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.

• Sabir Ali Khoso vs The State2021 SHC 884 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-02
  post-arrest bailnarcoticschemical examiner reportspeedy trialtentative assessmentsafe custodyfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, who were charged under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the alleged recovery of 2000 grams of Charas from each individual. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given their claims of false implication, alleged procedural delays in the chemical examination, and questions regarding the safe custody of the contraband. The Court held that the bail application must be dismissed, reasoning that the positive chemical report and the circumstances of the arrest established a prima facie case. The Court affirmed that issues concerning the chain of custody and the timing of chemical reports are evidentiary matters that require deeper appreciation during the trial, which cannot be resolved at the tentative assessment stage of a bail hearing. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that while bail is denied, the accused possesses a fundamental right to a speedy trial, directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Can issues regarding the safe custody of recovered narcotics be determined at the bail stage?
  • Is a delay in the receipt of a chemical examiner's report sufficient grounds to grant post-arrest bail in a narcotics case?
  • Does the right to a speedy trial constitute a fundamental right for an accused person?
  • Should a court conduct a deep appreciation of evidence when deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• S.M.E. Leasing Limited vs Messrs Hilton Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and 4 others2021 MLD 1230 · Sindh High Court · 2013-10-03Read full judgment →
• S.M. Ali Zaman Gardezi and another vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary (Revenue Division) and others2021 PTD 1788 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-25
  Federal Investigation AgencyFederal Tax OmbudsmanCustoms ActAmnesty Schemejurisdictionmalafidequasi-judicial proceedingssub-judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by customs officers and civil servants of the Federal Board of Revenue challenging inquiries initiated against them by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) pursuant to directions issued by the Federal Tax Ombudsman regarding the implementation of an Amnesty Scheme for smuggled vehicles under SRO No. 172(I)/2013. The core legal questions concern whether the FIA and the Federal Tax Ombudsman possess the jurisdiction to initiate inquiries and duplicate proceedings regarding quasi-judicial tax adjudication and matters already sub-judice and decided by a High Court. The court held that the FIA lacks jurisdiction to inquire into matters under tax and customs laws not included in its statutory schedule, that the Federal Tax Ombudsman cannot assume suo motu jurisdiction over matters sub-judice before a competent court or without statutory notice, and that initiating duplicate proceedings constitutes an abuse of process. The court established the key principles that executive investigating agencies cannot sit in judgment over quasi-judicial tax adjudications, that matters sub-judice before a High Court cannot be investigated concurrently by other authorities, and that inquiries initiated without statutory jurisdiction and procedural compliance are void ab initio.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have the jurisdiction to initiate inquiries into assessment and adjudication orders passed under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Can the Federal Tax Ombudsman initiate suo motu proceedings or issue directives of inquiry into matters that are sub-judice before a High Court?
  • Whether an inquiry initiated against public servants without complying with the mandatory procedural requirements of the Federal Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 and relevant rules is sustainable in law?
  • Does the initiation of duplicate proceedings by an investigating agency in respect of a matter already validated by a competent High Court constitute double jeopardy and abuse of process?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustam vs The State2021 SHC 173 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20
  criminal appealmurder convictionabsconding accusedrecording of evidenceright to confrontationprocedural irregularityremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for the murder of Muhammad Alam, as determined by the Sessions Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan, on April 5, 2018. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether a conviction is legally sustainable when it relies on evidence recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the appellant's period as an absconder, without providing the appellant the opportunity to confront witnesses in his presence during the trial. Both the appellant's counsel and the Assistant Prosecutor General conceded that the trial court's procedure violated the mandatory requirement of Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which necessitates that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused. Finding merit in this contention, the Court set aside the impugned judgment. The High Court held that the trial court must record the evidence of the complainant and witnesses afresh in the presence of the appellant, establishing the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained if the trial court fails to ensure the accused's presence during the examination of witnesses as mandated by procedural law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court convict an accused based on evidence recorded under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without re-examining witnesses in the presence of the accused?
  • Does the failure to examine witnesses in the presence of the accused, as required by Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiate a conviction?
  • Is it legally permissible for a trial court to rely on evidence recorded during the absence of an accused without providing an opportunity for cross-examination in the accused's presence?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali vs The State2021 SHC 94 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-15
  pre-arrest bailcriminal proceduredelay in FIRrule of consistencyunlawful assemblyfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered for offences relating to unlawful assembly, causing lathi injuries, insult, and criminal intimidation. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of malafide, delayed FIR, rule of consistency with co-accused, and no objection from the complainant and the State. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant had made out a case for pre-arrest bail, noting an unexplained five-day delay in lodging the FIR, the grant of bail to co-accused persons, a pre-existing civil dispute over a passage between the parties, and the express no-objection of the Assistant Prosecutor General and the complainant. The court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant on the same terms and conditions, reinforcing principles of consistency and further inquiry in criminal jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report can form a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the grant of bail to co-accused persons entitle another accused to bail on the rule of consistency?
  • Whether the lack of opposition from the State and the complainant is a relevant factor in confirming pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Saeed and 3 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and 4 others2021 CLC 1437 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-02Read full judgment →
• Rindz Mari and others vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Mines and Mineral Development Department, Karachi and 8 others2021 CLD 1195 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
• Rida Tahir vs Province Of Sindh and others2021 CLC 958 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs Province of Sindh and 07 others2021 SHC 554 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-10
  service promotionlocus standiannual confidential reportsjurisdiction barconstitutional petitionservice tribunalprovincial selection board
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed by a project director challenging the decision of the Provincial Selection Board No.II allowing the promotion of a private respondent to the post of Superintending Engineer despite the absence of certain Annual Confidential Reports. The core legal questions involve whether a petitioner without infringed fundamental rights has locus standi to challenge a service promotion, whether such service matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether evaluation by a selection board is amenable to judicial interference. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution read with the Service Tribunal Act, as the matter pertained strictly to terms and conditions of service. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, laying down the principle that High Courts will not readily interfere with the expert evaluation of promotion boards, and that the preparation of ACRs is the departmental duty of the administration rather than the employee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant has locus standi to challenge the promotion of a fellow employee without demonstrating an infraction of a fundamental right?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution to entertain a petition regarding service promotion and terms and conditions of service?
  • Is the preparation and presentation of Annual Confidential Reports the duty of the department or the civil servant?
  • Should the High Court interfere with the evaluation made by an expert committee or selection board regarding promotions?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Chairman, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and others2021 P Cr. L J 1182 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-22
  post-arrest bailhardship groundstrial delayNational Accountability Bureauassets beyond known sources of incomeFisherman Cooperative Society
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses petitions for post-arrest bail filed by Riaz Ahmed and Sultan Qamar Siddiqi on hardship grounds in connection with corruption references involving illegal appointments, fake companies, and accumulation of assets beyond known sources of income under accountability laws. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of delay and undue hardship, given their approximately two-year incarceration and the status of ongoing trials. The Sindh High Court held that the period of custody and the delay caused were not shocking, unconscionable, or inordinate—particularly since some delay was attributable to the petitioners themselves and the concerned accountability courts were now functional. Consequently, the bail petitions were dismissed, but the trial court was directed to conclude the trials expeditiously within four months on a day-to-day basis. The key principle laid down is that bail on hardship grounds due to trial delay will not be granted where the delay is not shocking or unconscionable, where the accused contributed to the delay, and where the trial court is actively functioning and capable of concluding the proceedings within a reasonable timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail on hardship grounds solely on the basis of a two-year period of incarceration?
  • Does delay in trial attributable in part to the accused disentitle them from claiming bail on hardship grounds?
  • Under what circumstances will a court refuse post-arrest bail despite prolonged detention in accountability references?
  Read full judgment →
• Riasat Khan vs Arshad Ali Bhutto and 2 others2021 CLC 976 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-25Read full judgment →
• Reliance Petrochemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized2021 PTD 1082 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-01Read full judgment →
• Rehmeed Raja vs SSP Sba & Others2021 SHC 906 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Nabi Bux and others2021 SHC 252 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
• Rehan Arif vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 654 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-22Read full judgment →
• Razia Kubra vs State and 3 othersPLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1820 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-21
  Zina-bil-JabrDNA evidenceTazkiatus-shuhoodHudood lawsTa'zircriminal appealremandevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a trial court judgment that acquitted the accused in a case involving allegations of kidnapping and Zina. The core legal question was whether a trial court can refuse to convict for Zina-bil-Jabr solely due to the absence of four eyewitnesses, thereby ignoring DNA evidence and the possibility of conviction under Ta'zir. The High Court held that the trial court erred by strictly applying the Hudood standard of proof (Tazkiatus-shuhood) while disregarding the evidentiary value of modern scientific techniques like DNA testing. The Court emphasized that while four witnesses are required for Hudood punishment, convictions for Zina-bil-Jabr can be sustained under Ta'zir based on the victim's testimony, especially when corroborated by medical or scientific evidence. The principle laid down is that the absence of four eyewitnesses does not preclude a conviction under Ta'zir, and courts must consider DNA evidence under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, rather than relying exclusively on the Hudood evidentiary standard. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a prosecutrix sufficient for conviction in a Zina-bil-Jabr case without corroboration?
  • Can a court rely on DNA evidence in cases involving Zina-bil-Jabr?
  • Does the failure to produce four eyewitnesses preclude a conviction for Zina under Ta'zir?
  • Is the standard of proof required for Hudood punishment applicable to convictions under Ta'zir?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Muhammad and another vs The State2021 SHC 1259 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-10
  post-arrest bailmurdervicarious liabilityfurther inquiryunlawful assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by applicant Manzoor under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case relating to murder committed by an unlawful assembly with fire shot injuries. The core legal question is whether the applicant, to whom no effective role is attributed and whose liability is vicarious, makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that since no effective role was attributed to the applicant and his participation based on vicarious liability required determination at trial, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing required surety bonds, laying down the principle that where an accused's participation is based on vicarious liability without an active role assigned, the matter calls for further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused with no effective role attributed and facing allegations based on vicarious liability is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does a case involving determination of vicarious liability at trial fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rawat and 3 others vs The State2021 YLR 2147 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-17
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtabatement of appealunnamed accusedreappraisal of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the pendency of the appeal, three of the appellants died natural deaths, and proceedings against them accordingly abated, leaving the appeal to be decided solely with respect to the surviving appellant, Wahid Bux alias Wahid Dino. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction of the surviving appellant could be sustained when he was not named in the First Information Report, was not assigned any role by material eyewitnesses, and was implicated solely based on inadmissible police statements and co-accused statements without corroborative evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting material discrepancies, the absence of his name in the FIR or eyewitness testimonies, and the lack of incriminating recoveries. The court laid down the principle that even a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against conviction abates upon the natural death of an appellant during the pendency of the proceedings?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the accused is neither named in the First Information Report nor implicated by material eyewitnesses during trial?
  • Can a statement made by a co-accused before the police serve as legal basis for the conviction of another accused?
  • What is the legal effect of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case against an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux vs The State2021 YLR 1906 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-31
  illegal arms possessionrecovery proceedingsballistic expert reportdelay in forensic analysisSection 103 Cr.P.C.criminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be maintained when the appellant had already been acquitted in the primary case from which the current charge arose, and whether the prosecution proved the recovery of the weapon beyond reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that since the appellant was acquitted in the main case based on the same evidence, the current conviction was unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the requirements of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the association of independent witnesses during recovery are mandatory. Additionally, the Court established that an unexplained delay in transmitting a recovered weapon to the Ballistic Expert creates significant doubt, rendering the forensic report unreliable and insufficient to support a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of an accused in a primary case necessitate the acquittal in a secondary case arising from the same evidence?
  • Is the association of independent witnesses mandatory for the recovery of weapons under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending a recovered weapon to the Ballistic Expert render the forensic report unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux Phulpoto vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet2021 P Cr. L J 190 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-22
  accountability court powerssupplementary referenceexoneration of accusednational accountability ordinancesuo motu powerswithdrawal of prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition challenging an order of an Accountability Court that directed the inclusion of the petitioner's name as an accused in a supplementary reference filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The core legal questions revolved around whether an Accountability Court possesses the suo motu power to order the addition of a person as an accused in a reference, and whether NAB could exonerate an accused through a supplementary reference without following prescribed withdrawal procedures. The Sindh High Court held that an Accountability Court has no power in law to include new persons in the list of accused or substitute its own opinion for that of the investigating officer, and similarly, NAB could not unilaterally exonerate an accused in a supplementary reference where the accused was part of the original transferred case. The key principles laid down are that Accountability Courts cannot add accused persons to references on their own accord, and NAB must follow proper statutory procedures such as section 31-B of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 if it intends to withdraw a prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Accountability Court have the power to order the inclusion of a new person as an accused in a reference?
  • Can NAB exonerate an accused person through a supplementary reference after a case has been transferred under section 16-A(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • What is the proper legal procedure for NAB to withdraw a prosecution against an accused?
  • How is a transferred case under section 16-A(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 treated before an Accountability Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali vs Manzoor Ahmed2021 SHC 1332 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20
  pre-arrest bailabetmentfurther inquirycriminal procedureFIR investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Rashid Ali, who is accused in FIR No. 124/2021 registered at Police Station Gambat. The applicant sought relief after his initial pre-arrest bail plea was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Khairpur. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant, who was alleged to have instigated the co-accused, met the threshold for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the evidentiary record. Upon reviewing the material, the court observed that the investigation failed to produce evidence placing the applicant at the scene of the incident or establishing the specific time and manner of the alleged abetment. Consequently, the court held that the applicant's case warranted further inquiry, thereby entitling him to the confirmation of his interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to provide material evidence linking an accused to the alleged offense, particularly regarding allegations of instigation or abetment, the case requires further inquiry, justifying the grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of evidence placing an accused at the scene of the crime or specifying the time of alleged abetment entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a case of alleged instigation subject to further inquiry when the investigation fails to produce supporting material?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Talib Hussain & others vs SSGC2021 SHC 958 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
• Rao Taj Muhammad vs Secretary Establishment & others2021 SHC 24 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Daim vs Province of Sindh and Ors2021 SHC 200 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-22Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Azeem vs Government of Sindh & others2021 SHC 382 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-30
  disciplinary proceedingscivil servantservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of serviceouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, a police official, by the respondent-Police Department via a show-cause notice issued under the Sindh Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1988. The core legal question is whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against ongoing disciplinary proceedings involving a civil servant, or if such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The Court held that, pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 3(2) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1974, the High Court's jurisdiction is barred in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including disciplinary proceedings. The Court affirmed that the Service Tribunal holds exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction for the competent authority to conclude the pending disciplinary proceedings within two months, ensuring the petitioner is provided a meaningful hearing and that his defense is duly considered.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging ongoing disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  • Does the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1974 grant the Service Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary matters of civil servants?
  • Can the High Court interfere in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ranjan vs The State2021 SHC 64 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed FIRcounter versionunlawful assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal case where the applicant sought post-arrest bail after being refused by the Sessions Court. The applicant was charged along with others for forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to the complainant and prosecution witnesses with iron rods and lathies. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry, considering the delayed FIR, counter version of the incident, and a pre-existing dispute over a fish pond. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant made out a case for further inquiry due to an unexplained sixteen-day delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of a counter version requiring trial determination, and the underlying property dispute. The court laid down the principle that unexplained delay in FIR registration and the presence of a counter version are material considerations warranting the grant of post-arrest bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR constitutes a ground for post-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of a counter version of the incident make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether bail should be granted when parties have a pre-existing property dispute and attribute specific roles in a delayed FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 509 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-02
  post-arrest bailhazardous gutkamawa recoveryprohibitory clausefurther inquirypolice witnessescomplainant as investigating officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Rahim, who was accused in Crime No.141/2019 registered under sections 269, 270, and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gharo for allegedly possessing and selling banned and hazardous Gutka/Mawa. The core legal question was whether the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that offences under sections 269 and 270 are bailable, no poisonous substance was administered to anyone under section 337-J, the case relied entirely on police witnesses without independent mashirs from a populated area, and the complainant also acted as the investigating officer. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The key principle laid down is that where a narcotics or hazardous substance case rests solely on police evidence without independent corroboration, the complainant also acts as the investigating officer, and offences do not fall squarely within the prohibitory clause, the scales tilt in favour of granting post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent private mashirs in a populated area warrant post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Whether a case where the complainant also acts as the investigating officer requires minute scrutiny of evidence, favouring bail?
  • Does an offence under section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code attract the prohibitory clause when no poisonous material has been administered to any person?
  • Whether continuous custody of an accused without the necessity of further investigation entitles them to post-arrest bail under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheem Bux S/O Allah Bux vs Rubina Qadir, D.P.G2021 SHC 990 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryControl of Narcotic Substances Actrule of consistencystatutory bar to bailquantity of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the alleged recovery of 2010 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the statutory bar to bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 applied to the applicant given the quantity of narcotics recovered and the rule of consistency regarding co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Court held that the bar to bail under Section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is not attracted where the quantity of narcotics recovered does not reach the threshold (10 kilograms) required to trigger the maximum punishment of death or life imprisonment. Relying on the principle established in Khuda Bakhsh v. The State (2015 SCMR 735), the Court determined that the offence did not fall within the category attracting the statutory prohibition against bail. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, emphasizing that the degree of punishment and the applicability of bail bars are contingent upon the specific quantity of the narcotic substance recovered.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory bar to bail under Section 51(1) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply to offences involving less than 10 kilograms of narcotics?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency if co-accused with similar roles have already been granted bail?
  • Does the degree of punishment under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 depend on the quantity of the narcotic recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheem Bux alias Hakim Ali Chachar vs The State2021 SHC 890 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-06
  pre-arrest bailmurderous assaultdelayed FIRtentative assessmentbail confirmationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail before-arrest application filed by the applicant, Raheem Bux alias Hakim Ali Chachar, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, which denied him pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324, 337-H (2), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of a murderous assault, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that the injuries sustained by the complainant's brother were not declared dangerous and that the incident stemmed from a pre-existing dispute between the parties. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail, directing the applicant to face trial. The key principle laid down is that where injuries are not dangerous and the incident arises from a prior dispute, the incarceration of an accused pending trial may not serve a useful purpose, thereby justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of dangerous injuries justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case involving a firearm assault?
  • Can a trial court cancel bail if the accused misuses the concession of bail during proceedings?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding on a pre-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Quratulain Ibrahim Arain vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary2021 MLD 1215 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Qazi Badar-ur-Rehman and others vs Mst. Adiyati Bai and others2021 SHC 1164 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
• Qasim vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1222 · Sindh High Court · 2013-01-04
  post-arrest bailunnamed accuseddelayed FIRdelayed statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.identification paradefurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, arising from Sessions Case No.372/2011 relating to Crime No.79/2011 registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Mirpur Mathelo, District Ghotki. The core legal question concerns whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused was not named in the initial FIR, was implicated thirteen days later via statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by interested witnesses, no identification parade was held, and no recovery was effected from the accused. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay in nominating the accused, the lack of an identification parade, the absence of any recovery, and the circumstances surrounding the eyewitnesses' delayed statements brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The Court laid down the principle that unexplained and belated naming of an accused who was initially unknown, coupled with the absence of an identification parade and lack of incriminating recoveries, creates reasonable grounds for further inquiry, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not named in the FIR and implicated after a considerable delay through statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. without an identification parade is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the absence of an identification parade when the accused was initially unknown to the eyewitnesses create a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused facing similar allegations have been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar Zaman vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Home Department2021 MLD 304 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
• Qadir Khan Mandokhail Asc vs Election Commission of Pakistan & Others2021 SHC 1094 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-23Read full judgment →
• Province Of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh and another2021 YLR 525 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Lubna Ansari Baig vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 1098 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-14Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Hakim Ali Abro vs Faqeer Bakhat Hussain & Others2021 SHC 1268 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-13
  criminal acquittal appealprivate complaintspecial leave to appealmaintainability of appealprocedural lawacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal acquittal appeal filed by the appellant against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, which acquitted the private respondents of an offence under Section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a direct complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an acquittal in a private complaint case is maintainable without first obtaining special leave to appeal from the High Court. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent because the appellant failed to obtain the mandatory special leave to appeal as prescribed by law. The Court reasoned that under the relevant statutory framework, an acquittal order resulting from a private complaint can only be challenged after obtaining special leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the requirement for special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a mandatory procedural prerequisite for challenging an acquittal in a private complaint case, and failure to obtain such leave renders the appeal incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal against an acquittal in a private complaint case maintainable without obtaining special leave to appeal?
  • Can a trial court record an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording evidence?
  • Does the failure to obtain special leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render a criminal acquittal appeal incompetent?
  Read full judgment →
• Professor (Retd) Syed Anwer Ali and another vs Province of Sindh and 032021 SHC 28 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Muhammad Zahid vs The Chancellor, Federal Urdu University Of Arts, Science And Technology (Fuuast), Islamabad and 8 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1144 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-28
  constitutional petitionVice-Chancellor appointmentSearch Committeeoutsourcing of statutory dutiesuniversity administrationshortlisting of candidatesacademic merit
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition was filed to challenge the appointment of certain members to the Search Committee and the rejection of the petitioner's application for the post of Vice-Chancellor of the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology (FUUAST). The core legal questions involved the legality of the Search Committee's composition, allegations of bias against its members, and whether the Search Committee could lawfully outsource its shortlisting and scoring functions to independent enumerators. The Sindh High Court held that the nomination of the impugned members was in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and that allegations of bias were unsubstantiated; however, the Court ruled that the Search Committee gravely erred by outsourcing its statutory duty of shortlisting and scoring candidates to independent enumerators. The Court set aside the scoring exercise conducted by the enumerators and directed the Search Committee to conduct the selection process de novo by itself in a fair and transparent manner in accordance with Section 12 of the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology, Islamabad Ordinance, 2002.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Search Committee constituted for the appointment of a University Vice-Chancellor outsource its statutory task of shortlisting and scoring candidates to independent enumerators?
  • Whether the nomination of members to a University Search Committee can be challenged on the ground of prior show-cause notices when no formal departmental action has been taken against them?
  • Does Section 12 of the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology, Islamabad Ordinance, 2002 empower the Search Committee to delegate its core responsibilities of scrutinizing candidate credentials?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Muhammad Zahid vs The Chancellor, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology & others2021 SHC 476 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-28Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Muhammad Zahid vs Chancellor, Federal Urdu University Of Arts, Science And Technology and others2021 PLJ Karachi 144 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-28Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Lubna Ansari Baig vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary2021 PLC (C.S.) 1304 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-14
  interlocutory injunctionad-interim orderappointment of vice chancellorcontempt of courtcivil appealinterim relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal arose from an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge in a civil suit. The appellant, a candidate for the post of Vice Chancellor of Jinnah Sindh Medical University, had initially obtained an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from finalizing the selection list. Despite this operating injunction, the provincial government issued a notification appointing another candidate as Vice Chancellor. The appellant filed fresh applications to suspend the notification. The Single Judge issued notices on these applications but declined to suspend the notification, observing that suspension would adversely affect the university's functioning, while simultaneously extending the earlier injunction. The High Court observed that the Single Judge's adverse remarks at the notice stage were unnecessary, contradictory to the operating injunction, and showed premature conclusiveness. Holding that the subsequent appointment notification was prima facie contemptuous of the operating injunction, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the adverse observations, and suspended the appointment notification pending final disposal of the applications by the Single Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court make conclusive adverse observations on the merits of a notification at the stage of issuing notices on an injunction application?
  • Whether an administrative authority can issue an appointment notification while an active court injunction restraining the finalization of such appointment is in field?
  • Is a follow-up ad-interim order necessary to carry out the real object of an earlier operating injunction when subsequent actions are taken in violation of it?
  Read full judgment →
• Prince Muhammad Fahad Thaheem and others vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 YLR 1150 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-29Read full judgment →
• Preetam vs Madhu Das Godwal and another2021 MLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux @ Peeru vs The State2021 SHC 54 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-15
  pre-arrest baildelayed FIRpolitical rivalryfurther inquirymalafidecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused of attempting to commit sodomy against two prosecution witnesses. The applicants, having been denied pre-arrest bail by the trial court, approached the High Court under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, contending that they were falsely implicated due to political rivalry and highlighting a seven-day delay in the registration of the FIR. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail based on the grounds of malafide and the necessity for further inquiry. The Court held that the significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with an additional day's delay in recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that unexplained, substantial delays in criminal reporting and investigation, alongside allegations of political enmity, constitute valid grounds for granting pre-arrest bail on the basis of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained seven-day delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can allegations of political rivalry between parties justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a delay in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a relevant factor in bail adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Ali Shah through Legal Representatives and others vs Muhammad2021 MLD 1603 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-11Read full judgment →
• Pervez Laghari vs Mst. Naseema and another2021 YLR 2057 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-21Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ahmed Soomro vs P.O Sindh through Secretary Home Dept: &2021 SHC 1304 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-16Read full judgment →
• Penta International vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2021 SHC 572 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-08Read full judgment →
• Peeral Magsi and another vs The State2021 YLR 2412 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-24
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusinterested witnessescounter-FIRSection 342 statementacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the existence of a counter-FIR and conflicting evidence regarding the aggressor. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, noting that the eye-witnesses were interested, unreliable, and contradicted by medical evidence regarding the appellants' own injuries. The Court found the defense's version—that the deceased was killed during an altercation where the complainant party was also armed—to be plausible. Applying the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the Court disregarded the prosecution's evidence. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the failure to put specific incriminating questions to the accused during their Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 examination precluded reliance on those facts for conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants and acquitting them of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Can an accused be convicted based on evidence not put to them during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Must the evidence of interested witnesses be corroborated by independent evidence to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Peer Deedar Ahmed Sarhandi vs The State2021 SHC 590 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-29
  abatement of appealdeath of appellantfinancial liabilityembezzlementNational Accountability Ordinancerecovery of fineestate of deceased convict
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a judgment by the Accountability Court convicting the appellant, former divisional head of the vigilance cell of Habib Bank Limited, under Sections 9(a)(iii), (iv) and (vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and sentencing him under Section 10(a) of the same Ordinance to 14 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, following allegations of unauthorized release of impounded vehicles and embezzlement causing a colossal loss to the bank. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant expired. The core legal question was whether an appeal abates entirely upon the death of the appellant or whether it must be decided on merits where financial liabilities and fines affect the estate and legal heirs. The Sindh High Court held that while corporal punishments abate upon the death of a convict, the appeal must be decided on its merits to determine financial liabilities and recovery of fines from the estate devolving upon the legal heirs pursuant to Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Upon reviewing the merits, the court found the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the conviction and financial penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal appeal abate entirely upon the death of the appellant or must it be decided on merits when financial liabilities are attached to the estate?
  • Can a fine imposed upon a convicted person under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 be recovered from the assets devolving upon his legal heirs after his death?
  • Whether the unauthorized release of impounded vehicles by a bank official constitutes criminal breach of trust and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Pathan Khan son of Gul Hassan Lolai vs The State2021 SHC 870 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-30
  pre-arrest bailarbitrary arrestfair trialpolice powersmala fidecriminal procedurenon-vital injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of attempted murder and other offenses. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail despite being nominated in the FIR, particularly where there are discrepancies between the medical report and the prosecution's allegations, and where a pre-existing civil dispute suggests potential mala fide. The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, reasoning that the injuries were on non-vital parts and the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's claim regarding the nature of the weapon and injury, necessitating a trial for determination. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is a check on arbitrary police power and that the right to a fair trial under the Constitution requires courts to assess whether there is sufficient incriminating material to justify arrest, rather than solely requiring proof of mala fide. The principle laid down is that the necessity of arrest must be justified by the investigating officer, and where incriminating material is lacking or the arrest serves no useful purpose, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Is the existence of a civil dispute between parties a valid consideration for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 require courts to move beyond the strict requirement of proving mala fide for pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a police officer's power to arrest under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permissive or obligatory?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's allegations regarding the nature of the injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and 2 others vs Wadero Lal Bux2021 CLC 1609 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-03
  second appealcantonment landrevenue recordmutation entrylimitationdeclaration of titlespecial lawestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal was filed by the Ministry of Defence challenging the first appellate court's judgment and decree, which had set aside the trial court's dismissal of the respondent's suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and possession of 49-21 acres of land. The respondent claimed ownership by inheritance from his grandfather, asserting that the land was illegally occupied by the military. The appellants contended that the land was cantonment land classified as 'B-4' and owned by the Federal Government. The High Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment for failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the CPC. Deciding the case on its merits under Order XLI, Rule 24 of the CPC, the High Court held that the respondent failed to prove his title, as mere entries in revenue records do not establish ownership without a valid title document. Furthermore, since the land was located in a cantonment area, the Cantonment Land Administration Rules applied as special law, overriding general land revenue laws. The suit was also held to be hopelessly time-barred under the Limitation Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory for a first appellate court's judgment?
  • Can a High Court decide the entire controversy of a case under Order XLI, Rule 24 of the CPC after setting aside an appellate court's judgment, rather than remanding it?
  • Whether general land revenue laws apply to lands situated within cantonment areas governed by the Cantonment Act and Cantonment Land Administration Rules?
  • Do simple mutation entries in revenue records establish a legal title to property in the absence of a valid title document?
  • Is a court bound to dismiss a suit under Section 3 of the Limitation Act if it is found to be time-barred, even if the question of limitation was not actively agitated by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chairman vs Jan2021 PLD Sindh 241 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-20Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited vs Messrs Jawed Pervaiz Enterprises2021 PLD Sindh 76 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-30Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Reinsurance Company Limited vs Wafaqi Mohtasib2021 CLC 1075, 2021 SHC 216 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-16Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mobile Communication Ltd vs Pakistan / Federation of Pakistan &2021 SHC 576, PTCL 2022 CL. 636 , 2022 PTD 266 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-08
  18th Amendmentlegislative competencefederal excise dutysales tax on servicesultra virestaxing eventprovincial autonomytelecommunication services
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the constitutional validity of the insertion of Serial No. 6A into Table-II of the First Schedule to the Federal Excise Act, 2005, via the Finance Act 2021, which imposed a federal excise duty on telecommunication services. The petitioners challenged this levy, arguing that the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan, specifically the amendment to Entry 49 of the Federal Legislative List, transferred the legislative competence to tax services to the provinces, thereby rendering the federal levy ultra vires. The respondents contended that the federation retained authority under Article 151 and various entries of the Federal Legislative List regarding inter-provincial trade and commerce. The Court held that the 18th Amendment effectively shifted the taxing power regarding the rendering or providing of services to the provinces. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned Entry 6A unconstitutional, ruling that the Federation lacks the legislative competence to impose such duties on services within a province that has already enacted its own sales tax legislation, such as the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan divest the Federation of the legislative competence to impose excise duty on the rendering of services within a province?
  • Can the Federation and a Province simultaneously exercise taxing power over the same taxing event of rendering or providing services?
  • Does Article 151 of the Constitution authorize the Federation to levy taxes on services that are not inter-provincial in nature?
  • Does the granting of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court against a judgment operate as a stay or suspension of the law declared in that judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mobile Communication Limited (Mobilink) and others vs Province2021 CLD 629 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-22Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Broadcasters Association vs Federation of Pakistan & another2021 SHC 496 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Beverage Ltd & Ors vs Fed. of Pakistan & Ors2021 SHC 470 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Battery MFG Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Muhammad Fahad2021 CLC 1021 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-09Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Association of Private Medical & Dental Institutes vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 180 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Airline Pilots' Association through Honorary General Secretary and 4 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary for Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and another2021 PLC (C.S.) 860 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-29
  essential services maintenancearbitration agreementstay of legal proceedingstermination of working agreementcollective bargaining agentfreedom of associationspecific performanceinterim injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit for declaration and injunction filed by the Pakistan Airline Pilots' Association (PALPA) and individual pilots challenging a notification issued by the Ministry of Interior under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 declaring employment in Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) to be an essential service, and challenging a notice issued by PIA de-recognizing PALPA as a representative body and terminating their working agreement. PIA filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to stay the suit proceedings and refer the dispute to arbitration. The Sindh High Court held that the notification under the 1952 Act was validly issued with proper formation of opinion by the Federal Government, and that the dispute regarding the termination of the working agreement fell squarely within the arbitration clause of the agreement. The Court further held that service contracts and determinable agreements cannot be specifically enforced under the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and that the interim relief sought under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable in an ordinary civil suit. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' injunction application and allowed PIA's application under Section 34, staying the suit proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government has the authority under Section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 to declare employment in PIA as an essential service?
  • Does a dispute regarding the termination of a working agreement containing an arbitration clause fall within the scope of 'all disputes' for referral to arbitration?
  • Can a contract of employment or working agreement without a termination clause be terminated by a party?
  • Whether an interim injunction or protective order under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 can be granted in an ordinary civil suit where no arbitration proceedings are independently pending under Section 20?
  • Does registration of an association under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 confer a statutory right to act as a Collective Bargaining Agent or representative body for negotiating service conditions?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Airline Pilots Association through Honorary General Secretary and 4 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary for Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and another2021 MLD 1059 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-29
  essential servicesarbitration agreementinterim injunctionspecific performancecontract terminationcivil suit stayfreedom of association
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs, an association of pilots (PALPA) and individual pilots, filed a suit challenging a government notification declaring employment in Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) an essential service under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and a notice by PIA terminating their Working Agreement. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the government notification and the arbitrability of the dispute regarding the agreement's termination. The court held that the government's notification was validly issued under the 1952 Act, as the government had formed the requisite opinion regarding essential services. Regarding the termination of the Working Agreement, the court ruled that the dispute was arbitrable under the agreement's arbitration clause. Furthermore, the court held that it could not exercise jurisdiction under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to grant interim relief in an ordinary civil suit where no arbitration proceeding was pending. The court affirmed that contracts lacking a termination clause are not perpetual but are determinable in nature. Consequently, the suit was stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government notification declaring employment as an essential service be challenged if the government has formed the requisite opinion?
  • Is a dispute regarding the termination of a working agreement arbitrable if the agreement contains an arbitration clause?
  • Can a court grant interim relief under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in an ordinary civil suit where no arbitration proceeding is pending?
  • Does the absence of a termination clause in a contract render it perpetual or determinable?
  Read full judgment →
• Parkash Lal vs Deputy Collector of Customs & others2021 SHC 1117, 2022 PTD 1506 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
• Pardeep Kumar and 17 others vs Den-I, Pakistan Railway, Sukkur and 52021 CLC 1771 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-11Read full judgment →
• Pak Airlift Aviation Services vs Gulf Air B.S.C. & another2021 SHC 464 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• Pak Airlift Aviation Services Attorney vs Gulf Air B.S.C.(C) and another2021 CLC 2080 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• P.E.C.H., Society Limited through Assistant Administrative Officer vs Habib-2021 CLC 2011 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-26Read full judgment →
• Oleo Corp. Pvt Ltd vs Fed. of Pakistan & Ors2021 SHC 107 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• N/A vs N/A2021 SHC 932 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
• Noor Shah vs The State2021 SHC 56 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharas recoveryfurther inquirydelayed chemical examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Noor Shah, through Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after being refused bail by the Special Judge (Narcotic) Shaheed Benazir Abad. The applicant was arrested with an alleged recovery of 2000 grams of charas and an unlicensed pistol. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry considering the lack of independent witnesses, delay in chemical examination, prior alleged illegal custody, and statutory delay in the trial. The Sindh High Court held that the absence of independent witnesses, delayed chemical examination, prior custody, lack of apprehension of tampering, and prolonged incarceration without effective trial progress make out a case for further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that where circumstances like delayed chemical analysis, lack of independent corroboration, and prolonged custody without trial progress exist, bail should be granted on the basis of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of independent witnesses and delay in chemical examination of narcotics justify post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without effective progress in trial entitle an accused to bail in narcotics cases?
  • Whether prior alleged illegal confinement by police is a relevant factor when considering a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 SHC 826 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
• Noor Ali vs The State2021 SHC 170 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20
  pre-arrest bailunlawful assemblydelayed FIRpolice investigationland disputecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused of forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to the complainant and a witness with various weapons, allegedly with the intent to commit murder. The applicants, having been refused pre-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, sought relief from the High Court under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the significant delay of 41 days in lodging the FIR, the police investigation finding several applicants innocent, and the existence of a prior dispute over landed property between the parties. The Court emphasized that such factors, particularly the unexplained delay and the findings of innocence by the investigating agency, warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the findings of innocence by the police during investigation be a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when there is a pre-existing dispute over landed property between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Noman Ali Bhatti vs Government of Sindh & 02 others2021 SHC 832, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1118 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-30
  contractual employmentmaster and servantregularization of servicewrit jurisdictionnatural justicenon-renewal of contractvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the Sindh Education Foundation (SEF) to extend the petitioner's contractual employment and his subsequent non-regularization. The petitioner, a contractual employee whose contract expired on June 30, 2018, sought reinstatement and regularization, arguing that his arrest in a NAB reference should not have precluded his continued service. The core legal question was whether a contractual employee possesses a vested right to service extension or regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, and whether the non-renewal of such a contract without a hearing violates principles of natural justice. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the relationship between the parties is governed by the principle of master and servant. It ruled that a contractual employee has no vested right to extension or regularization once the contract period expires. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it lacks appellate jurisdiction to interfere with administrative policy decisions regarding employment, and that the requirement of a hearing does not apply to the non-renewal of a temporary, expired contract.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contractual employee have a vested right to the extension of their service contract upon its expiry?
  • Can a court in writ jurisdiction interfere with the non-renewal of a contractual employee's service?
  • Does the principle of natural justice require a hearing before the non-renewal of a temporary or contractual employment contract?
  • Does Section 3 of the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, grant an automatic right of regularization to all contractual employees regardless of contract expiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizam-Ud-Din vs The State2022 YLR 828 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-16
  post-arrest bailextortionbhattadelay in FIRrule of consistencyfurther inquiryother criminal cases
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Nizam-ud-Din seeking bail in Crime No.103 of 2019 registered under sections 385/386/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Manghopir, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the grant of bail to co-accused on similar allegations, and the existence of other pending criminal cases against him. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay of 54 days in lodging the FIR, the absence of any recovery from the applicant, and the grant of bail to co-accused on similar allegations brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that registration of other criminal cases without conviction did not disentitle him to bail. The court laid down the principles relating to the rule of consistency in bail matters and the irrelevance of unproven pending criminal cases prior to conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of fifty-four days in lodging the FIR makes out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of the rule of consistency when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused solely on the ground that multiple other criminal cases are registered against him when he has not been convicted in any of them?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ali vs The State2021 SHC 880 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-02
  pre-arrest baildelay in FIRprohibitory clausemalafide intentrobberycriminal procedure
  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 robbery and assault, registered under Sections 394 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the significant, unexplained six-month delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of independent evidence, and whether the alleged offenses fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim relief previously granted. The Court reasoned that malafide intent could be inferred from the circumstances, particularly the unexplained delay in reporting the incident. Furthermore, the Court observed that the alleged offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that incarceration would serve no useful purpose as the investigation was complete and the applicants were regularly attending the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of six months in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can malafide intent be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case where direct evidence is unavailable?
  • Does an offense punishable by up to five years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed S/o Muhammad Ismail vs Matloob Alam Hussain and2021 SHC 1256 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-10Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed Morai son of Dr. Muhammad Bachal Memon vs National2021 SHC 1054, 2022 YLR 544 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-15
  corruption and corrupt practicesmisuse of authorityNational Accountability Ordinancefake contractsillegal appointmentssentencing consistencyaccountability referencecriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants by the Accountability Court for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, specifically regarding illegal appointments and the awarding of fake contracts within the Fishermen Cooperative Society. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to establish the appellants' criminal liability, the validity of the reference initiated by the National Accountability Bureau, and the appropriate sentencing for the proven offenses. The High Court upheld the convictions, finding that the prosecution successfully established the appellants' misuse of authority through documentary and ocular evidence. However, the Court modified the sentences for the fake contract charges, reducing them from seven years to four years to ensure consistency with the sentences imposed for the illegal appointment charges, as both offenses fell under the same statutory provision. The Court affirmed the principle that while the prosecution must prove its case, discrimination in the investigation process does not absolve an accused of proven criminal liability. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that when sentencing for identical offenses, the court should adopt the more lenient approach favoring the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an investigating officer to charge all potential accomplices constitute a valid defense to absolve an accused of proven criminal liability?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to ensure consistency when the trial court imposes different terms for offenses punishable under the same statutory provision?
  • Is a reference initiated by the National Accountability Bureau valid if it is based on a source of information regarding misuse of authority and embezzlement?
  • Does the principle of leniency require a court to adopt a more favorable sentencing option when two probabilities exist for offenses punishable under the same provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Nihal Khan Mahar and an other vs Lal Bux Mahar and others2021 SHC 1246 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-10Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain vs The State2021 YLR 550 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-27
  narcoticscharras recoverypolice witnessessafe custodychemical examiner reportcriminal appealCNS Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment with a fine following the recovery of charras. The core legal questions addressed involve the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in narcotics cases, the competency and credibility of police witnesses, the implications of a complainant also acting as the investigating officer, and the sufficiency of safe custody and transmission of narcotics samples to the Chemical Examiner. The Sindh High Court held that Section 103 Cr.P.C. is excluded in narcotics cases under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimonies require no independent corroboration in the absence of established enmity, and that minor procedural delays do not vitiate a conviction if the chain of custody is intact and the Chemical Examiner's report is positive. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of private persons as mashirs vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can police officials be regarded as competent witnesses in narcotics cases without independent corroboration?
  • Is a complainant legally barred from acting as the investigating officer in a criminal case?
  • Does a minor delay in transmitting the narcotics sample to the office of the Chemical Examiner render the recovery doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain & others vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 790 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-08Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed and another vs Zain-Ul-Abedin and 4 others2021 PLJ Karachi 178, 2021 CLC 1772 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs National Bank Of Pakistan and others2021 CLD 1404 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed Palijo vs Chief Minister Sindh & Ors2021 SHC 600 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-13
  service lawpromotionseniorityfitness for promotionjudicial reviewservice tribunal jurisdictioncivil servantconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the initiation of the promotion process for Chief Engineer (BS-20) by the Provincial Selection Board, alleging that the working paper distorted the distinction between sanctioned and project posts and ignored the petitioner's seniority. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of the petition given the Article 212 constitutional ouster clause regarding service matters. The Court held that while the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine the 'fitness' of a civil servant for promotion, the High Court retains jurisdiction to review matters of eligibility and procedural compliance. The Court ruled that the competent authority must re-examine the petitioner's seniority and promotion eligibility in accordance with Rule 13 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975. The key principle laid down is that while fitness for promotion is a subjective evaluation reserved for the competent authority, the process of determining seniority and eligibility for consideration is subject to judicial review, and Rule 13 mandates that civil servants whose promotion was deferred due to specific impediments must be considered at par with their batchmates once those impediments are removed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sindh Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
  • Is the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction ousted in matters concerning the promotion of a civil servant based on fitness?
  • Under what circumstances must a civil servant be considered for promotion at par with their batchmates under the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed and another vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 901 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-23
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausecontrabandgutkaheinous offencecriminal trialpublic health
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two applicants charged with transporting a large quantity of Gutka, a hazardous substance, in a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the quantity of the contraband recovered. The court held that bail is not a matter of right in cases involving heinous crimes against society, particularly where the substance involved poses severe health risks such as mouth cancer and oral submucous fibrosis. The court observed that the recovered quantity was substantial, valued at over one million rupees, and that the prosecution had sufficient material, including a positive expert report, to connect the applicants to the crime. Furthermore, the court determined that the offence under section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a punishment of up to ten years, falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, finding no grounds for relief, while directing the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of transporting Gutka under section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is bail a matter of right in cases involving the possession and transportation of large quantities of hazardous substances like Gutka?
  • Can a bail application be dismissed based on the severity of the offence and the potential danger to public health, even if the investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Murad vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 926 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-27
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantNADRAservice rulesnon-statutorywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), filed a constitutional petition seeking to restrain the respondent from taking adverse action regarding his employment following allegations that his educational degree was bogus. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable for an employee of a statutory authority like NADRA to challenge disciplinary proceedings when the underlying service rules are non-statutory. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on the principle of 'Master and Servant' and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Major (R) Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas v. Federation of Pakistan (2019 SCMR 984), the Court determined that NADRA's service regulations are non-statutory instructions for internal management. Consequently, disputes regarding terms and conditions of service governed by non-statutory rules cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction. The Court concluded that such disciplinary matters are internal affairs of the authority and do not warrant constitutional interference, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for an employee of a statutory authority to challenge disciplinary proceedings governed by non-statutory rules?
  • Does the relationship between NADRA and its employees fall under the principle of Master and Servant?
  • Are the service regulations of NADRA considered statutory or non-statutory for the purpose of invoking writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Ali and another vs The State2021 SHC 1032 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausemala fidesdelay in FIRcounter versionfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving charges of forming an unlawful assembly, causing hurt with hatchets and lathis, and misappropriation. The core legal questions involved whether the delay in lodging the FIR, the presence of a counter version of the incident, injuries not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, and a pre-existing dispute between the parties warranted the confirmation of pre-arrest bail on the grounds of mala fides. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail as the case required further inquiry at trial, the dismissal of a previous bail application for non-prosecution did not operate as res judicata, and the circumstances pointed to mala fides on the part of the complainant party. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and factors such as delay, counter versions, and mala fides exist, pre-arrest bail should be confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the dismissal of an earlier bail application for non-prosecution operates as res judicata against a subsequent bail application?
  • Does a delay of three days in lodging the FIR provide ground for further inquiry in a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Are accused persons entitled to pre-arrest bail when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and mala fides is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Iqbal vs The State2021 MLD 1562 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-13
  child witnessrationality testdouble murdersentence commutationcorroborative evidenceforensic evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the double murder of his neighbors. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the testimony of an eleven-year-old child eye-witness and whether her evidence, absent a proven motive, warranted the death penalty. The Sindh High Court held that while the child witness was competent and her testimony credible and corroborated by medical evidence, forensic reports, and weapon recovery, the absence of a proven motive and the inherent caution required when relying on child testimony necessitated a reduction in sentence. The court affirmed the conviction but commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment, to run concurrently. The key principles laid down emphasize that a child witness is competent if they pass the "rationality test" regarding their understanding and ability to answer questions, but their testimony must be scrutinized with great care and requires independent corroboration to be safely relied upon for a conviction. The court further held that where motive is unproven and the sole eye-witness is a child, a sentence of life imprisonment is more appropriate than capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Is a child witness competent to testify in a criminal trial under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the testimony of a child witness require independent corroboration to be considered reliable?
  • Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment in the absence of a proven motive?
  • What is the 'rationality test' for determining the competence of a child witness?
  Read full judgment →
• National Logistic Cell (NLC) vs Abdul-E-Rasool Adat and another2021 MLD 1258 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-03Read full judgment →
• National Investment Trust Limited (Nitl) and another vs Mrs. Sadaqat-E-2021 CLC 1498 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-10Read full judgment →
• National Bank Of Pakistan vs Auditor General Of Pakistan and 2 others2022 PLD Sindh 267 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs The State2021 YLR 1309 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-04
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayhardship bailconduct of accusedadjournmentsmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by applicant Nazeer Ahmed Brohi in a case registered under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, seeking bail primarily on the statutory ground of hardship and delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question before the court was whether an accused can claim the concession of post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay or hardship when the delay in concluding the trial is attributable to the conduct of the defence through frequent adjournment applications and failure to cross-examine witnesses. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the conduct of the accused in causing intentional delays disentitles him from claiming bail on statutory grounds as a matter of right. The key principle laid down is that while evaluating bail on the ground of statutory delay or hardship, the conduct of the accused must be examined, and if the delay is found to be designed or caused by the defence, the statutory benefit of bail will be denied.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay or hardship when the trial is protracted due to adjournments sought by the defence?
  • Can bail on statutory grounds be denied if the conduct of the accused shows that the delay in the conclusion of the trial was designed by adopting various methods?
  • What is the effect of the absence of the defence counsel and the reservation of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses on a claim for statutory bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasiruddin Abbasi vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Finance2021 PLJ Karachi 204 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nasir Rahim and another vs Province Of Sindh through Chief Secretary2021 CLC 579 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-21
  Constitutional petitionWrit jurisdictionMutation entryLand grant policyClean hands doctrineMaintainabilityEncroachmentState land
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by individuals claiming ownership of government commercial land in Scheme 33, Karachi, seeking to challenge an administrative order and obtain protection against third-party interests. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners possessed a valid, undisputed legal right or title to the subject property to invoke the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. The Court held that the petition was non-maintainable and mala fide. It observed that the petitioners suppressed material facts, including that the land grant was purportedly made in violation of government bans and policy. The Court reiterated that mutation entries do not confer title, and that a petitioner seeking relief under Article 199 must establish a clear, undisputed legal right. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is discretionary, equitable, and unavailable to parties who approach the Court with unclean hands or attempt to abuse the judicial process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the Court directed relevant authorities to protect the government property from encroachment and report progress to the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mutation entry in revenue records by itself confer ownership title over land?
  • Is a petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, where the petitioner fails to establish a clear and undisputed legal right?
  • Can a party obtain equitable relief in writ jurisdiction if they have suppressed material facts?
  • What is the legal consequence when the foundation of a land grant is found to be illegal or defective?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Mirza vs Syed Muzaffar Ejaz and 2 others2021 CLC 1399 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
• Nasir Kamal vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Islamabad and another2021 PLC (C.S.) 1226 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-03
  post-retirement benefitspensionwithholding of pensiondisciplinary proceedings after retirementabatement of inquiryconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsright to livelihood
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by a retired employee of the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (PNSC) seeking a declaration that the withholding of his post-retirement benefits was illegal and a violation of his fundamental rights. The core legal questions were whether post-retirement benefits can be withheld due to the mere pendency of disciplinary, criminal, or civil proceedings, and whether departmental inquiries initiated during service can continue after retirement. The Sindh High Court held that disciplinary proceedings cannot continue after retirement and automatically abate under Fundamental Rule 54-A, making the employee fully entitled to post-retirement benefits. The Court laid down that pension is a vested right earned through satisfactory service—not a bounty—and constitutes deferred compensation protected under the right to livelihood and life guaranteed by Article 9 of the Constitution. The petition was allowed with costs, directing PNSC to release all outstanding benefits within fifteen days.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-retirement benefits can be withheld by an employer on account of the mere pendency of disciplinary, criminal, or civil proceedings?
  • Can departmental inquiry and disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee during service continue after his retirement?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 is maintainable against the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation regarding service and pension matters?
  • Does the right to pension constitute property and a fundamental right protected under the right to life and livelihood?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali Zangejo vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 682, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 700 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-04
  constitutional petitiondeceased quotacivil servantappointmentSindh Civil Servants Rulesminor at deathattainment of majority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, seeking directions for the appointment of the petitioner to a post in the Revenue Department under Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, on the deceased employees' quota following the death of his father during service. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who applied upon attaining majority after being underage at the time of his father's death, was entitled to consideration for appointment under the applicable rules and consistent with settled jurisprudence. The Sindh High Court disposed of the petition, directing the Chief Secretary of the Government of Sindh to scrutinize and consider the petitioner's application through a speaking order in accordance with the law, rules, procedure, and policy, after granting a hearing. The key principle laid down is that applications for appointment under the deceased quota by minors at the time of the employee's death must be duly considered by the competent authority upon attaining majority, in line with established judicial precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an individual who was underage at the time of a civil servant father's death can apply for appointment on the deceased quota upon attaining majority?
  • Can the competent authority be directed to consider and decide upon a deceased quota appointment application through a speaking order?
  • Whether the High Court can dispose of a constitutional petition regarding deceased quota appointments in light of settled Supreme Court jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmed Butt vs Mst. Shaheen Afroz and Ors2021 SHC 227 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Naseer Khan vs The State2021 YLR 940 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-18
  circumstantial evidencejudicial confessionretracted confessionbenefit of the doubtmissing linksaccomplice testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder and destruction of evidence. The core legal questions involved the legality and voluntariness of judicial confessions recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the requirement of corroboration for retracted and co-accused confessions under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and whether a case resting purely on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when vital links in the chain of evidence are missing. The Sindh High Court held that the recording magistrates failed to observe mandatory legal precautions and guidelines, rendering the confessions involuntary and legally worthless. Furthermore, the court held that retracted confessions of co-accused cannot mutually corroborate each other, and missing links in circumstantial evidence—coupled with the failure to recover alleged weapons or conduct a post-mortem—create reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession be used to convict an accused without strong corroborative evidence?
  • Whether the failure of a recording magistrate to follow mandatory legal precautions renders a confessional statement inadmissible?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence when links in the chain of evidence are missing?
  • Does an exculpatory confessional statement of a co-accused have the same evidentiary weight as a direct confession of guilt?
  Read full judgment →