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.

• Mst. Nadia vs The Inspector General of Police Sindh and 04 others2021 SHC 580 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadia Shakeel and another vs Shagufta Baqar and another2021 CLC 1712 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mozaffar Islam and another vs Dilkusha Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited2021 CLD 994 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqra Faisal and 5 others vs Zubair Khan and 7 others2021 PLD Sindh 118 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29
  exhumationpost-mortemunnatural deathreasonable suspicionCode of Criminal Procedurecause of deathlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application challenging orders for the exhumation and post-mortem of the deceased, Faisal Ramzan Mugheri. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is empowered to order the disinterment of a body under Sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when such a request is made by a third party, despite opposition from the deceased's legal heirs and claims of natural death. The Sindh High Court held that the primary objective of Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is to ascertain the true cause of death. The Court affirmed that a Magistrate possesses the discretion to order exhumation upon the existence of reasonable suspicion, regardless of whether the applicant is a stranger or if the legal heirs object. The key principle laid down is that the right to determine the cause of death is paramount to ensure justice, and the court’s power to order exhumation is not restricted by the identity of the informant or the passage of time, provided the suspicion is reasonably founded.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate order the exhumation of a dead body upon the request of a person who is not a legal heir?
  • Does the opposition of legal heirs to an exhumation request automatically bar a Magistrate from ordering a post-mortem?
  • Is the existence of reasonable suspicion sufficient to invoke the powers under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the disinterment of a corpse?
  • Does the passage of time after burial prevent a Magistrate from ordering the exhumation of a body to determine the cause of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Imtiaz Bibi vs Federation Of Pakistan through SecretaryEstablishment2021 PLC (C.S.) 452 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-28
  family pensionpension arrearspensionary benefitssurviving widowPension-cum-Gratuity Schemeservice lawgovernment servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the entitlement of a surviving second wife to the arrears of family pension previously allocated to a deceased first wife. The core legal question was whether the second wife could claim the twenty-eight months of unpaid pension benefits that accrued to the first wife before her death. The court observed that pensionary benefits are governed by the Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme, 1954, which mandates specific distribution protocols among surviving widows and children. The court held that such undrawn pensionary benefits do not automatically lapse or vest solely in the legal heirs of the deceased beneficiary but must be distributed according to the established scheme. Consequently, the court directed the relevant authorities to release the arrears, ordering that the entire family pensionary benefits, including the disputed twenty-eight months of arrears, be distributed among the surviving widow and the deceased's unmarried daughter. This decision reinforces the principle that government departments must avoid unnecessary delays in pension disbursement, as such negligence constitutes a dereliction of duty.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second wife entitled to the arrears of family pension that remained undrawn by the deceased first wife?
  • How are family pension benefits distributed when a government servant leaves behind multiple widows and children?
  • Does the failure of government departments to finalize pension payments constitute a dereliction of duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Husna and 3 others vs Province Of Sindh through D.C.O., Khairpur and 4 others2021 YLR 1705 · Sindh High Court · 2012-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hawa and Others vs National Highway Authority & Others2021 SHC 966 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haseena and another vs Mst. Basran and 6 others2021 YLR 2401 · Sindh High Court · 2014-07-14
  habeas corpusterritorial jurisdictionillegal confinementcoram non judicequashment of proceedingsresidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Thatta, which asserted territorial jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The respondent alleged her daughter was in illegal confinement within the court's jurisdiction. The applicants contended they resided in Karachi, not Thatta, supporting this with their Nikahnama and a pending family suit filed in Karachi. The trial court relied on an older affidavit containing a Thatta address to establish jurisdiction, disregarding evidence of the applicants' current Karachi residence and a police report confirming they were not found at the Thatta address. The High Court held that the trial court erred by failing to appreciate the material on record regarding the applicants' actual residence. Consequently, the court ruled that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction, rendering the proceedings coram non judice and void ab initio. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings, establishing that territorial jurisdiction must be determined based on the actual residence of the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition if the alleged detainee does not reside within its jurisdiction?
  • Can a court rely solely on an address in an affidavit to establish territorial jurisdiction when contrary evidence of residence is provided?
  • Are proceedings initiated by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction considered void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haleema Magsi vs Punhal Magsi and another2021 SHC 1290 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-15
  criminal acquittal appealmurderhostile witnesspresumption of innocenceappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal arises from a judgment passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot, acquitting the private respondent of the murder of Mst. Lal Bibi, who died from firearm injuries after being declared "Kari". The mother of the deceased challenged the acquittal, arguing that the trial court failed to properly appraise the evidence. The Sindh High Court observed that the primary eyewitnesses, including the informer/father of the deceased, were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution's case and explicitly stated that the accused was not the culprit. The High Court noted that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is extremely narrow, requiring a heavy burden on the prosecution to prove that the trial court's judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from grave misreading or non-reading of evidence. Finding no such infirmity in the trial court's assessment, the High Court held that the acquittal was justified, and consequently dismissed the appeal in limine.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does the hostility of key eyewitnesses provide a valid ground for maintaining an acquittal?
  • When can an appellate court interject in a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulshan Begum vs The Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 182 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fozia vs The State2021 SHC 1242 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-09
  pre-arrest bailvicarious liabilityinstigationunlawful assemblycriminal bail applicationmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicant, Mst. Fozia, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of murder committed by an unlawful assembly. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was attributed only the role of instigation in the FIR, was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite allegations of vicarious liability. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to the relief sought. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the FIR was lodged with a one-day delay, the applicant's specific role was limited to instigation, and the parties had a pre-existing dispute, rendering the issue of vicarious liability a matter for trial determination. Furthermore, the Court distinguished the prosecution's cited precedent by noting the absence of absconsion in the present case. The key principle laid down is that where the role attributed is merely instigation and there is no evidence of absconsion, pre-arrest bail may be confirmed on the grounds of mala fide, leaving the determination of vicarious liability to be resolved during the trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the role attributed in the FIR is limited to instigation?
  • Does the existence of a prior dispute between parties justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a court confirm pre-arrest bail when the issue of vicarious liability requires determination at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fouzia alias Waziran vs SSP, District Jamshoro and others2021 P Cr. L J 1753 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-28
  Habeas CorpusChild CustodyGuardian and WardsWelfare of MinorNatural GuardianHizanatParental Jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This habeas corpus petition was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a mother seeking the recovery of her minor children from their uncle. The core legal question addressed was whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction to determine child custody or if the matter should be relegated to the Guardian and Wards Court. The Court held that while proceedings under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are maintainable for the recovery of minors, they are not the appropriate venue for adjudicating permanent custody or guardianship, which falls under the exclusive purview of the Guardian and Wards Court. The Court emphasized that the paramount consideration in all custody disputes is the welfare of the minor, encompassing their moral, spiritual, and material well-being. While the High Court may intervene in exceptional circumstances to provide interim relief, it generally directs parties to the competent Guardian and Wards Court for a final determination. The principle established is that the Guardian and Wards Court remains the final arbitrator for custody disputes, ensuring decisions align with the minor's best interests.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 maintainable for the recovery of minors?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to determine the permanent custody of a minor in proceedings under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the paramount consideration when deciding the question of custody of a minor?
  • Can a High Court pass interim orders for the restoration of a minor's custody pending a final decision by the Guardian and Wards Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fareeda another vs The State2021 YLR 1828 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-29
  criminal appealmurder trialbenefit of doubthostile witnessdelay in FIRcontradictory evidenceacquittalPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants, a mother and daughter, under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given glaring contradictions in witness testimonies, unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), and tainted recovery evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's evidence was fraught with serious discrepancies, manipulated investigation proceedings, and fatal delays in FIR registration, while the sole eye-witness testified that the deceased committed suicide. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment, established that a hostile witness's testimony cannot be completely discarded if credible, and reaffirmed that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a prosecution witness who has been declared hostile can be entirely discarded by the court?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report in a criminal case?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of suspicion and circumstantial evidence when foundational prosecution witnesses contradict each other?
  • Does a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court entitle the accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Benazir Zardari vs A.D.J I Tando Adam & others2021 SHC 38 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aziza Naeem vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary, Home2021 PLD Sindh 178 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aqsa Zeeshan vs Government Of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 52022 YLR 665 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ameer Jehan alias Bisma Noureen vs The State and others2021 PLD Sindh 145 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-03
  judicial immunitygood faithmala fidesframing of chargecriminal procedurejudicial officers' protectionSection 22-A Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application challenging the dismissal of a petition filed under Section 22-A(6)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant, an accused in a pending criminal case, sought to initiate criminal proceedings against Judicial Magistrates, alleging that the framing of charges against her constituted an offence. The core legal question was whether a Judicial Officer incurs criminal liability for performing mandatory judicial functions, such as framing charges, while acting in good faith. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the Judicial Magistrates acted within their jurisdiction and in accordance with mandatory procedural law. The Court affirmed that under Section 77 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Judicial Officers' Protection Act 1850, judicial acts performed in good faith are immune from criminal and civil liability. The key principle laid down is that judicial officers are protected when acting judicially, and allegations of mala fides against them require a high burden of proof, which the applicant failed to meet. The proper remedy for grievances against judicial orders is to challenge them in an appropriate appellate forum, not to initiate criminal complaints against the presiding officers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the framing of a charge by a Judicial Magistrate constitute a criminal offence?
  • Are judicial acts performed in good faith protected from criminal prosecution under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the burden of proof required to establish mala fides against a Judicial Officer for their official acts?
  • Is a criminal complaint the appropriate legal remedy for an aggrieved party to challenge a judicial order passed by a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allah Dini vs SSP Kashmore @ Kandhkot and others2021 SHC 1188 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Abida Begum vs Late Fazlur Rehman and 5 others2021 MLD 1158 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• Mst Rani Khaskheli vs Province of Sindh & Ors2021 SHC 368 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-27Read full judgment →
• Mst Iqbal Khatoon Abro vs E.D.O Education Larkana and others2021 SHC 1278 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
• Ms.Najeeba & another vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 18 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Ms. Shahida Begum vs Province of Sindh and 04 others2021 SHC 376 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-26
  transfer and postingconstitutional petitionjurisdiction of high courtterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunalcivil servantoyster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Headmistress (BPS-17), invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge a notification regarding her transfer and posting, alleging political victimization, harassment, and violation of an existing transfer ban. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a constitutional petition challenging the transfer and posting of a civil servant, given the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction. The court held that matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants, including transfer and posting, fall within the exclusive domain of the Sindh Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 3(2) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate such service matters through a writ petition. The petition was dismissed in limine, establishing that service disputes regarding transfers must be agitated before the appropriate service tribunal rather than via constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to challenge the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
  • Do matters relating to transfer and posting fall within the expression 'terms and conditions' of service under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does Section 3(2) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973 give exclusive jurisdiction to the Sindh Service Tribunal in respect of service matters of civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Rubina Mir vs The State2021 SHC 992 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-01Read full judgment →
• Ms. Asma Hameed vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 968 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Wieb Rosemarie Dakhan and another vs Shahnawaz Dakhan2021 PLJ Karachi 197 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sakina Suleman, through Attorney vs Muhammad Arif Janjua, through Attorney2021 CLC 1520 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Parveen Mehmood vs Thai Airways International2021 SHC 748 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-02Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Farzana Zaidi through her sister and Guardian ad-litim/next friend2021 YLR 330 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Farnaz Ahmed through Special Attorney vs Faysal Bank Limited and others2021 CLD 578 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Anjum Ara vs Shabbir A. Halai2021 YLR 1476 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-20Read full judgment →
• Mr. Asadullah & 06 others vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 SHC 416 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-07Read full judgment →
• Moulvi Mehrab vs The State2021 SHC 1026 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-08
  post-arrest bailunnatural lustfurther enquirydelay in FIRDNA reportheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, charged with committing unnatural lust upon a seven-year-old boy, sought post-arrest bail after being refused by the trial court. The applicant argued innocence, claiming false implication due to a religious dispute, a six-hour delay in the FIR, and a negative DNA report. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, arguing the DNA report was inconclusive and the offense was heinous. The Court observed that the applicant was specifically named in the FIR, and medical examination corroborated the victim's pain and swelling in the anal region. The Court held that it would be premature to accept the plea of false implication, noting that no one would typically involve an innocent person in such a sensitive case at the cost of the victim's honor. The Court further ruled that the inconclusive DNA report did not support the applicant's case, and the six-hour delay in the FIR was not fatal. Finding reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty, the Court dismissed the bail application and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inconclusive DNA report entitle an accused to bail on the grounds of further enquiry?
  • Is a six-hour delay in the registration of an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case in matters involving sexual offenses against minors?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when there are reasonable grounds to believe they are guilty of the charged offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Moulana Aziz-ul-Haque Shouqi vs Government of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 188 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• Moula Bux and 5 others vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Board of Revenue Hyderabad and 6 others2021 MLD 1591 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-25Read full judgment →
• Moran Khan Gabole vs Ali Nawaz Gabole & Others2021 SHC 1244 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-10Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Furqan vs National Bank of Pakistan and another2021 SHC 222 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-27Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Ahmad vs Nasreen Irfan and 05 others2021 SHC 1068 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Ahmad and others vs Nasreen Irfan and others2021 MLD 1877 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mohan Bheel vs Shahnawaz & Another2021 SHC 256 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Siddique vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 960 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Salman Khan Baloch vs Syed Mustafa Kamal & others2021 CLC 1564, 2021 SHC 484 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Hassan Zaman vs Mst. Bilquees2021 SHC 806 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Haneef vs Barkat and 2 others2021 YLR 732 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-08
  acquittal appealillegal dispossessionbenefit of doubtpresumption of double innocenceproperty disputecontradictions in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kashmore, which acquitted the respondents of charges under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents based on evidentiary contradictions, lack of ownership proof, and absence of specific details regarding the disputed land was justified. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court rightly extended the benefit of the doubt to the respondents. The court reiterated that an acquittal judgment carries a presumption of double innocence and warrants no interference unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal judgment can be interfered with when it is supported by evidence and suffers from no illegality?
  • Does the failure to provide exact dates, times, and boundaries in an illegal dispossession complaint render the case doubtful?
  • Whether the presumption of double innocence attached to an acquittal can be set aside lightly?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Fahim vs Mohammad Faiz and 8 others2021 YLR 1608 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-16Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Asif Javed vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Education Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and others2021 SHC 197 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• Mithal Khan vs The State2021 SHC 130 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed implicationvicarious liabilitycriminal procedureF.I.R. omission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Mithal Khan, in relation to a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 109, 337-F(vi), 337-F(i), and 337-H(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that he was not named in the initial F.I.R. and was implicated only through a subsequent statement recorded by the complainant 45 days after the incident. The Court held that the applicant had successfully made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the absence of the applicant's name in the F.I.R., the lack of a specific role assigned to him, and the significant delay in his implication through an additional statement created sufficient grounds for bail. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail subject to furnishing solvent surety. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is implicated solely through a delayed additional statement without specific attribution of a role, the case warrants further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the implication of an accused person in a further statement recorded 45 days after the F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when they are not named in the initial F.I.R. and no specific role is assigned to them?
  Read full judgment →
• Misri vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Boards and Universities and 04 others2021 SHC 1082 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-23Read full judgment →
• Mirza Shafaat Ali Baig vs Wg. Cdr. (Rtd.) Khurshid Anwar and another2020 YLR 886 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mirza Anwar Mehmood Baig vs Civil Aviation Authority and another2021 SHC 396 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-07Read full judgment →
• Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue & Others2021 SHC 96 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mir Munawar Ali Talpur vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 974 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad Raza Talpur vs Civil Judge Hyd & anothers2021 SHC 132 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mir Khan and another vs The State2021 SHC 1024 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-02
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausedelay in FIRcounter versionfurther inquirymala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicants seeking pre-arrest bail after it was refused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Badin. The applicants were accused of forming an unlawful assembly and causing minor injuries and insults to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, coupled with a delayed FIR and a counter version of the incident. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim bail already granted. The Court reasoned that the two-month delay in lodging the FIR, the existence of a counter version requiring trial determination, and the fact that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause collectively established grounds for further inquiry and mala fides, aligning with settled principles regarding pre-arrest bail for non-prohibitory offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to pre-arrest bail when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a delayed FIR combined with a counter version of the incident constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the accused have joined the trial and mala fides on the part of the complainant party are apparent?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Hassan vs The Province of Sindh & 03 others2021 SHC 394 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-06Read full judgment →
• Midhat Hamid and 2 others vs Shaikh Ahmed Hussain and 2 others2021 PLJ Karachi 184 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-25Read full judgment →
• Mian Waqar Akhtar Paganwala vs The State and another2021 P Cr. L J 1200 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-09
  willful defaultNational Accountability Ordinancepersonal guaranteeloan defaultaccountability appealcorrupt practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal accountability appeal was filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting him under section 9(a)(viii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal question involved whether the appellant, who took over the management of a defaulting company and executed a personal guarantee, could be held criminally liable for willful default under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through reliable oral and documentary evidence, establishing that the appellant assumed all liabilities of the previous management, executed a personal guarantee treating himself as the principal debtor, and defaulted on the loan repayment. The court laid down the principle that subsequent purchasers and managers who take over a defaulting company and explicitly assume its financial liabilities under a personal guarantee are criminally accountable for willful default under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and that procedural amendments requiring a reference from the State Bank of Pakistan do not apply retroactively to pending matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent manager who takes over a company and executes a personal guarantee can be held liable for willful default under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does Section 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 have retrospective effect on references filed prior to its insertion?
  • Can the failure to repay a bank loan after assuming liabilities constitute corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Trust vs Lyari Expresswa y Resettlement Project & others2021 SHC 458 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-07Read full judgment →
• Mian Nasser Hyatt Maggo vs Federation of Pakistan and others2021 SHC 740 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mian Ejaz Ahmed and another vs Meezan Bank Limited2021 CLD 113 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation Of Pakistan, Karachi vs The Commissioner Income Tax, Cos.III, Karachi and others2021 PTD 913 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-24
  income taxminimum taxrectification of mistakeinsurance company taxationnon-obstante clausestatutory interpretationturnover tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves Income Tax Reference Applications concerning the tax liability of the State Life Insurance Corporation. The core legal questions were whether the tax authorities were justified in reopening assessments under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and whether the Corporation was liable to pay minimum tax under Section 80D of the same Ordinance, notwithstanding its specific assessment regime under the Fourth Schedule. The Court held that the Department correctly invoked Section 156, as the turnover figures were readily available in the Corporation's own records, rendering the mistake "apparent on the record" without requiring complex investigation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Corporation is liable for minimum tax under Section 80D. It established that where two special provisions contain conflicting non-obstante clauses, the provision enacted later in time prevails. Consequently, Section 80D, being a subsequent enactment, overrides the special assessment provisions of Section 26 and the Fourth Schedule. The Court answered the questions in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the Department and against the taxpayer.

  Questions settled

  • Can tax authorities invoke Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to rectify an assessment where the error is based on figures provided by the taxpayer itself?
  • Does Section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which imposes a minimum tax, override the special assessment provisions contained in Section 26 and the Fourth Schedule of the same Ordinance?
  • When two special statutory provisions contain conflicting non-obstante clauses, which provision prevails?
  • Does a state-owned insurance corporation qualify as a 'person' liable for minimum tax under Section 80D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Silver Surgical Complex (Pvt.) Ltd. through Company Secretary vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-IV2021 PTD 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shield Corporation Limited through Assistant Financial Controller vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary Finance Division, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 3 others2021 PTD 1187 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sahib Din Logistics and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Chairman and others2021 PTD 1245 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Popular Juice Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Officer and 62021 PTD 1329 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-28
  customs search and seizureterritorial jurisdictionquashing of FIRsmugglingdue processtax adjudicationconstitutional petitionsealing of premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a late-night raid, search, seizure of goods, sealing of factory premises, and registration of a criminal case by Customs Authorities against a juice manufacturing company and its directors. The core legal questions involved the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of customs authorities outside notified port areas, the mandatory procedural safeguards for conducting searches without a warrant under the Customs Act, the legality of sealing business premises, and the necessity of prior tax assessment before initiating criminal proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that customs authorities lack jurisdiction to conduct raids and criminalize matters in civil areas outside designated port and coastal trade limits, that searches conducted under Section 163 without recording reasons in writing or obtaining a warrant are illegal, and that business premises cannot be sealed under the Customs Act. The Court laid down the principle that criminal prosecution and coercive measures by tax authorities cannot precede proper adjudication and assessment of tax liability, and quashed the impugned FIR and proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Customs Authorities possess territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to conduct raids and lodge criminal cases for smuggling in areas outside notified ports, customs stations, and coastal trade zones?
  • Can the powers of search without a warrant under Section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969 be exercised without recording written grounds of belief and obtaining approval from the competent authority?
  • Whether Customs Authorities are empowered under the Customs Act, 1969 to seal a factory or business premises during search and seizure?
  • Can criminal proceedings and registration of an FIR for tax evasion or smuggling be initiated without prior determination and adjudication of tax liability?
  • Whether the High Court can quash a defective FIR and ensuing proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Moin And Sons Electronics through Authorized Attorney vs Messrs2021 CLD 455 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited and 4 others vs Province Of Sindh2021 CLC 1801 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs M. Mubbashir Trader through Owner vs Appellate Tribunal Sindh2021 PTD 2101 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Liberty Mills Limited through Authorised Director and 8 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 5 others2021 PTD 347 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karachi Iron And Steel Merchants Association through Authorised2021 PTD 1150 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-17
  territorial jurisdictionAnti-Dumping Appellate Tribunalforum of conveniencejudgment in remjudgment in personamappellate jurisdictioncompetence of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the territorial jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court to entertain appeals against a judgment passed by the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal, which is constituted and situated in Islamabad. The appellants, having contested the proceedings before the Tribunal in Islamabad, argued that they possessed the right to choose their forum of convenience, asserting that the Tribunal's judgment was a judgment in rem affecting the business community at large. Conversely, the respondents contended that the Sindh High Court lacked jurisdiction, as the Tribunal is located in Islamabad and the matter was in personam. The Court held that the plea of convenience is insufficient to establish jurisdiction, which is strictly governed by law. Distinguishing between matters affecting the public at large and those involving specific parties, the Court determined that since the Tribunal is located in Islamabad and the dispute was in personam, the Sindh High Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals as incompetent, affirming that jurisdiction lies with the High Court where the Tribunal is situated.

  Questions settled

  • Does a party have the right to choose a High Court of convenience to challenge an order passed by a Tribunal located in another jurisdiction?
  • Is a judgment of the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal considered a judgment in rem or in personam when determining territorial jurisdiction?
  • Does the Sindh High Court have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision of the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal situated in Islamabad?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karachi Golf Club (Private) Limited through Manager Accounts and Finance and others vs Province Of Sindh through Director Sindh Revenue Board and others2021 PTD 558 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-10
  sales tax on servicesdoctrine of mutualitymembers' clubproprietary clubmembership feessubscription chargeseconomic activitytaxable services
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court addressed whether membership/entrance fees and subscription charges (monthly and/or annual) received by members' clubs from their members are subject to sales tax under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act 2011. The petitioners argued that members' clubs, operating under the doctrine of mutuality, engage in private recreational pursuits that do not constitute 'economic activity' under the Act. The Court held that a members' club is characterized by a contractual relationship between members inter se, acting as an agent for its members without a profit-earning motive. Applying the doctrine of mutuality, the Court determined there is a confluence of identity between the provider and recipient of the services. Consequently, such receipts do not arise from an 'economic activity' or a 'taxable service' as defined in the Act. The Court laid down the principle that the doctrine of mutuality excludes transactions between a members' club and its members from sales tax on services, and subordinate rules or definitions cannot override the charging provisions of the parent statute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether membership fees and subscription charges received by a members' club from its members constitute 'economic activity' under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act 2011?
  • Does the doctrine of mutuality apply to exempt services rendered by a members' club to its members from sales tax on services?
  • Can a definition clause or subordinate rules in a tax statute override the primary charging section of the parent Act?
  • What is the legal distinction between a members' club and a proprietary club for the purposes of tax liability under the doctrine of mutuality?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs K.K. Mart (Multan) and another vs Messrs S.S. Traders and 2 others2022 PTD 642 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs K-Electric, Limited through Authorized Personnel vs Muhammad2021 PLC 108 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-10
  trans-provincial establishmentunfair labour practiceNIRC jurisdictionconstitutional petitionremand orderindustrial relationswage dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which had remanded grievance petitions to a Single Member for decision after recording evidence and directed the release of outstanding salaries. The petitioner, K-Electric Limited, contended that the NIRC lacked jurisdiction, arguing that disputes regarding wages should be adjudicated under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and that the allegations did not constitute unfair labor practice under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Sindh High Court examined the status of the petitioner as a trans-provincial establishment under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court held that the NIRC possesses absolute jurisdiction where a dispute arises from allegations of unfair labor practice. It further determined that the Full Bench’s decision to remand the matter for evidence recording was legally sound and caused no prejudice to either party. Consequently, the Court upheld the NIRC's order, affirming that the NIRC is the appropriate forum for such disputes involving trans-provincial establishments, and dismissed the petitions in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction over a trans-provincial establishment?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission absolute in disputes involving allegations of unfair labour practice?
  • When can the jurisdiction of a Labour Court be invoked in preference to the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jiangsu Dajin Heavy Industry Co. Ltd. through local duly authorized2021 CLC 1931 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Hussaini Textile Industries and others vs United Bank Limited and another2021 CLD 671 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs HBL Stock Fund through Trustee and others vs AdditionalPTCL 2021 CL.67, 2020 PT D 1742 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Guinault Sa Pa Orleans Sologne through Authorized Representative2021 YLR 692 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs G.F.S (Global Financial Solution) Builder And Developer through Partner and another vs Province Of Sindh and 11 others2021 MLD 119 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Focus Entertainment through Authorized Partner vs Messrs2021 CLD 885 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dewan Sugar Mills Ltd. and others vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 PTD 1007 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Civil Aviation Authority through Authorized Representative vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue and another2021 PTD 1867 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Chhipa Corporation through Partner vs Sui Southern Gas Company2021 PLD Sindh 373 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Brecast Industries (Pvt.) Limited through Director/Chief Executive2021 CLD 557 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ansari Sugar Mills Limited, through Senior Manager and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue and 3 others2021 PTD 1568 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Hamd Steel Furnace through attorney vs Federation Of Pakistan2021 PTD 1858 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Adamjee Insurance Company Limited through Deputy General2021 PTD 281 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Merajuddin vs K.P.T and Ors2021 SHC 205 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mena Energy DMCC vs Hascol Petroleum Limited2021 SHC 1060, 2022 PLD Sindh 388 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-12
  foreign judgmentexecution of decreeconsent decreemerits of the casereciprocating territoryforeign exchange regulationattachment of assets
  Summary & questions settled

  This execution application was filed under Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to enforce a foreign money decree passed by the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, against a Pakistani company. The judgment debtor objected, arguing the decree was not on the merits of the case under Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 because it was a consent decree, and that it was unenforceable without State Bank of Pakistan approval under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. The Court held that the foreign judgment, arising from a contested litigation where liability was previously determined and consent was given to settle the quantum, constituted a judgment on the merits. The Court clarified that a consent decree is not inherently excluded from execution under Section 13(b). Furthermore, the Court ruled that the requirement for regulatory approval for remittance does not bar the execution of a money decree itself, as the decree is enforceable through the attachment of local assets. The Court affirmed the conclusiveness of the foreign judgment and allowed the execution, ordering the attachment of the judgment debtor's assets.

  Questions settled

  • Does a foreign consent decree constitute a judgment given on the merits of the case under Section 13(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a foreign money decree be executed in Pakistan if the underlying settlement agreement requires regulatory approval for remittance of funds abroad?
  • Is a consent decree inherently inexecutable, or can it be enforced through execution proceedings?
  • Does the requirement for State Bank of Pakistan approval for foreign remittances bar the attachment of local assets in execution of a foreign money decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Ahmed Siddiqui and Others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 SHC 946 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-11
  quo warrantopublic sector companiescorporate governanceappointment on deputationstatutory qualificationwrit jurisdictionpublic office
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointments of private respondents to senior management positions, including Chief Financial Officer and Head of Internal Audit, within the House Building Finance Company (HBFC). The core legal question was whether these appointments violated the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance Rules 2013) and established recruitment procedures. The Court held that the appointments were illegal, void, and without legal effect, as they were made in direct contravention of the mandatory qualification criteria and selection processes prescribed by the Rules. The Court emphasized that public sector appointments must be conducted through transparent, objective procedures, including public advertisement, to ensure the selection of qualified candidates. It further ruled that internal company manuals or unauthorized deputation practices cannot override statutory governance rules. Consequently, the Court set aside the appointments and directed the initiation of a fresh, lawful selection process within sixty days. The judgment reinforces the principle that the High Court possesses inquisitorial jurisdiction in quo warranto proceedings to ensure public offices are held by individuals meeting the requisite statutory qualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of senior management in a public sector company without public advertisement violates the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance Rules 2013)?
  • Can a public sector company bypass statutory qualification requirements for senior posts through internal manual amendments or deputation?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto to determine the legality of appointments in a public sector company?
  • Is an appointment to a public office valid if it fails to meet the objective selection criteria prescribed by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Rabbani S/o Abdul Shakoor vs Ghulam Haider Baloch and2021 SHC 1224 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Mehik Kumari alias Nanki Kumari and another vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Home Department and others2021 P Cr. L J 794 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-09
  custody of minorreligious conversionconstitutional petitionright to libertyinter-faith marriagepubertyshelter home
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns competing constitutional petitions regarding the custody of a minor girl, Mehik Kumari (also known as Aleezah), who, despite being Hindu by birth, embraced Islam and married Ali Raza Solangi. Following criminal litigation and her placement in a shelter home by a trial court, the central legal question was whether the girl, having converted to Islam, could be granted custody to her Hindu mother. The Court, after recording the girl's statement in open court, observed that she had attained the age of puberty and expressed a clear desire to reside with her mother. The Court held that there is no prohibition under Islamic law or the law of the land preventing a Muslim woman from residing with her non-Muslim parents. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that constitutional guarantees of life and liberty protect an individual's right to choose their residence. Consequently, the Court ordered the girl's release from the shelter home into her mother's custody, subject to a personal recognizance bond, while leaving disputed questions of fact regarding the marriage and conversion for determination by the appropriate competent forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does Islamic law or the law of Pakistan prohibit a Muslim woman from residing with her non-Muslim parents?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the validity of a marriage or conversion in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the act of a Muslim girl residing with her non-Muslim parents ipso facto render her Nikah fasid (void)?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali son of Ghulam Qadir vs The State2021 SHC 254 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtmedical and ocular inconsistencydelay in FIRacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and causing injuries. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt despite an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries. The Sindh High Court held that the two-day delay in filing the FIR reflected consultation and deliberation, and the discrepancies between the medical evidence and the statements of eyewitnesses rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants and ordering their immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the first information report create room for deliberation and consultation?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when material contradictions exist between ocular and medical evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a conflict regarding the number of injuries sustained as per medical reports versus witness testimonies?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali Rind vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 898 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
• Meer Kalhoro vs J.M II Sehwan & others2021 SHC 92 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Meer Hassan Leghari vs The State2021 MLD 1176 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-14
  post-arrest bailmurderspecific roletrial delaybail dismissaltentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications filed by applicants Meer Hassan and Mumtaz Ali, who were charged with murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the concession of bail despite being nominated in the FIR with specific roles of firing at the deceased, having previously had their bail applications dismissed on merits, and being responsible for delays in the trial. The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision is that where applicants are assigned specific roles of causing fatal firearm injuries, have previously had bail dismissed on merits without challenging that order, and have actively contributed to trial delays through the non-appearance of their counsel, they do not meet the criteria for bail. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a co-accused granted bail due to a lack of active role attribution cannot be used as a precedent for applicants with specific, active roles in the commission of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of bail to a co-accused with no active role assigned entitle other accused persons with specific roles to bail?
  • Can an accused who is responsible for trial delays through the non-appearance of counsel claim the right to bail on the ground of statutory delay?
  • Is it permissible for an accused to file repeated bail applications without presenting any fresh grounds after an earlier dismissal on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Matloob Ahmed Shafiqui & 06 others vs The President, Zarai Taraqiati Bank2021 SHC 208 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-26Read full judgment →
• Master Motors Corporation (Pvt.) Limited through Attorney/Authorized2021 CLD 838 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-22Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmed Bhatti vs Federation of Pakistan and others2021 SHC 936 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mashooq Ali Rajpar vs Raja Abdul Hameed and another2021 MLD 850 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-04Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ali vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. & another2021 SHC 98 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →