regulatory purposes is unconstitutional and falls outside the scope of Article 73 and the relevant entries of the Federal Legislative List. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, section 5A was declared ultra vires the Constitution and struck down, and all consequential demand notices were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether section 5A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 falls within the constitutional parameters of a money bill under Article 73 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can provisions regulating corporate behavior and the distribution of dividends be enacted through a money bill?
- Whether the imposition of a tax on undistributed profits to incentivize dividend distribution constitutes a tax levied for a general public purpose under the Federal Legislative List?
- Sanaullah vs The State through Prosecutor General, Sindh and another2021 P Cr. L J 1480 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West, which dismissed the applicant's request under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall and re-examine two prosecution witnesses. The applicant, facing a murder charge, sought to re-cross-examine these witnesses, arguing that his previous counsel had failed to conduct a proper cross-examination, thereby violating his fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether the court should exercise its discretionary power under Section 540, Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses solely because a new counsel desires to pursue a different line of defense. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that Section 540 powers are intended to advance the cause of justice, not to fill lacunae or gaps in the prosecution or defense case. The court established that a trial cannot be delayed or witnesses recalled merely because a party is dissatisfied with the performance of previous counsel, as this would lead to endless litigation and prejudice the administration of justice.
Questions settled- Can a court exercise its powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall witnesses solely because a party is dissatisfied with the performance of their previous counsel?
- Is the power to recall witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 intended to allow parties to fill gaps or lacunae in their case?
- Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 entitle an accused to re-cross-examine witnesses simply to pursue a new line of defense?
- Sanaullah Kakar and another vs The State2021 SHC 816 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
- Samiullah vs The State2021 YLR 452 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which convicted the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and sentenced him to four years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s conviction could be sustained given his acquittal in the main cases from which the present charge was an offshoot, and whether the prosecution’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the recovery of the weapon vitiated the conviction. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, noting that the appellant had already been acquitted in the main cases, and that the present case was an offshoot of those proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution’s case defective due to the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during the recovery, violating the principles of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to acquittal in a case that is an offshoot of a main case in which they have already been acquitted?
- Does the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during a recovery violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
- Samad Pipe Industries vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 1112, 2022 PTD 168 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-01Read full judgment →
- Samad Khan vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 950 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant impugned his conviction and sentence under sections 270 and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an allegation of possessing betel nuts alleged to be poisonous and intended to spread infection. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and reliability of the prosecution's evidence, the unexplained delay in sending samples for chemical examination, the lack of safe custody and transmission proof, and the applicability of section 337-J P.P.C. when no hurt was caused. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish safe custody and transmission of the recovered samples, that the chemical examiner's report did not support the charges applied, and that glaring infirmities rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The key principles laid down include that a single infirmity creating reasonable doubt makes the whole case doubtful, and that the prosecution must prove safe custody and un-tampered transmission of recovered samples to the chemical examiner.
Questions settled- Whether unexplained delay in transmitting samples to the chemical examiner vitiates the prosecution case?
- Is it mandatory for the prosecution to prove the safe custody and transmission of recovered samples?
- Can a conviction under section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when no hurt is caused to any person?
- Does a single infirmity creating reasonable doubt regarding the truth of the charge entitle the accused to acquittal?
- Salman Qureshi vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 930 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-28Read full judgment →
- Salman Bari vs Mst. Samia Khan & another2021 SHC 6 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
- Saleem Khalid vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 119 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application sought post-arrest bail for the applicant-accused, who was charged under sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 for allegedly recording and transmitting obscene videos and photographs of his ex-wife to blackmail and coerce her. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Sindh High Court held that although the offences carried sentences not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail should be denied where the dignity and modesty of a person are compromised and the societal impact is devastating. The court emphasized that the applicant admitted to making and forwarding the explicit videos, establishing a prima facie connection to the crime. The key principle laid down is that while tentative assessment governs bail stages for offences outside the prohibitory clause, judicial discretion to grant bail must be exercised cautiously and can be withheld in cybercrime cases involving grave breaches of personal dignity and modesty.
Questions settled- Whether an accused charged under sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 is entitled to post-arrest bail as a matter of right when the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- How should judicial discretion be exercised in bail matters involving offenses that compromise the dignity and modesty of a person?
- Does the admission of recording and transmitting explicit videos without consent constitute sufficient prima facie material to connect an accused to offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016?
- Saleem Islam vs Syed Zafar-Ul-Islam and another2022 PLD Sindh 278 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
- Saleem Devda vs The State2021 MLD 1551 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The Court found the eye-witness testimony unreliable due to a six-day delay in FIR registration—admittedly for 'consultation'—and a twenty-six-day delay in recording Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 statements. These delays, combined with contradictions regarding the identity of the assailants and the absence of weapon recovery or corroborative evidence, created substantial doubt. The key principle laid down is that an unexplained, significant delay in initiating criminal proceedings and recording witness statements provides sufficient opportunity for deliberation and fabrication, thereby rendering ocular evidence untrustworthy. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused when the prosecution's case lacks credibility and corroboration.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained, significant delay in lodging an FIR, admitted for the purpose of consultation, render the prosecution's case unreliable?
- Can a conviction be sustained when eye-witness statements under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are recorded with an unexplained delay of twenty-six days?
- Is the absence of weapon recovery and corroborative evidence fatal to a prosecution case relying solely on ocular testimony?
- Saleem Butt vs Pakistan, through Secretary Revenue Division and ex-officio2021 SHC 1070, 2022 PTD 716, PTCL 2022 CL. 793 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-31Read full judgment →
- Saleem and others vs The State and others2021 MLD 1184 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentences imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on 'chance witnesses' and lacking forensic corroboration. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, setting aside the convictions and acquitting the appellants. The Court emphasized that the testimony of chance witnesses requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction, especially in serious criminal matters. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the prosecution’s failure to produce the victim for testimony, the absence of medical evidence linking the accused to the crime (such as DNA or semen analysis), and unexplained delays in FIR registration created significant doubts. Applying the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Court ruled that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, and conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy evidence.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of chance witnesses require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction in a capital case?
- Can a conviction for rape be sustained in the absence of medical evidence linking the accused to the crime?
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR and the recording of witness statements create grounds for the benefit of doubt?
- Is the prosecution required to produce the victim for testimony if the victim is deemed fit to testify?
- Saleem Akhtar vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 924 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
- Saleem Ahmed and others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 PTD 1813 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the unilateral suspension and blacklisting of their Sales Tax Registration (STRN) by tax authorities without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. The core legal question was whether Rule 12 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, which permits such suspension, is ultra vires to Section 21 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and the Constitution of Pakistan. The Court held that Rule 12(a)(i) is ultra vires to the Constitution to the extent it authorizes suspension without prior notice. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner’s satisfaction regarding tax fraud must be based on tangible evidence and requires a fair trial process. Consequently, the Court declared that any suspension order issued without confronting the taxpayer or providing an opportunity for a hearing is without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that delegated legislation cannot exceed the parameters of the parent statute, and the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A, alongside the principles of natural justice, mandates that no adverse action can be taken against a taxpayer without due process.
Questions settled- Can a rule framed under a statute expand the scope of the parent statute?
- Does the suspension of a sales tax registration without prior notice violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution?
- What is the legal requirement for a Commissioner to be satisfied before suspending a sales tax registration under Section 21 of the Sales Tax Act 1990?
- Is the power to suspend sales tax registration without notice ultra vires to the Constitution?
- Sajjan Ali Chandio & another vs The State2021 SHC 1194 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicants seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of murder and trespass. The applicants were accused of firing at the complainant, resulting in the death of his daughter. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the investigation findings and the principle of consistency. Upon review, the Court found that the investigation revealed the complainant himself had committed the murder of his daughter and falsely implicated the applicants to settle a dispute. Furthermore, the police had found the applicants innocent during the investigation, and a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail by the trial court. The Court held that taking the applicants into custody would serve no useful purpose, particularly when a similarly placed co-accused was already on bail. Relying on the principle of consistency, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that bail should not be denied or cancelled on technical grounds when other similarly situated accused are at liberty.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the police investigation finds them innocent and the complainant is suspected of the crime?
- Does the principle of consistency apply to the grant of bail when a co-accused with a similar role has already been admitted to bail?
- Sajjad Jatoi and Others vs The State2021 SHC 1306 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, Sajjad Jatoi and others, who were charged with forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to prosecution witnesses with the intent to commit murder. The applicants, having been denied bail by the trial court, sought relief from the High Court under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to them and the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, noting that the injuries attributed to them were bailable in nature, the FIR was lodged with a delay, and there was a pre-existing dispute over landed property between the parties. Furthermore, the Court observed that the case had been challaned and there was no apprehension of evidence tampering. The Court established the principle that where injuries attributed to the accused are bailable and the prosecution case requires further inquiry, particularly in the context of pre-existing civil disputes, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the injuries attributed to them are bailable in nature?
- Does a pre-existing land dispute between the parties constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be granted when the FIR is lodged with a significant delay and there is no apprehension of tampering with evidence?
- Sajid Hussain vs Province Of Sindh and others2021 PLC (C.S.) 430 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns a claim for appointment as a police constable (BPS-5) in the Sindh Police, arising from a recruitment process initiated in 2008-2009. The petitioner alleged that he qualified the written test and interview but was unfairly excluded due to an alleged error regarding his CNIC number on a medical certificate. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the appointment despite being categorized as a failed candidate by the respondents. The court held that the petition was maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, as it did not relate to terms and conditions of service barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. However, on the merits, the court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim. The official record listed the petitioner as a failed candidate, and he could not produce necessary documentation, such as call letters or medical certificates, to prove his eligibility. The court affirmed that without evidence of success in the recruitment process, no relief could be granted.
Questions settled- Is a petition seeking appointment to a government post barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to hear a grievance regarding non-appointment to a government post?
- Can a candidate claim entitlement to a government post without producing evidence of having qualified the recruitment process?
- Sajid Hussain vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 782 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-17Read full judgment →
- Sajid Ali Dharejo vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1340 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-21Read full judgment →
- Sajeel vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1036 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Sajeel seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.70 of 2019 registered at Police Station Nindo for offences under sections 269, 270 and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after his anticipatory bail was declined by the Sessions Court. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the alleged recovery of Gutka sachets and the fact that only a fraction of the recovered sachets were sent for chemical analysis. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail, primarily because only six out of 315 sachets were sent to the chemical examiner and could not serve as representative samples for the rest. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicant, laying down principles regarding chemical analysis and sample representation in prohibited substance cases.
Questions settled- Whether the applicant has made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail under sections 269, 270 and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a limited number of seized sachets sent for chemical analysis serve as representative samples for the entire bulk recovery?
- Does the failure to send all recovered sachets for chemical examination justify confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Saifullah Abro vs Senate Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 2 others2021 PLD Sindh 405 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-01Read full judgment →
- Saifullah Abro vs Senate Appellate Tribunal & Ors2021 SHC 472 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sahoo vs Province Of Sindh, through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 12 others2021 CLC 1748 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-16Read full judgment →
- Sahib Khan vs Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Larkana and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 940 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking a direction to the Deputy Inspector General of Police to conduct a fresh, impartial investigation into a criminal case (FIR No. 33/2019) in which he was named and challaned for Qatl-i-amd. The petitioner alleged false implication and sought to avoid harassment by the police. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to order a re-investigation of a criminal case after a final challan has been submitted and cognizance has been taken by the trial court. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that once a trial court has taken cognizance of an offence, the accused must prove his innocence through his defense during the trial rather than seeking re-investigation. The Court emphasized that the system of successive investigations often retards the administration of justice and is frequently misused by influential parties to obtain favorable reports. Consequently, the Court affirmed that re-investigation is not justified at the cost of the trial process when the accused has adequate legal remedies available within the trial court proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a High Court order a re-investigation of a criminal case after the final challan has been submitted and the trial court has taken cognizance?
- Is a constitutional petition the appropriate remedy for an accused person seeking to prove innocence through re-investigation after being challaned?
- Does the system of successive investigations in criminal cases assist the courts in the administration of justice?
- Saeedo @ Saindad vs The State2021 SHC 1136 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 302(b), 324, and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt through reliable and trustworthy ocular and medical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that material contradictions, improvements, and omissions in the testimonies of eyewitnesses, conflicts between ocular and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries, and discrepancies in the recovery and handling of the dead body rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether material contradictions and improvements in the testimony of eyewitnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
- Does a conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries warrant the acquittal of the accused?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right upon the existence of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt?
- Whether the prosecution's failure to produce reliable and trustworthy evidence results in the setting aside of a conviction?
- Saeed Noor vs State2021 SHC 802, 2024 PCRLJ 1021 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-15Read full judgment →
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 the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involve assessing the credibility of ocular testimony in the face of minor contradictions, the resolution of a discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the specific site of a firearm injury, and whether the non-recovery of the crime weapon or defects in investigation vitiate the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that unimpeachable and confidence-inspiring ocular accounts must be preferred over contradictory medical opinions where the postmortem report itself contains internal inconsistencies, and that minor discrepancies or investigative flaws do not dent a solid prosecution case. The court established the principle that ocular testimony corroborated by reliable eye-witnesses outweighs a defective medical report, and that mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them unreliable in the absence of a strong motive for false implication.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony is to be preferred over medical evidence when there is a contradiction between the two?
- Does the mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased render their evidence untrustworthy?
- Can minor discrepancies and procedural flaws in police investigation form the basis for the acquittal of an accused?
- Does the non-recovery of the weapon of offense vitiate a murder conviction when the accused was arrested long after the incident?
- Saeed Hassan vs National Accountability Bureau & another2021 SHC 1050, 2022 PCr. LJ 815 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-17Read full judgment →
- Saeed Akhtar vs The Government of Sindh and others2021 SHC 838 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-15Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmed Khoso vs The State2021 SHC 688 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Saeed Ahmed, seeking relief in a case registered under Section 397 and Section 337-H(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dismissal of his bail plea by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail despite being nominated in the FIR with a specific role of causing firearm injuries during a robbery, and having a history of involvement in multiple criminal cases. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail. While acknowledging that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court emphasized that bail is a concession, not a right, in non-bailable offences. The Court established the principle that in cases involving serious offences like robbery and dacoity, which threaten public safety and create widespread insecurity, the criminal history of the accused and the gravity of the allegations are critical factors that outweigh the non-prohibitory nature of the offence.
Questions settled- Does the fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Is delay in the lodgment of an FIR, by itself, sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- Can the criminal history of an accused be considered when deciding a bail application for a non-bailable offence?
- Sadullah vs The State2021 SHC 668 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge (CNS), Jacobabad, convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to twelve years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, the credibility of the investigation regarding the alleged recovery of charas, and whether the prosecution established the safe custody and safe transmission of the narcotics sample to the Chemical Examiner. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to serious investigative flaws, including the non-production of the wagon driver, failure to prove safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered substance, and material contradictions in police testimony. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of recovered narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner vitiate the conviction?
- Whether material contradictions and flawed investigative procedures in a narcotics case entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
- Is the non-production of material witnesses like the driver of the alleged vehicle fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Sadique Ali Sabzoi vs The State2021 SHC 724 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for offenses including murder and dacoity. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant delays in FIR registration, material contradictions in ocular evidence, and an unexplained delay in conducting post-mortems. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case, citing multiple material contradictions in witness testimony, the suspicious nature of the investigation—including the reliance on tracker dogs and the involvement of an influential person—and the unexplained delay in medical examinations. The court emphasized that when reasonable doubt exists, the benefit must be extended to the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the death sentence was annulled, and the appellant was acquitted. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions in prosecution evidence, coupled with unexplained delays in FIR registration and autopsy, render the prosecution's case doubtful, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in conducting an autopsy create a dent in the prosecution's case regarding the presence of eye-witnesses?
- Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions between the ocular evidence and the investigation reports?
- Does the acquittal of an accused in a related case regarding the recovery of a weapon affect the prosecution's case in the main trial?
- Is the benefit of the doubt a matter of grace or a matter of right for an accused when reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's evidence?
- Saddique Ali Laghari vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 742 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
- Sachedino Kalwar vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 648 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-05Read full judgment →