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.

• Hot vs Malik Allahyar Khan and 5 others2021 CLC 1385 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation. Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax2022 PTD 310, PTCL 2022 CL.437, 2022 PCTLR 1014 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
• Himat Ali and others vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 150 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-28
  kidnapping for ransompolice encounterdelayed FIRidentification paradeballistic reportappellate criminal review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for kidnapping for ransom, police encounter, and illegal arms possession. The core legal questions relate to the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR in abduction cases, the necessity of an identification parade, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding a police encounter and subsequent recovery of the abductee and weapons. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence, including the testimony of the abductee who remained in captivity and identified the culprits, and that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the conviction. The Court established that delay in lodging an FIR in ransom cases is justified where the safety of the victim is at stake, and that an identification parade is unnecessary when witnesses have spent considerable time with the accused and subsequently identify them in court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging an FIR in cases of abduction for ransom is fatal to the prosecution's case when adequately explained?
  • Is a judicial identification parade mandatory when witnesses have spent considerable time in the company of the accused during captivity?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of an abductee recovered during a police encounter is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses warrant the setting aside of a conviction for heinous offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Bilal S/O Naimat Baig vs The State2021 SHC 516 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-07
  pre-arrest bailrobberystatement of co-accusedfurther inquirydelay in FIRcorroborative evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a bail application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.68/2021 registered under Sections 392, 397, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gulbahar Karachi Central. The core legal question concerns whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not nominated in the FIR, was implicated solely through a co-accused's statement during police interrogation, and where an unexplained delay exists in lodging the FIR. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant made out a case for the grant of bail as the prosecution presented no independent or incriminating material to corroborate the co-accused's statement at the tentative assessment stage, and further investigation was no longer required. The court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that a co-accused's statement alone, without corroborative independent material, warrants further inquiry in favour of granting bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is implicated solely on the basis of a statement made by a co-accused during police interrogation?
  • Does the absence of independent corroborative material against an accused person bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR on the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Hasnain Ali Chohan S/o Mumtaz Ahmed vs Miftah Ismail Ahmed and2021 SHC 734 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-02Read full judgment →
• Hashmi Charitable Trust through Chairman vs Javed Baloch and 3 others2021 YLR 762 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-03Read full judgment →
• Hasan Khursheed Hashmi vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 480, 2022 CLC 1288 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04Read full judgment →
• Hamza Alam vs The State2021 YLR 380 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-19
  rapesexual assaultstatement under section 164 Cr.P.C.delay in FIRmedical evidenceminor victimcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the legality and propriety of the judgment passed by the trial court, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The prosecution case alleged that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with a six-and-a-half-year-old minor victim. The core legal questions involved the sustainability of conviction based on statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the victim and her mother were not examined at trial, the effect of delay in lodging the FIR, and the application of Section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through medical evidence and statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which were admissible under Section 265-J due to the unavailability of the witnesses. The appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on the basis of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the victim and witness are not examined during the trial?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report inherently vitiate the prosecution case in sexual assault matters?
  • Can statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as substantive evidence under Section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a negative chemical examiner report sufficient by itself to discard medical and ocular evidence in a rape case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Baig vs Mst. Saba Khan & Others2021 SHC 786 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-26Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ali Tanoli vs The State2022 YLR 602 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-29
  pre-arrest bailheinous crimetentative assessmentabscondencemurdercriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, who is charged with the murder of his wife in a case registered under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail given the material available on the record. The High Court, upon reviewing the case, observed that the deceased had previously filed a complaint regarding threats to her life from the applicant and had initiated legal proceedings for the recovery of her children. Furthermore, the court noted the applicant's abscondence after the incident and his failure to join the investigation. The court held that there was sufficient material connecting the applicant to the heinous crime, thereby disentitling him to the relief of bail. Consequently, the court recalled the interim pre-arrest bail and remanded the applicant to custody. The key principle laid down is that while deciding bail applications, courts must rely on a tentative assessment of the available record, avoiding deeper appreciation of evidence or premature discussion on the merits of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence required when deciding a bail application?
  • Does the failure of an accused to join the investigation after obtaining interim pre-arrest bail constitute grounds for recalling that bail?
  • Can an accused be granted pre-arrest bail if there is sufficient material on record prima facie connecting them to a heinous crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Hameed Haroon vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 1168 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-03Read full judgment →
• Haleem Adil Shaikh vs Election Commission of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 358 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-16Read full judgment →
• Hakimul Din Jokhio S/O Taj Muhammad Jokhio vs The State & Others2021 SHC 310, 2022 MLD 1933 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
• Haji Dost Muhammad Noonari vs Mir Ahmed Noonari and another2022 YLR 156 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-04
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceappreciation of evidencemisreading of evidenceanti-corruptionenmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal, based on the prosecution's failure to prove the allegation of using a fake shorthand certificate for promotion, warranted appellate interference. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court’s decision was sound and not arbitrary or perverse. The court emphasized that an accused person, once acquitted, earns a double presumption of innocence. Consequently, appellate courts must be extremely cautious and should not interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is shown to be perverse, fanciful, or suffering from gross misreading of evidence. The court noted that the prosecution failed to provide independent corroborative evidence and that the case was marred by a significant delay in reporting and clear evidence of pre-existing murderous enmity between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances is a High Court justified in interfering with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
  • Does the double presumption of innocence apply to an accused person who has been acquitted after a full trial?
  • Can an acquittal be overturned solely because a different conclusion could be reached upon re-appraisal of the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Chraguddin vs Province Of Sindh through Home Secretary and 52021 CLC 544 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Adam Jokhio vs National Accountability Bureau & Others2021 SHC 588 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Jawad Ahmed vs The State2021 SHC 158 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18
  post-arrest bailrapefurther inquirydelayed FIRDNA reportno objection affidavit
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, Hafiz Jawad Ahmed, sought post-arrest bail from the Sindh High Court after being refused by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dadu, in a case involving allegations of rape. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail pending trial given the specific evidentiary circumstances of the case. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the significant, unexplained delay of over two months in lodging the FIR, the negative DNA report, and the fact that both the complainant and the victim had filed affidavits before the trial court expressing no objection to the grant of bail. The Court established the principle that where the prosecution's case is weakened by substantial unexplained delay and exculpatory forensic evidence, the case falls within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby justifying the grant of bail to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of two months in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can a negative DNA report be considered a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail in a rape case?
  • What is the legal effect of a complainant and victim filing affidavits of no objection to bail in a criminal proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Fayyaz Samoo and another vs Special Court, Sindh Public Property2021 PLD Sindh 173 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-07
  pre-arrest bailsurety amountexcessive bailright to bailcriminal procedureencroachment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged a trial court order that enhanced the surety amount for the applicants from Rs. 100,000 to Rs. 1,000,000 after initially granting them pre-arrest bail. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in increasing the surety amount without demonstrating that the initial surety had become insufficient, and whether such an enhancement effectively deprived the accused of their right to bail. The Court held that while it has the power to demand sufficient surety, any such demand must be reasonable and justified by changed circumstances or evidence of insufficiency. It ruled that bail should not be used as a punitive measure, and imposing excessive, unaffordable surety amounts frustrates the object of granting bail, particularly when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the Court set aside the enhancement, confirming the bail on the original terms of Rs. 100,000. The key principle laid down is that surety requirements must be reasonable, and courts cannot arbitrarily enhance bail amounts without valid legal justification, as doing so infringes upon the accused's liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court enhance the surety amount of an accused after bail has already been granted without demonstrating that the initial surety has become insufficient?
  • Does the imposition of an excessive and unaffordable surety amount violate the legal principle that bail should not be used as a form of punishment?
  • Is the court required to provide reasonable justification when exercising its power under Section 501 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to demand sufficient bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeez ur Rehman vs Province of Sindh & 02 others2021 SHC 380, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 524 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-29
  suspensiondisciplinary proceedingsterms and conditions of serviceouster of jurisdictionwrit petitioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Deputy Director (Finance & Accounts) in the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA), challenged his suspension order dated 22.03.2021 before the Sindh High Court. He contended that the suspension was passed by an incompetent authority without a show-cause notice, charge sheet, or personal hearing, and was motivated by personal vendetta. The Court examined whether a public servant could challenge a suspension order via a constitutional petition under Article 199. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that disciplinary proceedings fall within the terms and conditions of service, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, thereby barring the High Court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court clarified that suspension is not a punishment but a temporary, intervening arrangement to facilitate an inquiry. Finding no prejudice to the petitioner and noting that the final decision was pending, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, directing the authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within two months and disburse the petitioner's salary during the suspension period.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suspension order of a public servant can be challenged through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the expression 'terms and conditions of service' include disciplinary proceedings and suspension, thereby attracting the jurisdictional bar of Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Is suspension from service considered a punishment or a temporary intervening arrangement under service law?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Machi vs The State2021 SHC 1134 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtidentification evidencepolice witnessSection 161 Cr.P.C.acquittalcapital punishmentnight-time identification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on night-time identification and police-only witnesses. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, finding the evidence unreliable and contradictory. Specifically, the court determined that identification based solely on torchlight or vehicle headlights, where the accused were not previously known to the witnesses, constitutes weak evidence insufficient for a capital conviction. Furthermore, the court emphasized that unexplained delays in recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, coupled with material contradictions regarding the crime scene and witness testimony, undermined the prosecution's narrative. The court reaffirmed the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Is identification by torchlight or vehicle headlights sufficient to sustain a conviction when the accused were not previously known to the witnesses?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the prosecution's case unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Sessions Judge, Tharparkar Mithi and 3 others2021 YLR 312 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-30
  case propertydisposal of propertyprohibited treesenvironmental protectionacquittalapprobate and reprobatetheft
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges the order of the Sessions Judge, Tharparkar Mithi, which upheld the trial court's decision to refuse the release of seized 'Roheero' trees to the applicant following his acquittal in a theft case. The core legal question was whether the court could order the release of prohibited, illegally cut trees to an accused person after their acquittal, particularly when the accused had previously denied ownership of the property during the trial. The Court held that the prohibited trees could not be released to the applicant. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that the trial court possesses discretion under Section 517, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to order the disposal, confiscation, or destruction of property used in the commission of an offense. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that an accused cannot 'approbate and reprobate' by denying ownership during trial proceedings and subsequently claiming ownership for the purpose of property restoration. Additionally, the Court noted that returning prohibited trees would facilitate the repetition of environmental crimes, thereby endangering the ecosystem of the desert region.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person claim ownership of case property after having denied such ownership in their statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a trial court have the discretion to order the confiscation or destruction of prohibited trees used in the commission of an offense under Section 517, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should prohibited trees seized as case property be released to an accused person following their acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Panhwar vs The State2021 SHC 1150 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-01
  fair trialright to cross-examinationremand for retrialdeath sentence confirmationprocedural irregularitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Qamber, which convicted the appellant for murder and house trespass, sentencing him to death. The appellant challenged the conviction, and the trial court referred the matter for confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court's failure to examine the medical officer and the denial of the appellant's right to cross-examine the Investigating Officer constituted a violation of the right to a fair trial. The High Court held that the trial court's procedural lapses, specifically the failure to examine the medical officer and the improper handling of the Investigating Officer's testimony, violated the appellant's constitutional right to a fair trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case for a de novo trial, directing the trial court to examine the medical officer and provide the appellant with the opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer. The judgment reaffirms the principle that strict adherence to procedural fairness and the right to cross-examination are essential components of a fair trial under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine a medical officer in a murder trial violate the right to a fair trial?
  • Is a trial court's decision to copy and paste cross-examination from one witness to another a valid ground for setting aside a conviction?
  • Can a conviction be upheld if the accused was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Bhungar vs Khuwaja Khairuddin Dero2021 SHC 1336 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrapeDNA evidencecomplainant affidavitno objectioncriminal bail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from a case where the applicant was charged with rape. Following the refusal of post-arrest bail by the trial court, the applicant approached the High Court under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, asserting innocence and false implication. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the merits of the case and the complainant's subsequent stance. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a one-day delay, the medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape, and the DNA profile of the victim did not match the applicant's blood sample. Furthermore, the complainant filed an affidavit stating no objection to the bail and affirming the applicant's innocence. Relying on the principle that such circumstances warrant further inquiry, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, subject to furnishing solvent surety, thereby resolving the matter in favor of the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a DNA match between the victim and the accused constitutes grounds for further inquiry in a rape case?
  • Does a complainant's affidavit stating no objection to bail and asserting the accused's innocence provide valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can a delay in lodging an FIR, combined with contradictory medical evidence, entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah and others vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1350 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-21Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Aijaz Ali Khaskheli2021 KLR Civil Cases 255 · Sindh High Court · 2014-02-24Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Aijaz Ali Khaskeli and another2021 P C T L R 1113 · Sindh High Court · 2014-02-12Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited through authorized persons/attorneys vs Mst. Neelofar2021 MLD 1905 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-05Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Shah vs The State2021 MLD 169 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-21
  criminal appealrapebenefit of the doubtreasonable doubtforensic evidenceconvictionwitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court upon the appellant for the rape of a minor girl under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the contradictions in the victim's testimony, the absence of forensic evidence, and the lack of eyewitnesses. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the requisite standard of proof. Specifically, the Court noted significant inconsistencies between the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and her testimony in court, the lack of a DNA match, and the absence of physical evidence at the alleged scene. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the heinous nature of an offense does not absolve the prosecution from proving its case through cogent, reliable, and admissible evidence, and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the heinous nature of an offense relieve the prosecution of the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the victim's testimony in court contradicts their earlier statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on hearsay evidence in the absence of corroborating forensic or eyewitness testimony?
  • Does the absence of a DNA match and physical evidence at the scene of the crime entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Sanghro vs The State2021 SHC 726 · Sindh High Court
  murder convictiondeath penalty reductioncommon intentionunproven motiveacquittal appealnatural witnessescapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple criminal appeals and a revision application arising from a judgment of the Sessions Court, Kambar-Shahdadkot, which convicted three appellants for murder and acquitted a fourth. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, the appropriateness of the death penalty where the alleged motive was unproven, and whether the acquittal of a co-accused was legally sound regarding the principle of common intention. The High Court upheld the convictions of the three appellants, finding the ocular and medical evidence reliable. However, the Court reduced the death sentence of the primary appellant to life imprisonment, holding that the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive warrants caution in capital sentencing. The Court further dismissed the appeal against the acquittal of the co-accused, ruling that mere presence at the scene without evidence of an overt act is insufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The principle laid down is that while natural witnesses are credible, the failure to prove motive necessitates a reduction of the death penalty to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive in a murder case warrant the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the testimony of natural witnesses be discarded solely due to their blood relationship with the deceased?
  • What is the scope of appellate interference in an acquittal judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan S/O Muhammad Hassan vs The State2021 SHC 512 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-20
  pre-arrest bailnon-nomination in FIRfurther inquirycriminal procedurebail confirmationabetment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Gul Hassan, in connection with Crime No. 324/2021 registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought pre-arrest bail after his initial application was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and was allegedly not present at the scene, was entitled to pre-arrest bail. The High Court observed that the FIR did not nominate the applicant, and his alleged involvement or abetment remained a matter requiring further inquiry, dependent on evidence to be produced at trial. Additionally, the Court noted a 24-hour delay in lodging the FIR. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not nominated in the FIR and their presence at the scene is disputed, the question of their involvement constitutes a matter of further inquiry, justifying the confirmation of pre-arrest bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when they are not nominated in the FIR and their presence at the crime scene is disputed?
  • Does a 24-hour delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can the question of an accused's involvement or abetment be determined at the bail stage without evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan Alias Gul and an Others vs The State2021 SHC 264 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• Gul Farooq S/O Parosh Khan vs The State2021 SHC 1006 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-26
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirymala fidedelayed FIRcriminal intimidationvicarious liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Gul Farooq, who was implicated in an FIR registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including charges of abduction, theft, and criminal intimidation. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of a delayed FIR, lack of specific role attribution, and the absence of incriminating evidence. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, observing that the prosecution failed to connect the applicant to the alleged offences with any specific material. The Court noted that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of one month and lacked material particulars regarding the stolen property and the alleged extortionate threats. Emphasizing that the case required further inquiry and that mala fide on the part of the complainant could not be ruled out, the Court confirmed the interim bail. The key principle laid down is that where allegations are vague, specific roles are not ascribed, and no incriminating material exists, a case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Is pre-arrest bail warranted when the FIR lacks specific role attribution and incriminating material against the accused?
  • Can the possibility of mala fide on the part of the complainant justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Bahar Jatoi vs The State2021 MLD 1943 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-13
  post-arrest bailgas theftprohibitory clausetentative assessmentGas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act 2016unauthorized gas connectionrecovery of apparatus
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arose from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant/accused in Crime No. 90/2019, registered under Sections 15, 17, 24, and 2(s) of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, following the dismissal of his earlier bail plea by the Sessions Judge, Sukkur. The core legal questions before the High Court of Sindh were whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the evidentiary material collected, the scope of tentative assessment at the bail stage, and whether the alleged offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that prima facie evidence implicated the applicant, including the recovery of gas theft apparatus (generator, gas kit, pipes) from his hotel and corroborative statements of official witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The Court reaffirmed that at the bail stage only a tentative assessment of the material is permissible and that the prescribed punishment attracts the prohibitory threshold.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recovery of gas theft apparatus from the premises of the accused provides sufficient reasonable grounds to decline post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the offences under Sections 15, 17, and 24 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act 2016 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused claim bail based on lack of independent mashirs where the recovery is attested by official functionaries without any demonstrated animus or malice?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Bahar Bano vs Federation of Pakistan & another2021 SHC 194 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• Gul Ahmed vs Ld CJ & JM & Ors2021 SHC 90 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-11
  criminal miscellaneous applicationFIR cancellationC Class disposalB Class disposaldelayed FIRmatrimonial disputedishonoured cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I (MCTC) Dadu, which disposed of a First Information Report (FIR) under 'C' Class. The applicant, who alleged that a loan extended to his brother-in-law was dishonoured via a bounced cheque issued by his wife, sought to set aside the magistrate's order and requested that the court take cognizance of the incident. The core legal question was whether the magistrate erred in disposing of the case under 'C' Class rather than proceeding with the prosecution. Upon review, the Court found that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of over one month, following unsuccessful proceedings under Section 22-A & B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the dispute appeared to be a matrimonial conflict involving the misuse of a blank cheque. Consequently, the Court held that the magistrate had actually favoured the applicant by opting for 'C' Class disposal instead of 'B' Class, which would have exposed the applicant to prosecution for filing a false case. The application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a magistrate's order disposing of an FIR under 'C' Class is liable to be set aside when the underlying dispute appears to be a matrimonial conflict?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the dismissal of a criminal miscellaneous application seeking to challenge the cancellation of that FIR?
  • Is a complainant entitled to challenge a magistrate's decision to dispose of a case under 'C' Class when the alternative 'B' Class disposal would have exposed the complainant to prosecution for a false case?
  Read full judgment →
• Govind Ram vs The Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 2 others2022 PTD 634 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-20Read full judgment →
• Govind Ram vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 1118 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-17Read full judgment →
• Gohar Manzoor Fca vs Ica Of Pakistan through Secretary of Institute2021 PLJ Karachi 190, 2022 CLD 302 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Umer Gopang vs The State2021 YLR 710 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-10
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRunnamed accusedin-court identificationmurdercommon intentionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Ghulam Umer Gopang, under sections 302(b) and 148 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether an accused whose name was omitted from the initial First Information Report and whose identity was introduced belatedly without specific role attribution could be legally convicted, and whether in-court identification without prior identification proceedings carries evidentiary weight. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the appellant was neither named in the FIR nor in the initial police statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the delayed disclosure and weak in-court identification without a designated role rendered the case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an in-court identification of an accused by eye-witnesses carry sufficient evidentiary value without prior test identification proceedings or assigned roles?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding their guilt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the accused's name is omitted from the First Information Report and introduced only through belated further statements without explaining the source of information?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 SHC 388 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Sain Bux & others2021 SHC 44 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar through LRs and others vs Ghulam Rasool through LRs and others2021 SHC 1326 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State2021 SHC 796 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-03
  post-arrest bailcontrol of narcotic substancesborderline caseprohibitory clausefurther inquirypolice witnessesindependent mashirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Ghulam Rasool in Crime No.45 of 2021 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question involves determining whether the recovery of 1020 grams of charas, falling near the borderline of the prohibitory clause, and the reliance solely on police witnesses without independent mashirs warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the applicant was no longer required for investigation, the case relied entirely on police witnesses without independent verification, and the complainant himself conducted the investigation, thus creating grounds for further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where a narcotics case relies on police witnesses without independent corroboration and the recovered quantity borders on the non-prohibitory threshold, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the basis of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of 1020 grams of charas fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted on the ground that the prosecution's case rests solely on police witnesses without associating private independent mashirs?
  • Does an investigation conducted by the complainant himself warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Phulpoto vs The State2021 SHC 1200 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07
  narcotics possessionconscious possessionburden of proofprocedural technicalitiescriminal appealpolice witnesseschemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for transporting 20.2 kilograms of opium. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated, citing the absence of independent witnesses, non-examination of the FIR author and the official who transmitted the narcotics to the chemical examiner, and alleged contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the appellant's conscious possession of the narcotics to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent testimony of police officials. The Court affirmed that in narcotics cases, technical procedural defects should be overlooked if the prosecution establishes physical custody or direct concern with the substance. Once physical possession is proven, the burden shifts to the accused to prove, by a preponderance of probability, that they did not knowingly possess the contraband. The Court further held that police witnesses are credible absent evidence of enmity, and minor contradictions are immaterial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the official who recorded the FIR or the official who transmitted the narcotics to the chemical examiner automatically vitiate a conviction in a narcotics case?
  • What is the effect of procedural technicalities on a narcotics case where the prosecution has otherwise established the accused's physical possession of the contraband?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused once the prosecution establishes that the accused had physical custody of a narcotic substance?
  • Are police officials considered credible witnesses in narcotics cases in the absence of evidence of personal enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Aamar vs The State through DPG & another2021 SHC 1174 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim through his legal heirs vs The Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1276 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir Tunio & Others vs The State2021 SHC 1232 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-09
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailcriminal appealshort sentencebail pending appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants to terms aggregating two years by the Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Qamber. The appellants filed an appeal against their conviction and simultaneously sought the suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending the final adjudication of the appeal. The core legal question was whether the appellants were entitled to suspension of sentence and bail given the short duration of the sentence, the likelihood of delay in the appeal hearing, and the fact that they had remained on bail during the trial. The Court, noting that the State did not oppose the application, held that the sentence should be suspended. Relying on the principle established in Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Abdullah and others (1999 SCMR 2589), the Court suspended the sentences and admitted the appellants to bail, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds. The key principle affirmed is that where a sentence is short and the appeal is unlikely to be heard immediately, suspension of sentence and grant of bail is appropriate, particularly when the accused enjoyed bail during the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended and bail granted to a convict pending the hearing of their appeal?
  • Is the fact that an accused enjoyed bail during the trial a relevant factor for granting bail after conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir & others vs Qaim @ Qaimuddin & others2021 SHC 1250 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi through L.Rs. and others vs Noor Muhammad and 9 others2021 YLR 238 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi alias ShutiBhayo vs The State2021 SHC 860 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-26
  post-arrest bailabscondenceprohibitory clausetrial commencementmurdertentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Ghulam Nabi alias Shuti Bhayo, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, which denied him bail in a case involving offenses under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail despite being a fugitive from justice and the fact that the trial had already commenced. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, noting that the offenses fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court emphasized that where a trial has already commenced and is fixed for evidence, bail applications should not be considered on merits to avoid prejudicing either party. The key principle laid down is that the plea of previous enmity cannot be considered at the bail stage as it cuts both ways, and that once a trial has begun, the matter should be left to the trial court for expeditious conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the plea of previous enmity entitle an accused to bail at the pre-trial stage?
  • Should a bail application be considered on merits once the trial has commenced and evidence is being recorded?
  • Does an accused who has remained an absconder lose the right to the concession of bail?
  • Can a court grant bail for offenses falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State2021 SHC 672 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-08
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabduction for ransomanti-terrorismtentative assessmentevidentiary sufficiency
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, concerning the alleged abduction of the complainant's son for ransom. The core legal question was whether, given the absence of eyewitnesses and tangible evidence, the applicants were entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry. The Court observed that the prosecution's case relied solely on the complainant's allegations, with no incriminating material connecting the applicants to the abduction or the ransom demand. Furthermore, the Court noted the lack of criminal history and the absence of direct evidence. Consequently, the High Court held that the applicants' involvement required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that mere allegations in an F.I.R., unsupported by positive evidence or corroborating material, are insufficient to deny bail when the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of eyewitnesses and tangible evidence regarding an abduction for ransom constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case rests solely on the complainant's allegations without corroborating material?
  • Is a tentative assessment of evidence sufficient to determine entitlement to bail in cases involving serious offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Divisional Forest Officer, Nawabshah and 4 others2021 CLC 1657 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Memon vs Election Commission of Pakistan & Others2021 SHC 1090 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Mahesar and Ors vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 494 · Sindh High Court
  doctrine of pleasurelaw officerstermination of serviceconstitutional petitiontenure of appointmentlawyer-client relationshipSindh High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioners' services as Additional Advocate General and Assistant Advocate General by the Government of Sindh. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, having been appointed for a specific tenure, could be removed at the government's discretion, and whether the 'doctrine of pleasure' applied to their appointments. The Court held that the relationship between the government and its law officers is essentially a lawyer-client relationship based on mutual trust and confidence. Consequently, the government is entitled to terminate such services at its discretion without adhering to the procedural formalities mandated for civil servants under the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973. The Court affirmed that law officers hold office at the pleasure of the government and possess no vested right to continue in their positions. The petitions were dismissed, with the Court clarifying that the termination order was an order simpliciter and did not cast any professional stigma upon the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of pleasure apply to the appointment and removal of government law officers?
  • Is the relationship between the government and its law officers governed by the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Can a law officer claim a vested right to continue in office for a fixed tenure against the wishes of the government?
  • Does the termination of a government law officer's services constitute a stigma on their professional reputation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Bugti vs Superintending Engineer SEPCO Larkana, &2021 SHC 676 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Zulfiqar Ali Behan2021 SHC 1058 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza Abbasi vs National Bank of Pakistan2021 SHC 304 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-12
  Constitutional petitionService matterMisconductRegular inquiryBack benefitsProportionality of penaltyNatural justiceReinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of the petitioner from service by the National Bank of Pakistan for alleged misconduct regarding the supervision of a WEBOC counter. The core legal questions concerned whether the bank could dispense with a regular inquiry despite the petitioner's denial of charges, and whether the imposed penalty was proportionate. The Court held that the dismissal and subsequent appellate order imposing a minor penalty of downgrading were unsustainable. It found that the respondent-bank failed to conduct a necessary regular inquiry to resolve disputed facts, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Court determined that the allegations did not warrant such severe penalties and that the charge itself was legally flawed. The Court established that while back benefits do not automatically follow reinstatement, the burden of proof regarding gainful employment shifts to the employer once an employee asserts unemployment. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the petitioner's reinstatement, emphasizing that penalties must be proportionate to the gravity of proven charges and that dispensing with regular inquiries requires cogent, justiciable reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a department can dispense with a regular inquiry when the employee denies the allegations of misconduct?
  • Does the principle of proportionality require that a penalty must correspond to the gravity of the proven charge?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie regarding an employee's gainful employment for the purpose of claiming back benefits?
  • Can a court re-examine the reasons assigned by a departmental authority for dispensing with a regular inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Piyaro and 6 others2021 MLD 33 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-11
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceocular testimonyplace of occurrencebenefit of doubtappellate interferencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a sound appreciation of evidence, specifically regarding the presence of eye-witnesses at the crime scene. The prosecution alleged the murder occurred inside the respondents' house where the witnesses were staying as guests. However, evidence from the Tapedar, mashir, and the investigating officer confirmed the incident occurred on an open plot adjacent to the house, contradicting the ocular testimony. The High Court held that this material discrepancy rendered the eye-witnesses' presence doubtful, thereby failing to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Affirming the acquittal, the Court reiterated the principle that an accused person, once acquitted, enjoys a double presumption of innocence. Consequently, appellate interference is only warranted if the acquittal is perverse, arbitrary, or manifestly wrong, which was not established in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material discrepancy regarding the place of occurrence in a murder trial warrant the rejection of ocular testimony?
  • What is the legal standard for an appellate court to interfere with a trial court's order of acquittal?
  • Does an acquitted accused person enjoy a double presumption of innocence in an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder Mahar vs Illahi Bux Mahar and others2021 SHC 644, 2022 CLC 1374 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder Abro vs The State2021 SHC 1230 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-09
  triple murderprocedural irregularityremandre-examination of witnesscriminal appealtrial court judgmentpostmortem report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellant for triple murder and related offences. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, as part of an unlawful assembly, committed the murders of three women and injured another. The trial court convicted the appellant under sections 302, 324, 337-H(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon review, the High Court identified significant procedural irregularities. Specifically, the medical officer who conducted the postmortem was not recalled for re-examination following an amendment to the charge, violating Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the trial court failed to award convictions for all proven offences and did not comply with the requirement under Section 367(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to provide points for determination and reasons for the decision. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision after re-examining the medical witness, emphasizing the necessity of procedural compliance in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure to recall a medical witness for re-examination after an amendment of charge a fatal procedural error?
  • Does a trial court judgment failing to specify points for determination and reasons for decision violate the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an appellate court remand a criminal case to the trial court to cure procedural omissions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 SHC 386 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust through Managing Director and Director Pension, Islamabad and 2 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 919 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-13
  pensionillegal deductionrent deductionretired employeesconstitutional petitionrefund
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a retired employee of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) aggrieved by the illegal monthly deduction of rent from his pension by the respondents. The core legal question addressed is whether rent can be lawfully deducted from the pension of retired employees. The Sindh High Court held that no amount on account of rent can be legally deducted from a pension. Based on undertakings provided by the respondents admitting to illegal deductions from the petitioner and other retired employees, the Court allowed the petition by consent, directing the full refund of all illegally deducted amounts to the petitioner within thirty days and to other affected retired employees within three months, accompanied by the publication of public notices in leading newspapers and the submission of a compliance report.

  Questions settled

  • Whether rent can be lawfully deducted from the pension of a retired employee?
  • Are employers liable to refund amounts illegally deducted from the pension of retired employees?
  • Can a constitutional petition be disposed of in terms of undertakings given by respondents regarding the refund of illegally deducted pension amounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 109 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider & others vs Rasheed Peter (Since Deceased, though legal2021 SHC 1008 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farooq Tunio vs Province of Sindh and another2021 SHC 836 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali S/O Dad Muhammad Magsi vs The State & Others2021 SHC 320 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali Shah & Others vs The State2021 SHC 1028 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
• Ghazi son of Ali Mardan Jatoi vs The State2021 SHC 876 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-02
  post-arrest bailKaro-Kariretraction of testimonyeyewitness affidavitsmurderprima facie casecircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, who is charged with the murder of his wife under the pretext of 'Karo-Kari'. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail based on affidavits filed by eyewitnesses who sought to retract their initial statements and exonerate the applicant. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the accused failed to make a case for relief. The Court observed that the prosecution had established a prima facie case through statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and circumstantial evidence, including mashirnamas regarding the disposal of the deceased's body. The Court emphasized the principle that the practice of eyewitnesses retracting their testimony via affidavits at the bail stage to create doubt in the prosecution's case is a contumacious conduct that has been consistently deprecated by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court found the accused was not entitled to the concession of bail and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within four months.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted bail solely on the basis of affidavits filed by eyewitnesses retracting their previous statements?
  • Does the filing of affidavits by eyewitnesses at the bail stage create sufficient doubt to entitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail where prima facie evidence, including statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, connects him to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Hammadullah vs Senior Superintendent Of Police, Khairpur and others2021 CLC 1174 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain Shahani vs Dr. Abdul Qadir And 6 others2021 P Cr. L J 495 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-01
  criminal acquittal appealmedical negligencedouble presumption of innocenceappraisal of evidencebenefit of doubthomicide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 302 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in a case involving the alleged death of the complainant's wife due to medical negligence during an operation. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misreading of evidence or resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the complainant did not allow for a post-mortem or exhumation of the body, leaving the cause of death unascertained. Furthermore, the court emphasized that in an appeal against acquittal, there is a presumption of double innocence, and interference is only warranted if the trial court's findings are perverse or arbitrary. Finding no such error, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that an administrative enquiry report not produced during the trial could not be used to secure a conviction in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal by a competent court of law create a double presumption of innocence?
  • Can an administrative enquiry report not exhibited during trial be relied upon by an appellate court to convict an accused?
  • Is interference in an acquittal appeal permissible merely on the possibility of a contrary view of the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazi, Habibullah and Ramzan vs The State2021 SHC 862 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-26
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausevicarious liabilityinstigationaerial firingfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by the applicants, Ghazi, Habibullah, and Ramzan, seeking post-arrest bail after the Sessions Judge Shikarpur refused the same via an order dated 24.5.2021. The applicants were implicated in F.I.R No.08 of 2021 under sections 324, 114, 147, 148, 149, 337-H (2), 337-A(i), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Sultan-Kot. The core legal question pertained to whether post-arrest bail ought to be granted when the offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the specific roles attributed involved instigation and aerial firing without causing direct injuries. The Sindh High Court held that the case fell within the purview of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, emphasizing that grant of bail in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal an exception. The court laid down the principle that subordinate courts must apply judicious minds to the conduct of the accused and the circumstances of the case before denying bail, following the binding precedents of the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the alleged offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an allegation of mere instigation and aerial firing without causing physical injuries bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the primary circumstances and exceptions that justify the refusal of bail in offenses not covered by the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rehman and another vs The State2021 YLR 1993 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-19
  murderlife imprisonmenteye-witness evidencenatural witnessinjured witnessmedical evidenceforensic reportplea of alibirelated witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi, convicting the appellant under Sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment and five years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. The prosecution alleged that following a dispute over construction of a rainy water outlet, the appellant shot at the complainant party with a pistol, killing one person and injuring another. The High Court reassessed the evidence and found the testimony of the eye-witnesses, including an injured witness, to be reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring. The medical evidence, recovery of the murder weapon, and positive forensic reports provided additional corroborative support. The Court observed that minor contradictions do not destroy the prosecution case, that testimonies of police officials and related witnesses are reliable absent ill will, and that the defence plea of false implication and alibi lacked merit. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for Qatl-e-Amd under Section 302(b) PPC be based upon the reliable direct oral evidence of eye-witnesses?
  • Does a minor conflict between medical evidence and oral eye-witness evidence fatal to the prosecution case when the direct testimony is trustworthy?
  • Whether the testimony of a related witness can be relied upon in the absence of proven enmity or ill will against the accused?
  • Do minor discrepancies or contradictions in prosecution witness testimonies affect a conviction if the main narrative remains consistent?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Nazir Printing Press & Others vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 116 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-20Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Meerani vs StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1879 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-04
  rape convictionsole testimony of victimcriminal appealmedical evidenceburden of proofinvestigation lapseskidnappingacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for rape and kidnapping under Sections 376 and 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, in the absence of corroborating evidence and amidst significant contradictions, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Sindh High Court held that while the sole testimony of a victim can theoretically form the basis of a conviction in rape cases, it must be inherently trustworthy, natural, and confidence-inspiring. In this instance, the court found the prosecutrix's testimony riddled with material contradictions, unsupported by medical evidence, and uncorroborated by independent witnesses. Furthermore, the investigation was found to be severely flawed and negligent. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The key principle laid down is that the rule allowing conviction on the sole testimony of a victim is not a routine command but must be applied with extreme caution, particularly where the testimony lacks credibility or is contradicted by surrounding circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for rape be sustained solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if her account is contradicted by medical evidence and lacks corroboration?
  • Does the rule allowing for conviction on the sole testimony of a victim apply as a matter of course in all rape cases?
  • What is the impact of a flawed and negligent police investigation on the prosecution's burden to prove a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Khan & others vs Hassan Zada & another2021 SHC 410 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-29Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Hussain Jatoi vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 1346 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-21Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Hussain & Others vs The State2021 SHC 902 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Ali Mastoi vs Assistant XEN Irrigation Shahdadkot & others2021 SHC 678, 2022 PLD Sindh 131 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-03Read full judgment →
• Fawwad Salim Malik vs Mrs. Samina Ansari and others2021 SHC 1270, 2022 YLR 2304 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-14Read full judgment →
• Fawad Fazal vs Habib Bank Limited and 11 others2021 MLD 1336 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-11Read full judgment →
• Fauji Oil Terminal & Distribution Company Limited vs Port Qasim Authority2021 SHC 662 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-19Read full judgment →
• Fauji Cement Company Limited through constituted attorney vs Deputy2021 PTD 949 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-10Read full judgment →
• Fatima Fertilizer Company Limited through Duly authorized Officer vs Commissioner-II, Sindh Revenue Board2021 PTD 484 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-22
  withholding agentsales tax on servicesprospective application of fiscal statutesdefault surchargetax liabilitySindh Revenue Boardreference application
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application arises from a judgment of the Appellate Tribunal, Sindh Revenue Board, which held the applicant liable as a withholding agent for un-deposited sales tax on advertising services for periods spanning between July 2011 and February 2014. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether a withholding agent could be held personally liable to pay tax under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 for periods prior to the specific statutory incorporation of such withholding liability via section 13(3) by the Finance Act, 2019, and whether default surcharge could be levied. The court held that fiscal statutes operate prospectively and that personal liability for withholding agents was not legally sanctioned prior to the 2019 amendment; generic definitions of 'person' cannot override charging provisions. Consequently, the court answered the reframed questions in the negative, ruling in favor of the taxpayer, setting aside the principal tax liability and default surcharge for want of pre-existing statutory obligation during the relevant tax periods, while affirming principles of strict interpretation of fiscal statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the applicant as a withholding agent was a person liable to tax in respect of the period under deliberation prior to the Finance Act, 2019?
  • Whether the subsequently added provision of section 13(3) of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 could be construed to have retrospective effect?
  • Whether the imposition of default surcharge was warranted in the absence of a pre-existing statutory obligation to pay tax during the relevant period?
  • Whether generic definitions of a person within a fiscal statute can be applied to create a charging liability without explicit statutory backing?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and 9 others vs Pervaiz Ali and 15 others2021 CLC 1644 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-09Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Arfeen vs G.M. HR Officer & others2021 SHC 117 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21Read full judgment →
• Farooque son of Siddique vs State2021 SHC 800 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-23
  criminal appealrobberybenefit of doubtrecoveryindependent witnessesadverse inferenceSection 103 CrPCacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the material contradictions in the evidence and the failure to associate independent witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden. Key flaws included the non-examination of a material eye-witness, significant contradictions regarding the time of the incident, and the failure to associate independent witnesses for the recovery of the weapon, which violated the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 due to the non-production of available witnesses. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, affirming the principle that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 for failing to produce a material eye-witness?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Farida Azam Ali vs Province of Sindh and others2021 SHC 754, 2022 CLC 395 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-17Read full judgment →
• Famous Brands (Private) Ltd. through Authorized Signatory vs Samsonite Ip2021 CLD 1008 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-19Read full judgment →
• Falak Jan and others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2022 PTD 512 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
• Fajjar Din vs Federation of Pakistan & 04 others2021 SHC 438 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-26
  Airport Security ForcePakistan Army Actcompulsory retirementconstitutional jurisdictionconstitutional barservice tribunaldisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by an Inspector of the Airport Security Force (ASF) challenging his compulsory retirement order and subsequent appellate order. The core legal questions involved whether ASF employees are subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, and whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to review such disciplinary actions in light of constitutional and statutory bars. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that by operation of Section 7-A of the Airports Security Force Act, 1975 and the terms of his appointment, the petitioner was subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The Court laid down that under Article 199(3) and Article 8(3) of the Constitution, read with Section 7-A of the Airports Security Force Act, 1975, the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred from interfering with terms, conditions, and disciplinary actions concerning members of forces subject to laws relating to the Armed Forces, absent proof of malice, lack of jurisdiction, or being coram non judice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Airport Security Force are subject to the provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 to set aside disciplinary orders passed against members of the Airport Security Force who are subject to the Pakistan Army Act?
  • Whether the bar contained in Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 precludes a High Court from entertaining service-related petitions of ASF personnel?
  • Whether a regular departmental inquiry is mandatory for imposing a major penalty where undeniable material exists against an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Faizan vs The State2021 YLR 629 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-05
  post-arrest baildacoityidentification paradefurther inquiryunnamed accusedcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed before the Sindh High Court arising from Crime No.368 of 2019 registered at Police Station Eidgah, Karachi, under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail where the accused was not named in the FIR, no identification parade was properly conducted, no recovery was made from him, and the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicant made out a case for further inquiry because the accused was unnamed in the FIR, the identification parade failed to follow settled legal guidelines, and no incriminating material was recovered. The Court laid down the principle that while examining bail, the minimum sentence provided for the alleged offense must be considered, and procedural lapses in conducting an identification parade strongly support a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused not named in the FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail when an identification parade is improperly conducted?
  • Does the absence of incriminating recovery from an accused warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should the minimum sentence provided for an offense in the schedule be considered while examining the question of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Faizan Raza & Others vs Federation of Pakistan & Another2021 SHC 1222 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-08Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ur Rehman @ Abdul Rehman vs The State2021 SHC 314 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-13
  post-arrest bailAnti-Terrorism Act 1997proscribed organizationterror financingmoney trailreceipt bookfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application was filed under Section 21-D of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 read with Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 42/2020 registered under Sections 11-H, 11-N, and 11-F(i)(ii) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The applicant was accused of being a member of a proscribed organization and collecting donations to finance terrorism, based on an intelligence report. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution failed to produce evidence establishing a nexus between the recovered receipt book and actual terror financing. The High Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that in the absence of any material demonstrating a money trail connecting the applicant to the proscribed organization or establishing his involvement in financing terror, a case for bail was made out, leaving the evidentiary value of the receipt book to be determined at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 where the prosecution fails to establish a money trail linking the accused to a proscribed organization?
  • Does the mere recovery of a receipt book without corroborative evidence of terror financing justify the continued detention of an accused prior to trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Rasool vs Province of Sindh and 05 others2021 SHC 34 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad & another vs The State2021 SHC 582 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-16
  pre-arrest bailcounter versioncross casesuppression of injuriesfurther inquirybail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants Faiz Muhammad and Ali Hassan in respect of Crime No. 30/2020 registered under Sections 324, 506(2), 504, 114, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Khahi, along with a connected application for bail cancellation. The core legal question concerns the grant of pre-arrest bail in a case involving a counter-version where injuries sustained by both parties were suppressed in the respective FIRs and the determination of the aggressor remains a matter for trial. The Sindh High Court held that where both parties sustained injuries not disclosed in the initial FIRs and challans have been submitted in both cross-cases, determining the aggressor is a question of evidence for the trial court, bringing the case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail of the applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted in a criminal case involving a counter-version where both parties sustained injuries that were suppressed in their respective FIRs?
  • Does a case where the determination of the aggressor depends upon recording evidence at trial fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Faique Ali Jagirani vs Federation of Pakistan2021 SHC 350, 2022 CLC 2124 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-21Read full judgment →
• Faiq Ali and others vs Federation Of Pakistan and others2021 YLR 1406 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-12Read full judgment →
• Faheem Ali Gambheer vs P.O. Sindh & others2021 SHC 594 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-31Read full judgment →
• Fahad Nawaz S/O Gul Nawaz vs The State2021 SHC 500 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-23
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlprohibitory clausechemical examiner reportcharas recoverybail applicationstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Fahad Nawaz, in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 2,140 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered, the alleged delay in chemical examination, and the fact that a co-accused had been granted bail. The Court held that the quantity of narcotics recovered (2,140 grams) placed the case squarely within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Section 51 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, as it exceeded the one-kilogram threshold. The Court rejected the argument that the co-accused's bail set a precedent, noting the co-accused's recovery was marginal and distinguishable. Furthermore, the Court found the explanation for the delay in chemical examination satisfactory. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to conclude the proceedings within three months. The judgment reaffirms that the prohibition against bail in narcotics cases applies where the quantity exceeds statutory limits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics exceeding one kilogram trigger the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted in a narcotics case solely on the ground that a co-accused with a smaller recovery was released on bail?
  • Is the non-association of public witnesses in a police recovery memo sufficient grounds to grant bail in a narcotics case?
  • Does the prohibition contained in Section 51 of The Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply to offences under Section 9(c) of the same Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Executive Engineer, Highways Division Moro and 4 others vs Nazeer Ahmed2021 CLC 915 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-27Read full judgment →