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.

• Ayaz vs The State2021 MLD 2019 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-04
  police encounterbenefit of doubtidentification paradeindependent corroborationcriminal appealstandard of proofanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, arising from an alleged police encounter. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence provided solely by police witnesses, the validity of identification without a parade, and the standard of proof required in police encounter cases. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that the police failed to produce independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a populated area. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that identification of an accused for the first time before the trial court is generally unsafe without a prior identification parade. It was also established that in police encounter cases, the standard of proof is higher, and it is imperative that such cases be investigated by an independent agency rather than the police investigating their own cause.

  Questions settled

  • Is it safe to maintain a conviction based on identification of an accused for the first time before the trial court without a prior identification parade?
  • Does the testimony of injured police witnesses in an encounter case automatically warrant conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Should police officials be permitted to investigate cases involving their own alleged encounters?
  • Is the failure to produce independent witnesses in a public-place incident fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz alias Cotton Shah vs The State2022 MLD 150 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-03
  narcoticssafe custody of case propertychemical examiner reportbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealmalkhanarecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of narcotics, safe custody and safe transit of the case property to the chemical examiner, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of independent witnesses. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to unexplained delays in sending the sample to the chemical examiner, lack of evidence regarding safe custody in the malkhana, non-association of private independent witnesses despite a thickly populated locality, and material contradictions in the evidence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of the doubt, reinforcing the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to establish the safe custody and safe transit of recovered narcotics to the chemical examiner vitiates the conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered narcotics to the chemical laboratory render the chemical report unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to associate independent private witnesses for a recovery made in a thickly populated area under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ali vs The State2021 MLD 1501 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-27
  criminal appealunlicensed armsbenefit of doubtacquittaldelayed recoveryfirearms expert report
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant impugned his conviction and sentence under Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 for possessing an unlicensed weapon allegedly used in a murder case, resulting in five years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved the case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, considering delayed forensic analysis, lack of exclusive possession, and his acquittal in the main murder case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from significant doubts, including unexplained delays in sending the weapon to the firearms expert and failure to put questions regarding the expert report to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in sending a recovered weapon to an expert creates a reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is it mandatory to put questions to an accused person under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an expert report?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • What is the effect of the acquittal of an accused in a main murder case upon a subsidiary charge of possessing an unlicensed weapon allegedly used in that crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ali Rajpar, Zulfiqar Khushk and Ors vs Advocate General Sindh and Others, Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 490 · Sindh High Court
  civil service cadreultra viressubordinate legislationmerger of cadresconstitutional petitionprovincial management servicestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the Sindh Civil Servants (Provincial Management Service) Rules, 2018, which amalgamated the Ex-PCS and PSS cadres into a single service. The core legal question was whether the executive could, through subordinate legislation, merge distinct civil service cadres in violation of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and constitutional mandates. The High Court held that the 2018 Rules were ultra vires, unconstitutional, and in conflict with the parent Act. The Court reasoned that the Civil Servants Act, 1973, establishes a compartmentalized service structure where cadres are distinct and not interchangeable. Subordinate rules cannot override the parent statute or defeat the legislative intent regarding merit-based progression. The Court affirmed that horizontal movement between distinct cadres without legislative amendment is impermissible. Consequently, the Court struck down the impugned notification and the 2018 Rules, emphasizing that rule-making power is incidental and must remain within the precincts of the parent statute, failing which the rules must yield to the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Can the provincial government merge distinct civil service cadres through subordinate rules without amending the parent Act?
  • Are the Sindh Civil Servants (Provincial Management Service) Rules, 2018, ultra vires the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the horizontal movement of civil servants between distinct cadres violate the principles of merit-based progression established under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can subordinate legislation override or contradict the provisions of the parent statute under which it was framed?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ali Lund & Others vs The State2021 SHC 1294 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-16
  criminal jail appealmurderdelay in FIRSection 161 CrPC statementbenefit of doubtvicarious liabilityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arose from the judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Dadu, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The core legal questions before the High Court pertained to whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given doubts surrounding night-time identity, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, non-production of independent witnesses or medical proof of an unexamined witness's alleged mental illness, and lack of expert ballistic evidence. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that an unexplained delay of one day in lodging the FIR and four days in recording a key witness's statement reduces evidentiary value, and uncorroborated vicarious liability combined with absence of forensic/ballistic evidence creates a reasonable doubt. It reiterated the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create doubt regarding consultation and deliberate false implication?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a witness statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded with unexplained delay?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Ahmed and Others vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 624 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-07Read full judgment →
• Awais and another vs The State2021 PLD Sindh 25 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-26
  compromisecompounding of offenceQisas and Diyatnon-Muslim legal heirsSection 345 CrPCmurderacquittal on compromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I/Model Criminal Trial Court, Shahdadkot, sentencing them to life imprisonment. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants submitted applications under Section 345(5) and Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking acquittal based on a compromise reached with the deceased's legal heirs. The State opposed the compromise on the ground that the legal heirs were non-Muslims while the convicts were Muslims. The High Court considered whether a valid compromise under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be effected between Muslim convicts and non-Muslim legal heirs. Relying on precedent, the High Court held that the scheme of Section 345 contains no religious restrictions or disqualifications concerning who may compound an offence. Having verified the voluntary waiver of Qisas and Diyat by all legal heirs, the High Court accepted the compromise and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compoundable offence be lawfully compounded between Muslim convicts and non-Muslim legal heirs under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impose any religious restrictions on the competence of parties entering into a compromise?
  • Whether the waiver of Qisas and Diyat by all legal heirs without claiming Badl-e-Sulh entitles convicted persons to acquittal under Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzaib vs Federation of Pakistan and 03 others2021 SHC 414 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-05
  disciplinary proceedingsmajor penaltyterms and conditions of serviceregular inquirynatural justiceaudi alteram partemservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the imposition of major penalties of removal from service against the petitioners without conducting a regular inquiry or providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The core legal questions addressed are whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain petitions regarding disciplinary proceedings of civil servants, and whether a major penalty can be imposed without a formal inquiry. The Court observed that disciplinary proceedings fall within the terms and conditions of service, which are generally subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunals under Article 212 of the Constitution. However, noting that the respondents had already withdrawn the impugned removal orders, the Court set aside the penalties and remanded the cases to the competent authority. The Court laid down the principle that while departmental authorities have discretion in awarding penalties, the imposition of a major penalty without a regular inquiry and a fair opportunity to explain one's position is arbitrary, violates the principles of natural justice, and constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding the disciplinary proceedings of a civil servant?
  • Can a major penalty of removal from service be imposed upon a civil servant without conducting a regular inquiry?
  • Does the imposition of a major penalty without providing an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Augustine Eric Wilson and another vs Mrs. Daisy through Legal2021 MLD 64 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-29Read full judgment →
• Atharuddin Ahmed vs Superintendent Engineer Sukkur Barrage and others2021 SHC 1204 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Associated Agencies Limited and another vs The District Judge Karachi2021 CLC 196 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-30Read full judgment →
• Assadullah vs The State2021 MLD 1351 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-03
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealpolice witness reliabilitychain of custodychemical examiner reportControl of Narcotic Substances Actrecovery of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court, which convicted the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of a large quantity of heroin and charas. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of police witnesses in the absence of independent private witnesses, the impact of alleged delays in sending samples for chemical analysis, and the defense plea that the narcotics were planted. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody and that the forensic report corroborated the police testimony. It affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses whose evidence carries the same weight as private individuals, provided there is no evidence of personal animus. Furthermore, the court ruled that minor discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the prosecution's case and that the recovery of a substantial quantity of narcotics renders the defense of 'foisting' highly improbable, particularly when the chain of custody remains secure.

  Questions settled

  • Are police officials competent witnesses in narcotics cases in the absence of private witnesses?
  • Does a delay in sending contraband samples to the chemical examiner automatically invalidate a conviction?
  • Can the defense of 'foisting' be accepted when a large quantity of narcotics is recovered from the accused?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the testimony of police witnesses regarding the weighing of narcotics invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Asim Khan and others vs The State through Collector of Customs, Model2021 PTD 1617 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-06
  customs fraudfake E-Formsexport goods declarationforeign exchange remittancecriminal appealacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of several criminal appeals filed against the conviction and sentencing of the appellants under Section 156(I)(14)(14-A) of the Customs Act, 1969 for allegedly exporting goods using fake and fabricated E-Forms, resulting in a failure to remit foreign exchange. The core legal questions pertained to whether the prosecution successfully proved the use of forged E-Forms, whether the trial court had jurisdiction, and whether the essential ingredients of the offense were established. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to bring on record cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the E-Forms were fake, noting significant unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, lack of banker testimony or State Bank verification, and crucial admissions by the investigating officer and complainant undermining the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that mere allegations unsupported by primary documentary proof, independent verification, or the examination of essential witnesses cannot sustain a criminal conviction, rendering it a case of no evidence. The appeals were allowed and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can secure a conviction for the use of fake E-Forms under the Customs Act without producing primary evidence or examining bank officials to prove the forgery?
  • Does a delay of several months in lodging an FIR without plausible explanation prove fatal to the prosecution's case in customs-related offenses?
  • Are customs authorities competent to initiate criminal proceedings for non-remittance of foreign exchange under the Customs Act when verification from the State Bank of Pakistan is lacking?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Iqbal and others vs The State2021 MLD 1783 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-20
  criminal appealanti-terrorismidentification paradeeye-witness testimonybenefit of the doubtacquittaldelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, resulting in a death sentence and imprisonment terms. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was one of the perpetrators who shot and killed the victims. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily because the sole eye-witness testimony suffered from an unexplained delay in recording statements, lack of prior description, and a deeply flawed identification parade. Furthermore, corroborative evidence such as weapon recovery and pointation was found insufficient or legally inadmissible. The court laid down the principle that uncorroborated, delayed eye-witness testimony coupled with defective identification parades creates insurmountable doubt, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt and subsequent acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a belatedly surfaced eye-witness whose identification parade suffers from legal and procedural defects?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in recording a section 161 statement renders an eye-witness's testimony unsafe for reliance?
  • Is a confession made before the police admissible in evidence to secure a conviction?
  • Can incriminating evidence such as a recovered weapon be used against an accused if he was never questioned about it during his section 342 Cr.P.C. examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Hussain and 10 others vs Abdul Wali through L.Rs. and 11 others2021 CLC 168 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-24Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Unar vs Province of Sindh and 03 others2021 SHC 552 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-10Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Unar & 02 others vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 SHC 400 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-09
  transfer and postingterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of service tribunalconstitutional petitioncivil servantswheat disbursement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving as civil servants, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge a notification regarding their posting and transfer as District Food Controllers and Assistant District Food Controllers. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against the posting and transfer of civil servants in light of the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that matters of transfer and posting constitute terms and conditions of service, thereby ousting the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution in favor of the Sindh Service Tribunal. The court affirmed that transfer and posting are the prerogative of the department under Section 10 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973, while issuing directives to the provincial authorities to ensure transparent wheat disbursement and assign qualified officers.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants?
  • Is transfer and posting considered part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an order of transfer and posting under Section 10 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Asi Sajjad Ali and 4 others vs The State2021 MLD 25 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-24
  wrongful confinementillegal arresthostile witnessbenefit of doubthabeas corpus raidpolice excessescriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals challenge the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 343 and 220 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from an alleged wrongful confinement and illegal arrest at a police station uncovered during a habeas corpus raid. The core legal question is whether the appellants could be convicted when the primary complainant and a key witness turned hostile at trial and failed to identify the accused. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt because the material witnesses did not support the prosecution story, their evidence was unshaken during cross-examination, and significant investigative lacunas existed. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted of wrongful confinement and illegal arrest when the complainant and material witnesses turn hostile and fail to identify the accused at trial?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Can the contents of an FIR be safely relied upon when the primary witnesses do not support the prosecution's version during trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashraf @ Ashru vs The State2021 SHC 1038 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionunlicensed weaponhabitual offenderrecovery of contrabandcompetency of police witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications filed by the applicant, who was charged with the possession of 1980 grams of Charas and an unlicensed 9mm pistol. The applicant sought bail, arguing innocence, false implication by the police, and the absence of independent witnesses to the recovery. The State opposed the applications, characterizing the applicant as a hardened and habitual offender. The Court examined the record and noted that the applicant was named in the FIR with specific allegations of recovery. The Court held that it would be premature to conclude the applicant was falsely implicated, noting that police officials are competent witnesses. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the duration of custody (three months) warranted bail, particularly given the applicant's status as a habitual offender. The Court concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty of the charged offences and dismissed the bail applications, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Are police officials considered competent witnesses in cases involving the recovery of contraband and unlicensed weapons?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses to a recovery incident automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can a habitual offender be denied bail solely on the basis of their criminal history and the nature of the allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashok vs The State2021 SHC 66 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-13Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmed son of Shah Nawaz Jakhrani vs The State2021 SHC 878 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-02
  post-arrest bailsecond bail applicationfresh groundshonor killingKaro Karicompromisemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Ashfaq Ahmed, charged with the murder of his sister under sections 302, 311, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought bail primarily on the ground of an alleged compromise, supported by affidavits from the deceased's parents. The core legal question was whether a second bail application is maintainable based on affidavits of compromise when a previous bail application had already been dismissed by the High Court. The Court held that a subsequent bail application is only maintainable if it discloses fresh grounds not available at the time of the previous dismissal. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court found that the affidavits provided by the parents did not constitute a valid fresh ground, particularly given the prima facie evidence connecting the accused to the heinous offense of honor killing. The Court dismissed the application, emphasizing that attempts to create doubt in the prosecution case via post-event affidavits at the bail stage are deprecated, and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second bail application maintainable if it relies on grounds that were available but not raised during the first bail application?
  • Can an accused be granted bail solely on the basis of affidavits of compromise filed by the parents of the deceased in a murder case?
  • Does the filing of affidavits by eyewitnesses or legal heirs at the bail stage automatically create sufficient doubt to entitle an accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Gahejo vs The State2021 SHC 852 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-16Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Khawaja vs Investment Corporation Of Pakistan (ICP) through Managing Director2021 PLC (C.S.) 1012 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-20
  Voluntary Retirement Schemeservice dues recoverypast and closed transactionacquiescencesalary fixationstatutory corporationaudit objection
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was instituted by the plaintiff, a former Managing Director, seeking recovery of service dues and retirement benefits following his voluntary retirement. The core legal question concerned the correct salary basis for calculating these benefits: whether the plaintiff was entitled to the salary drawn at the cut-off date of November 30, 1997, or the lower salary subsequently fixed by the Board of Directors. The court held that the plaintiff’s retirement benefits must be calculated based on the M-1 Management Grade salary fixed by the Board, which the plaintiff had accepted. However, the court ruled that the defendant’s withholding of a portion of the retirement benefits, citing audit objections regarding earlier salary payments, was illegal. The court determined that those earlier payments were "past and closed transactions" and could not be clawed back. Consequently, the suit was partly decreed, ordering the defendant to pay the withheld amount with markup. The judgment emphasizes the principle of acquiescence and the finality of past transactions, noting that an employer cannot unilaterally withhold legitimate dues based on audit objections after a transaction has been settled.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer unilaterally withhold retirement benefits based on audit objections regarding past salary payments?
  • Does the doctrine of acquiescence apply when an employee fails to challenge a salary reduction for a significant period?
  • Are salary payments treated as 'past and closed transactions' once approved by the Board and accepted by the employee?
  • Is a suit for recovery of service dues maintainable after the abatement of proceedings before the Federal Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali vs Province of Sindh & 04 others2021 SHC 550 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-08Read full judgment →
• Ary Communication Ltd. Through Authorized Officer vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Information and Broadcasting and 2 others2021 CLC 1184 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• Artistic Denim Mills Limited through Chief Executive vs Fatani Impex (Pvt.)2021 CLC 1296 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-02Read full judgment →
• Arshad through Central Prison vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 272 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  police encounterfalse implicationdefective investigationanti-terrorismcriminal appealacquittalpolice accountability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant by an Anti-Terrorism Court for an alleged police encounter involving firing and illegal arms possession. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt given the significant discrepancies in the evidence. The High Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution's case was a complete fabrication and a worst case of false implication. The court found that the prosecution failed to produce credible evidence of an encounter, as no bullet marks were found at the scene, key police witnesses were withheld, and the death of the co-accused was not medically linked to police firing. The court established that where the prosecution fails to provide evidence of an incident, the accused's version of events—that they were falsely implicated and robbed by police—must be accepted. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized the court's power under Section 27 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 to hold police officers accountable for defective investigations and breach of duty.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce evidence of the alleged encounter, such as bullet marks or medical reports?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to initiate summary proceedings against police officers for defective investigation under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Is the failure of the prosecution to produce material eye-witnesses sufficient to reject the prosecution's version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mehmood Raja and others vs Muhammad Saeed Khan and 32021 PLD Sindh 470 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-20Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali Khan vs FBR and Others2021 SHC 658, 2025 PTD 248 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-23Read full judgment →
• Arsallah vs The State2021 SHC 680, 2022 YLR 679 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-03
  criminal appealpolice encounterbenefit of doubtacquittal on same set of evidenceanti-terrorismocular testimonyappellant absconding
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism convicting the appellant for murder, attempt to murder, and other offenses arising out of a police encounter. The core legal question is whether the appellant can be convicted on the same set of evidence and facts for which his co-accused have already been acquitted by the High Court. The Sindh High Court held that since the prosecution evidence—consisting of untrustworthy ocular accounts and uncorroborated recoveries—was already found insufficient to prove the guilt of twenty-six co-accused beyond reasonable doubt, and no distinguishing features existed in the appellant's case, he was equally entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The court laid down the principle that an accused whose case is based on the same set of evidence as that of acquitted co-accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of consistency, unless there are distinguishing features establishing his guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when twenty-six co-accused facing the same charges and tried on the same set of evidence have already been acquitted?
  • Does an unreliable and inconsistent ocular account from police officials without proper identification of the accused warrant a conviction?
  • Can unverified recoveries of weapons and motor-cycles unsupported by ballistic reports or registration records be used to sustain a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Arsalan Khan vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 954 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-21Read full judgment →
• Arsalan Hassan vs Province Of Sindh and others2021 SHC 950 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-14Read full judgment →
• Arbab Chachar vs Province of Sindh2021 SHC 1208 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Aqsa Jawed through Attorney vs Muhammad Hassan and others2021 CLC 1780 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-18Read full judgment →
• Anwara Beghum vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior Islamabad and others2021 SHC 110 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• Anwar Zaib vs Returning Officer/The Cantonment Executive Officer Clifton2021 SHC 330 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Anwar Ali vs Tariq Mehmood Khoso and 2 others2021 CLC 145 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali son of Rajab Ali vs The State through Chairman NAB2022 P Cr.L J 65, 2021 SHC 1052 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-07
  accountabilitycorruption and corrupt practicesburden of proofmens reabenefit of the doubtmisuse of authorityplea bargain
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal accountability appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellant under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for offences of corruption and corrupt practices under Section 9(a)(vi) and (xii) of the Ordinance, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the initial burden of proof regarding misappropriation and mens rea, and whether the statutory presumption under Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, could shift the onus onto the accused without a prima facie case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts or prove criminal intent (mens rea) and nexus between the appellant and co-accused who settled via plea bargain. The court ruled that the initial burden of proof always rests on the prosecution and cannot be shifted under Section 14 unless a reasonable case is first made out. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt, laying down principles regarding the standard of proof in accountability cases and the necessity of proving mens rea for misuse of authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 relieve the prosecution of its initial burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Whether proof of mens rea is an essential ingredient for establishing an offence of corruption and corrupt practices under Section 9(a)(vi) and (xii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can a conviction for misuse of authority be sustained in the absence of evidence showing a guilty mind or personal financial gain?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when co-accused settle liabilities through plea bargain without establishing a clear nexus with the remaining accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjum Badar vs Province Of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 2 others2021 PLC (C.S.) 1040, 2021 PLD Sindh 328 · Sindh High Court
  contractual employeesregularizationSindh Public Service Commissionmaster and servantultra viresconstitutional petitionvested rightwrit of mandamus
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses constitutional petitions filed by temporary contractual employees seeking regularization of their services in BPS-17 under Section 3 of The Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013. The core legal questions involve whether contractual employees in BS-16 and above can be regularized without a competitive selection process through the Sindh Public Service Commission, whether such regularization bypasses constitutional commands and Supreme Court precedents, whether contractual employees hold a vested right to regularization, and whether Section 3 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution to that extent. The court held that contract employees governed by master-servant principles have no vested right to regularization or to invoke constitutional jurisdiction for that purpose, and a writ of mandamus cannot issue. Furthermore, the court held that initial appointments or regularizations in BS-16 and above must mandatorily pass through the Sindh Public Service Commission pursuant to Articles 240 and 242 of the Constitution, making Section 3 of the 2013 Act ultra vires the Constitution to the extent it permits regularization without such competitive process. The petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether temporary employees appointed on contract in BS-16 and above can be deemed to have been validly appointed on regular basis without going through the competitive selection process through the Sindh Public Service Commission?
  • Whether the mandatory requirement of competitive selection through the Sindh Public Service Commission for appointments in BS-16 and above can be bypassed by Section 3 of The Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013?
  • Whether contractual employees have any vested right for regular appointment or to claim regularization, and whether a writ of mandamus can be issued against the Government?
  • Whether Section 3 of The Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, to the extent of regularization in BS-16, 17, and 18 without the competitive process through the Sindh Public Service Commission, is ultra vires the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Anis Haroon & others vs Federation of Pakistan and The Secretary, Ministry2021 SHC 52, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 307 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12
  quo warrantoambassadorial appointmentPermanent Representative to UNnon-justiciable executive policyPrime Minister competenceRules of Business 1973contractual appointmentre-employment of retired civil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations on contract basis. The petitioners contended that the post fell under Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act 1973, prohibiting post-retirement re-employment without prior approval, and that under the ratio of Mustafa Impex, the appointing authority was the Federal Cabinet under Article 90 of the Constitution rather than the Prime Minister alone. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that foreign policy decisions and ambassadorial appointments lie within the executive domain and are non-justiciable. The Court determined that contractual appointment of a non-career Head of Mission does not constitute re-employment of a retired civil servant under Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act 1973. Furthermore, under Rule 15(1)(g)(h) and Schedule V-A of the Rules of Business 1973, the Prime Minister is the competent authority for making ambassadorial appointments, distinguishing this case from the Mustafa Impex precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appointment of an Ambassador or Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations a policy matter amenable to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the contractual appointment of a non-career Head of Mission constitute prohibited re-employment of a retired civil servant under Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Is the Prime Minister the competent authority under Rule 15 and Schedule V-A of the Rules of Business 1973 to appoint a Head of Mission, or is approval of the full Federal Cabinet required?
  Read full judgment →
• Anees vs Province of Sindh and Others2021 SHC 322, 2022 PLD Sindh 151 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-30Read full judgment →
• Amsons Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 1076, PTCL 2022 CL 403, 2022 PTD 212 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-05
  zero-rated facilityconstructive res judicatadoctrine of electionsales taxlocus poenitentiaemaintainability of suitbilling disputeSales Tax General Order
  Summary & questions settled

  The Plaintiff, a textile manufacturer, filed a civil suit challenging the withdrawal of its zero-rated sales tax facility by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) through Sales Tax General Orders (STGOs) and a subsequent gas billing dispute. The core legal question was whether the suit was maintainable given the Plaintiff’s prior unsuccessful challenge to the same STGOs in a constitutional petition and the existence of a pending appeal regarding the alleged misuse of the facility. The Court held that the suit was not maintainable. It determined that the challenge to the STGOs was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata and the doctrine of election, as the Plaintiff had previously sought the same relief in a constitutional petition which was not granted. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the gas billing dispute was a consequential matter lacking independent maintainability and subject to a specific regulatory forum. The judgment reaffirms that a party cannot re-agitate matters already adjudicated or abandoned in prior proceedings and that the FBR possesses the inherent power to rescind orders under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 authorize the Federal Board of Revenue to rescind a previously granted zero-rated sales tax facility?
  • Is a civil suit maintainable to challenge administrative orders when the same relief was previously sought and not granted in a constitutional petition?
  • Does the doctrine of election prohibit a suitor from initiating a civil suit after having previously invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for the same relief?
  • Can a gas billing dispute be adjudicated in a civil suit when a special remedy is provided under the Complaint Resolution Procedure for Natural Gas, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and refined oil products Regulations, 2003?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain and 9 others vs Arif Ali Abbasi and another2021 MLD 1384 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-01Read full judgment →
• Amjad and another vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 1686 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-23
  murdersodomydeath sentenceeyewitness testimonycorroborating evidencecriminal appealmedical evidencerecovery on pointation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b), 377, and 341 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the abduction, sodomy, and murder of an 11-year-old boy. The core legal questions involve the assessment of eyewitness testimony from close relatives, the evidentiary value of delayed FIRs, medical and forensic corroboration regarding sodomy and weapon pointation, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the eyewitness testimonies were reliable, trustworthy, and duly corroborated by medical evidence, positive chemical reports, and recovery of weapons on the appellants' pointation. The court dismissed the appeals, maintained the convictions, and confirmed the death sentence, ruling that the brutal nature of the crime warranted a deterrent sentence with no leniency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can form the basis of a conviction in a murder and sodomy case without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delay in lodging the FIR automatically render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Whether recovery of crime weapons on the pointation of the accused constitutes reliable incriminating evidence?
  • Does the brutal and callous manner of committing murder and sodomy justify the imposition of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Nawaz vs Pakistan & others2021 SHC 198 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-22Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali vs Gul Shaker & Ors.2021 SHC 702 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-13Read full judgment →
• Ameet Kumar and 04 others vs The Chief Secretary Government of Sindh2021 SHC 824 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ameer Maviya @ Maviya & Others vs The State2021 SHC 915 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-25
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailmurderous assaultcustodial investigationprohibitory clausemedical evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicants seeking confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail after the trial court rejected their application regarding an FIR registered under Sections 324, 506/2, 337-A(i), 337-F(ii), 337-H(ii), 504, and 35 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants were accused of attacking two individuals, causing injuries with sharp and blunt weapons. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the allegations and the medical evidence. The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to pre-arrest bail, noting that the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's version, the offenses fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the recovery of crime weapons necessitated custodial investigation. The Court affirmed that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy meant to protect the innocent from false implication and humiliation, not to subvert investigative processes, and that murderous assault under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not distinguish between vital and non-vital body parts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a murderous assault under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require the injury to be on a vital part of the body?
  • Is pre-arrest bail available when the alleged offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted to subvert or undermine the investigative process?
  • Does the need for recovery of crime weapons justify the denial of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Bux alias Luqoo Bangwar vs The State2021 SHC 864 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-26
  post-arrest bailmurderprohibitory clausetentative assessmentlathi blow
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Ameer Bux alias Luqoo Bangwar seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 60 of 2019 registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 114, 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Buxapur, District Kashmore. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific role and lathi injury attributed to him in a murder case falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant was promptly and specifically nominated in the FIR, corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, and that the offense attracts the prohibitory clause. The court established the principle that a deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken at the bail stage and matters requiring trial assessment should be left for the trial court to determine after recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when specifically nominated in the FIR with a fatal injury attributed to him falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Can a court undertake a deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
  • Does a medical post-mortem report lending support to eyewitness accounts justify the denial of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Ali @ Ameer @ others vs The State2021 SHC 60 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-15Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs Federation of Pakistan & others2021 SHC 1212 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-07Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain Kharos vs The State2021 SHC 1130 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-07Read full judgment →
• Alpha Insurance Company Limited vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax2022 PTD 439, PTCL 2022 CL.534 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-03Read full judgment →
• Allied Engineering And Services Ltd. through Attorney vs The Commissioner2022 PTD 558 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-10Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited vs Khudadad Sher & Another2021 SHC 1156 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-02Read full judgment →
• Allauddin Malik vs Muhammad Saleem Butt and Ors2021 SHC 360 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Muhammad vs The State2021 SHC 792 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-20
  narcoticscriminal appealbenefit of doubtindependent mashirschemical examiner reportdelayed dispatchpolice testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for alleged possession of charas. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of uncorroborated police testimony without independent public mashirs at a public place, the legal consequence of unexplained delays in sending the recovered contraband to the chemical examiner, and the propriety of using the complainant as the carrier of the case property to the laboratory. The Sindh High Court held that the failure to associate independent witnesses despite availability, unexplained delays in dispatching the sample, and the compromised integrity of investigation where the complainant acted as the carrier created multiple serious doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, laid down that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, and extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for narcotics possession can be sustained solely on police testimony without associating independent public witnesses when the recovery is made at a public place?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered contraband to the chemical examiner vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is it legally permissible for the complainant of an offence to act as the carrier of the case property to the forensic laboratory?
  • What is the effect of failing to keep the defense plea and documents in juxtaposition with the prosecution case during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditto Bhutto vs The State2021 SHC 686 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-13
  Post-arrest bailBail applicationIllegal gratificationTainted moneyTrap raidFurther inquiryProhibitory clausePrevention of Corruption ActPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused, Allah Ditto Bhutto, facing charges under Sections 161, 34, Pakistan Penal Code, and Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The applicant had previously been denied bail multiple times by both the trial court and the High Court. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution's evidence, particularly concerning the recovery of tainted money during a trap raid, established a prima facie case or warranted further inquiry for bail purposes. The High Court observed that the trap party neither witnessed the delivery of the tainted money nor heard the conversation between the complainant and the applicant, making it uncertain if the recovered money was indeed illegal gratification. Citing Bashir Ahmed v. The State (2001 SCMR 634), the Court held that such circumstances render the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Additionally, the Court noted that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, making bail the rule. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the applicant was granted post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of tainted money without the trap party witnessing its delivery or hearing the conversation constitute a prima facie case for illegal gratification?
  • When does a case fall under the 'further inquiry' clause for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Is bail the rule for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when the accused is no longer required for investigation and challan has been submitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dino Bhatti vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 290 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-28Read full judgment →
• Allah Dino @ Dino & others vs The State2021 SHC 282 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21
  pre-arrest baildelay in FIRland disputecriminal procedurebailable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused of causing injuries to the complainant and his wife and setting their house on fire, following the refusal of their bail plea by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically allegations of false implication due to a land dispute and a significant delay in lodging the FIR. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a nine-day delay, which could not be overlooked, and noted that the parties were involved in a dispute over landed property. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that most of the penal sections applied were bailable, except for Section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Finding that the applicants had joined the trial and that the case was ready for challenge, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to relief. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a nine-day delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Are applicants entitled to pre-arrest bail when the majority of penal sections applied are bailable and the parties have a pre-existing land dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah dad Waswa no vs The State2021 SHC 674, 2022 YLR 2047 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-13
  chain of custodynarcoticssafe custodyMalkhanacriminal appealacquittalchemical examiner
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for allegedly possessing 4000 grams of Charas. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the recovered narcotics and whether contradictions and missing links in the evidence vitiate the conviction. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The court held that a compromised chain of custody—specifically the failure to examine the Malkhana in-charge, the lack of a proper or certified Malkhana entry, and the failure to prove safe transmission to the Chemical Examiner—creates fatal doubts in the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the prosecution must prove every link in the safe custody and transmission of narcotic substances beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of a broken or compromised chain of custody of a narcotic substance on a criminal conviction?
  • Does the failure to examine the Malkhana in-charge who received the recovered contraband render the custody doubtful?
  • Whether uncertified and undated Malkhana entries can be relied upon to prove safe custody of case property?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to associate independent witnesses from a public transport vehicle cast doubt on the recovery of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachayo vs SHO P.S Matli2022 P Cr.L J 21, 2021 SHC 1126 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-17
  FIR registrationterritorial jurisdictioncontinuing offenceEx-Officio Justice of Peacecognizable offencecriminal procedureinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged an order passed by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which had partially dismissed an application for the registration of an FIR. The lower court had refused to order the registration of the FIR regarding the second episode of an alleged cognizable offence on the grounds that it occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the relevant police station. The core legal question was whether an FIR can be registered for a continuing offence or an offence consisting of several acts that occurred across different territorial jurisdictions. The High Court allowed the application, setting aside the lower court's refusal. Relying on Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court held that when an offence is a continuing one or consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Furthermore, the Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to secure the ends of justice, directing the registration of the FIR against all proposed accused persons and ordering a fair investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be registered for a continuing offence that spans multiple police station jurisdictions?
  • Does a Justice of Peace have the authority to decline FIR registration based on territorial jurisdiction when an offence consists of several acts in different areas?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the registration of FIRs for continuing offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Alim Khan Badeni vs The State2021 SHC 1146 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-16
  narcotics possessionreduction of sentencejail appealmitigating circumstancesControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for being in possession of narcotics, whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and six months with a fine. At the hearing, the appellant's counsel stated that he would not press the appeal on merits if the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, to which the State prosecutor raised no objection. The Sindh High Court examined the record and found the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt through consistent witness testimonies and a positive chemical examiner report. However, considering mitigating circumstances—including the appellant's young age, lack of previous criminal record, status as sole breadwinner, genuine repentance shown by not pressing the appeal on merits, and the substantial period of imprisonment already served—the Court exercised leniency. The Court held that the sentence could be modified accordingly. It was concluded that the appellant's conviction and sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, excluding the sentence in default of fine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can reduce a narcotics conviction sentence to the period already undergone when the appellant does not press the appeal on merits?
  • Whether mitigating factors such as youth and lack of criminal record justify a reduction in sentence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz Lolai vs The State2021 SHC 818 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-04
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtsafe custody of propertychemical examiner reportprocedural infirmitiesnarcotics control
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of two kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant procedural infirmities and contradictions in the evidence. The High Court, upon reassessing the evidence, identified material contradictions regarding the arrest of the accused and the recovery proceedings. Crucially, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the recovered narcotics in the malkhana, as the official responsible was not examined. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to explain the delay in transmitting the samples to the chemical examiner and did not produce the official responsible for the transmission. Consequently, the court held that these lacunas created serious doubts in the prosecution's case. Applying the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the official responsible for the safe custody of narcotics in the malkhana create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the prosecution fails to explain the delay in transmitting recovered narcotics to the chemical examiner?
  • Can material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the arrest and recovery proceedings entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz and 5 others vs The State and 2 others2021 P Cr. L J 909 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-19
  criminal revisionanti-terrorism courttransfer of caseextortionbhattamens reajurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application impugns the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the applicants' application to transfer their case from the Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary criminal court. The core legal question was whether the alleged offense of extortion (bhatta) under sections 385/386/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, satisfied the mandatory statutory requirements of terrorism under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, specifically regarding the requisite mens rea of creating fear or coercing the public. The court held that since the demand for extortion remained private and personal to the complainant without any design or intention to coerce or intimidate the public or a section thereof, the essential mens rea for terrorism was absent. Consequently, the court allowed the application, directed the deletion of the Anti-Terrorism Act charges, and ordered the case to be transferred to the ordinary Sessions Court for trial. The key principle laid down is that for an offense to fall within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, both the proscribed act and the specific statutory mens rea designed to terrorize or coerce the public or a section of the public must be clearly established from the facts and circumstances of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offense of extortion under the Pakistan Penal Code automatically fall within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • What specific mens rea is required under section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for an ordinary crime to be tried as a terrorist act?
  • Can a case be transferred from an Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary court when the element of public fear or intimidation is absent?
  • What is the effect of a private and personal demand for extortion on the applicability of anti-terrorism laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad son of Kehar Katohar vs The State2021 SHC 874 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-02
  post-arrest bailrobberydacoitydelay in FIRfurther inquirytentative assessmentnon-recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail after it was refused by the Sessions Court in F.I.R. No. 01 of 2021 registered for offenses including robbery and dacoity. The core legal question is whether the applicant has made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delayed lodging of the F.I.R., lack of recovery, and absence of specific roles attributed in the initial report. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay of 36 days in reporting, absence of recovery of the robbed property or vehicles, and delayed recording of witness statements warranted a tentative assessment favoring further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that while deciding bail, courts must evaluate the tentative assessment of the record, including delay, recovery, and nature of the charge, and where reasonable grounds exist pointing to further inquiry, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging an FIR without plausible explanation constitutes a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of recovery of robbed property entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • What factors must a court consider when deciding a post-arrest bail application under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and another vs Mukaram Khan and others2021 SHC 14 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-07Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan Jeho vs The State2021 SHC 848 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryinstigationvicarious liabilitymedical evidencecommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged with instigation and causing injuries to a prosecution witness in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being named in the FIR, given that no specific fatal injury to the deceased was attributed to him and the medical evidence contradicted the alleged injury caused to the prosecution witness. The Court held that the applicant's culpability required further inquiry, as the allegations against him were of a generalized nature and the medical report did not support the claim of injury to the witness. Relying on the principle that bail may be granted where the accused is not attributed any specific harm to the deceased and the case against them warrants further investigation, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The holding emphasizes that tentative assessment of the record at the bail stage, particularly regarding the lack of medical corroboration for injuries, justifies the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the medical evidence contradicts the specific injuries alleged to have been caused by them?
  • Does the absence of a specific injury attributed to an accused in a murder case warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused charged with instigation if they are not alleged to have caused any harm to the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul vs The State and 6 others2021 MLD 759 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-14
  Anti-Terrorism Actpersonal vendettatransfer of casecriminal procedureSection 561-A Cr.P.C.terrorismjudicial inconsistency
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pano Akil, which dismissed the applicant’s request to transfer a murder case to the Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether the alleged incident, involving the death of two individuals, constituted an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, warranting trial by a special court. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the ingredients of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were absent. The court determined that the incident arose from personal vendetta and long-standing enmity rather than an intent to create terror or insecurity among the general public. The key principle laid down is that crimes committed solely due to personal revenge, lacking the specific intent to overawe the state or public, do not fall within the ambit of terrorism. Furthermore, the court criticized the trial magistrate for issuing conflicting orders regarding the same incident, noting that such inconsistency undermines the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an incident of murder arising from personal enmity constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a court transfer a criminal case to an Anti-Terrorism Court if the ingredients of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, are not present?
  • Is an act of personal revenge sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul and another vs Syed Nazeer Hussain Shah and others2021 SHC 1324 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20Read full judgment →
• Ali Bux Chohan & another vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 646 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-04Read full judgment →
• Ali Aslam Malik and others vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others2021 CLD 1, 2022 PCRLJ 644, 2022 CLD 443, 2022 PCTLR 849 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-12
  regulated activityNAB referenceSECPquashment of proceedingsspecial legislationcapital marketsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the authority of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to initiate criminal proceedings regarding "regulated activities" within capital markets without a prior reference from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP). The petitioner, a brokerage firm, challenged a NAB reference, arguing that Section 41-B of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, mandates a reference from the SECP as a condition precedent for any investigation by NAB into regulated securities activities. The Court examined the conflict between the overriding clause in Section 3 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and the later-enacted Section 41-B of the SECP Act. Applying the principle that a later special statute prevails over an earlier one, the Court held that the SECP Act's requirement is mandatory. Consequently, the Court ruled that NAB proceedings initiated without a formal reference from the SECP regarding regulated activities are void ab initio. The judgment establishes that specialized regulatory bodies must first determine the validity of allegations in their domain before criminal investigation agencies can intervene.

  Questions settled

  • Can the National Accountability Bureau initiate an inquiry into a regulated activity without a reference from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan?
  • Does the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Amendment) Act 2016 prevail over the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 regarding the initiation of investigations?
  • Are proceedings initiated by the National Accountability Bureau without a mandatory reference from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs Anti Terorism Judge MPK2021 SHC 40 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar @ Baboo & An Other vs The State2021 SHC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-16
  Qatl-bis-SababDiyatsuspension of sentencebail pending appealcriminal appealsentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the suspension of a sentence and release on bail pending the disposal of an appeal against a conviction under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants were convicted of Qatl-bis-Sabab regarding two deceased individuals and sentenced to pay Diyat to the legal heirs, payable in installments over five years. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicants, who were in custody solely due to their inability to pay the ordered Diyat money, were entitled to bail pending the final adjudication of their appeal. The Court held that there is no provision in law that conditions the grant of bail on the prior payment of Diyat money. Consequently, the Court suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and ordered the release of the applicants on bail, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that the inability to pay Diyat does not constitute a legal bar to the suspension of a sentence or the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court grant bail to a convict whose sentence is primarily based on the payment of Diyat?
  • Is the payment of Diyat a mandatory condition precedent for the suspension of a sentence pending appeal in a Qatl-bis-Sabab case?
  • Does the inability to pay Diyat justify the continued incarceration of a convict during the pendency of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam and another vs Niaz Muhammad and 4 others2021 MLD 1322 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-26Read full judgment →
• Al Razzaq Fibres and others vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2021 CL. 270, 2021 PTD 542, 2021 SHC 120 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Abro vs Province of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 1328, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 906 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-20
  departmental promotion committeeservice lawpromotioncivil serviceprospective effect of rulesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, filed a constitutional petition seeking a directive for the respondents to consider his promotion, alleging that despite his eligibility and the existence of vacancies, the process was being unlawfully delayed. The respondents contended that the delay was justified because relevant service rules were undergoing revision, and they sought to await the notification of these new rules. The core legal question was whether a departmental promotion committee could lawfully defer the consideration of an eligible employee's promotion based solely on the anticipation of future rule amendments. The Court held that the respondents' stance was legally unsustainable. Relying on the principle established by the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that in the presence of existing, valid rules, promotion cases cannot be kept pending on the premise that new rules are being finalized. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to convene a departmental promotion committee expeditiously to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental promotion committee lawfully defer the consideration of an eligible employee's promotion on the ground that new service rules are being finalized?
  • Do amendments to service rules generally have retrospective or prospective effect?
  • Is a government department permitted to deny consideration for promotion based on the anticipation of future rule changes?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhlaque Hussain Memon & others vs Province of Sindh & others2021 SHC 444 · Sindh High Court · 2021-06-01
  service structurecadre mergercivil servantspromotionslaw officersvested rightsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by District Attorneys and Deputy District Attorneys of the Province of Sindh seeking the creation of a proper service structure, promotion venues, and the implementation of recommendations made by the National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC) to reserve a quota of Assistant and Additional Advocate General posts for them. The core legal question centered on whether the posts of Additional and Assistant Advocate Generals could be filled by District Attorneys pursuant to specific service rules and notifications, and whether the 2016 recruitment rules or the subsequent 2018/2021 rules should prevail, alongside issues of cadre merger. The Sindh High Court held that the 2016 notification was never acted upon and could not merge distinct cadres of civil servants and tenure law officers, noting that the competent authority had lawfully withdrawn the said notification. The court established that executive or policy recommendations cannot override statutory service rules, different cadres cannot be arbitrarily merged, and unexecuted rules create no vested rights. However, the court directed the respondents to take appropriate measures to streamline the service structure and promotion avenues for District Attorneys and Deputy District Attorneys within a stipulated period.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the post of Additional or Assistant Advocate General can be filled from amongst District Attorneys under the Sindh Law Officers (Conditions of Service Rules), 1940?
  • Can a notification regarding recruitment rules that was never acted upon create a vested right for civil servants to change their cadre?
  • Whether different service cadres of civil servants and tenure law officers can be merged without express statutory backing?
  • Do recommendations of the National Judicial Policy Making Committee supersede provincial civil servant laws and rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Hashmi vs Mst. Bakht Bibi and 33 others2021 MLD 1368 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-30Read full judgment →
• Akeel Raza Manganhar vs Govt of Sindh & Others2021 SHC 1286 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-15Read full judgment →
• Akbar alias Ak-Boli vs The State2021 YLR 748 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-25
  unlicensed weaponsafe custody of weaponfair trialbenefit of doubtpolice evidencecriminal appealchain of custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for the possession of an unlicensed pistol. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of police evidence in the absence of independent corroboration, the failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of the recovered weapon to the forensic laboratory, and the adherence to fair trial standards. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing the lack of independent witnesses despite their availability, the failure to prove the chain of custody for the weapon, and the un-natural nature of the prosecution's narrative regarding the arrest. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court violated the appellant's right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution by conducting the trial in haste without cross-examination. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession, and that police testimony requires independent corroboration when the case rests solely upon it.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of a recovered weapon to a forensic laboratory vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of police officials sufficient to sustain a conviction when independent witnesses were available but not examined?
  • Does conducting a trial in haste without cross-examination of prosecution witnesses violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a legal right of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs The State2021 SHC 1036 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-22
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionprohibitory clausesocietal impactbail adjudicationpolice witness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged with the possession of 1600 kg of 'Bhang'. The applicant sought bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing innocence, the absence of independent witnesses, and that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the statute. The State opposed the application, emphasizing the societal impact of the alleged offence. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail as a matter of right merely because the offence might fall outside the prohibitory clause. The Court observed that the police officials are competent witnesses and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty, given the substantial quantity of contraband recovered. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, finding no merit in the plea of false implication, and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months. The judgment reaffirms that the societal impact of an offence is a relevant consideration in bail adjudication, even for non-prohibitory offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can police officials be considered competent witnesses in the absence of independent witnesses?
  • Is the societal impact of an alleged offence a valid consideration when deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Bhatti vs Sher Khan2021 SHC 844 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytentative assessmentmurderfirearm injuryballistic reportcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an FIR registered under Sections 302, 504, 114, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry, considering that his name did not transpire in the initial FIR, discrepancies exist between the ocular account and medical and circumstantial evidence, and the ballistic report does not support the weapon recovery. The Sindh High Court held that a tentative assessment of the record reveals grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the injury attributed to the applicant was non-fatal and contradicted by recovery and ballistic evidence. The key principle laid down is that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of evidence is required, and where contradictions between ocular testimony, medical evidence, and weapon recovery render the applicant's involvement doubtful, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused whose name is not mentioned in the FIR but is subsequently implicated through statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is entitled to post-arrest bail when medical and ballistic evidence contradicts the ocular version?
  • Does a mismatch between the crime empties recovered from the spot and the weapon allegedly recovered from the accused make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • To what extent should a court delve into the appreciation of evidence at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan vs Mirza Qayyum Baig through Legal heirs and others2021 YLR 104 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-21Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and 2 others2021 YLR 2235 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-19Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali vs The State2021 SHC 934 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-29
  pre-arrest bailoil theftconfessional statementco-accusedfurther inquirycorroborationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Aijaz Ali, who was implicated in an FIR regarding the theft of oil from PARCO pipelines. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail could be denied solely based on the confessional statement of a co-accused, absent independent corroborating evidence. The Court held that while the statement of a co-accused can be considered at the bail stage to form a tentative view, it cannot serve as the sole basis for denying bail or establishing guilt without independent incriminating material. Emphasizing the distinction between post-arrest and pre-arrest bail, the Court noted that the latter is an equitable remedy to protect the innocent from the humiliation of arrest. The Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, finding that the applicant's case warranted further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the statement of a co-accused requires independent corroboration to justify the denial of bail, and the absence of such evidence entitles the accused to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court deny pre-arrest bail solely on the basis of a co-accused's statement during investigation?
  • Is independent corroboration of a co-accused's statement required at the bail stage?
  • Does the principle of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when the prosecution relies solely on the statement of a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan s/o Muhammad Usman Marfani vs The State2021 SHC 1048 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-27
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealbenefit of doubtsafe custody of case propertychemical examiner reportrecovery witness contradictionsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 20 kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence presented. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing significant contradictions between the testimonies of the complainant and the recovery witness regarding the arrest, sealing of the narcotics, and patrolling activities. Furthermore, the court noted fatal lacunas, including the failure to examine the Warehouse In-charge to prove the safe custody of the seized contraband and an unexplained six-day delay in sending samples to the chemical examiner. The court emphasized the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace, when reasonable doubt exists. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the Warehouse In-charge regarding the safe custody of recovered narcotics entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions between the testimonies of the complainant and the recovery witness?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to the chemical examiner create a reasonable doubt sufficient to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan son of Muneer Chandio vs The State2021 SHC 106 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-18
  post-arrest bailtentative assessmentocular evidenceforensic reportcriminal liabilitymurderous enmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Ahsan, who was charged under Sections 324, 114, 337-H(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the allegations of a specific role in the shooting, supported by medical and forensic evidence, despite arguments regarding delayed FIR, lack of independent witnesses, and prior enmity. The Court held that the accused was not entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution had established a prima facie case. The Court emphasized that the ocular account provided by the complainant was corroborated by medical evidence and a positive forensic report regarding the weapon recovered from the accused. The Court reiterated the established legal principle that bail applications must be decided based on a tentative assessment of the available material, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the pre-trial bail stage. Consequently, the application was dismissed, maintaining the detention of the accused pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
  • Does the existence of prior enmity between parties automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can a positive forensic report regarding a recovered weapon be considered during a tentative assessment for bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed vs State2021 MLD 803 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-22
  criminal revisionillegal weaponsarms ordinanceballistic expertfair trialright to counseldoubtful recoverycomplainant as investigator
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this criminal revision application, the applicant challenged the appellate court judgment maintaining his conviction under Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal questions involved whether an investigation conducted by the complainant himself without independent witnesses, failure to send the recovered weapon to a Ballistic Expert, and denying the accused legal representation violated the principles of a fair trial. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case was fraught with serious doubts as the complainant acted as the investigator, the weapon was neither sealed at the spot nor sent for ballistic examination, and the accused was deprived of his right to counsel and fair trial. The court laid down the principle that an investigation conducted by the complainant police officer without associating independent witnesses prejudices the case, and that denying an accused person the opportunity to be defended by counsel violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, entitling the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an investigation conducted by the complainant himself vitiate the impartiality of the proceedings?
  • Is it mandatory for a recovered weapon to be sealed at the spot and sent to a Ballistic Expert?
  • Does conducting cross-examination without affording the accused an opportunity to engage a counsel violate Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the functional capability of a recovered weapon renders the case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Omar Sheikh 3 others vs The State2021 YLR 1777 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-02
  kidnapping for ransomabductionretracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencebenefit of doubtcapital punishmentfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions and death sentences imposed by an Anti-Terrorism Court for the kidnapping and murder of journalist Daniel Pearl. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of judicial confessions, the validity of forensic evidence regarding a laptop, the admissibility of identification parades, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain capital convictions. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of kidnapping for ransom and murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the judicial confessions involuntary, the forensic evidence regarding the laptop contradictory, and the handwriting expert unqualified. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants of kidnapping for ransom and murder. Ahmed Omar Sheikh was convicted solely for abduction under Section 362 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court reaffirmed the principle that in capital cases, circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain, and any reasonable doubt, even regarding a single circumstance, entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the basis of a conviction if it is found to be involuntary?
  • Does the doctrine of 'last seen together' evidence suffice for a conviction in a capital case without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal standard for relying on circumstantial evidence in a capital offense?
  • Can a conviction for kidnapping for ransom be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the chain of custody for critical forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Nadim Mughal vs Saeed Ahmed Afridi2021 SHC 1004 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Kuli Khan Khattak and another vs Creek Marina (Singapore) Pvt.2021 PLD Sindh 21 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Khan Solangi and others vs Chairman, National Accountability2021 P Cr. L J 1161 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-03
  post-arrest bailpre-arrest bailNational Accountability Ordinanceinordinate delayhardshipconstitutional petitionaccountability court
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions concern requests for post-arrest bail and confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail in a corruption reference pending before an Accountability Court. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to bail due to inordinate trial delays causing hardship, and whether the court may grant bail conditional upon the deposit of the alleged liability amount, notwithstanding previous restrictive precedents. The Court held that while Section 9(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 limits bail, the High Court retains constitutional jurisdiction to grant relief in extraordinary circumstances involving shocking or unconscionable delay. Relying on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court determined that bail may be granted where the accused demonstrates willingness to deposit their determined liability. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail and granted post-arrest bail, subject to the petitioners depositing their respective liability amounts as determined by the prosecution. The judgment establishes that while trial delay does not automatically mandate bail, the court may exercise discretion to grant relief when trial progress is stalled and the accused provides financial security for the alleged loss.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court possess jurisdiction to grant bail in cases under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, despite the restrictive provisions of Section 9(b)?
  • Can an accused be granted bail on the ground of inordinate delay in the trial proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is the deposit of the alleged liability amount a valid condition for the grant of bail in corruption cases?
  • Does the failure of an Accountability Court to conclude a trial within the timeframe specified in Section 16(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Khan and others vs Muhammad Ismail and another2021 SHC 908 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-22Read full judgment →
• Ahmed and Kamran Traders Pvt Ltd vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2021 SHC 650 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2021 SHC 232 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali alias Ali and another vs The State2021 SHC 854 · Sindh High Court · 2021-07-16
  post-arrest bailcivil disputecriminal breach of trustprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal intimidationbail as rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by applicants seeking relief in a criminal case registered under Sections 406, 420, 506(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a business dispute. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail where the allegations primarily stemmed from a pending civil dispute and the offenses charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the matter was essentially civil, involving investment rather than criminal breach of trust, and that the allegations of criminal intimidation were vague. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, determining the case to be one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The judgment reaffirms that in offenses not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception, and that civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal proceedings to extract concessions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a business investment dispute involving the return of money constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 405 and Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offenses not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a complainant convert a pending civil dispute into a criminal case to extract concessions?
  • Are vague and unspecified allegations of criminal intimidation sufficient to justify the denial of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Omar Sheikh and 3 others vs Government Of Sindh through Chief2022 YLR 217 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
• Agro Farm Thatta (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2021 SHC 306 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-11Read full judgment →
• Aftab Alam vs Province of Sindh and 3 others2021 SHC 372 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-24
  transfer and postingOwn Pay ScaleOPScivil servantacting chargeconstitutional petitionSindh High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court challenging a transfer and posting order dated 18.12.2020 whereby the assignment of Administrator SS Hospital Landhi was given to the petitioner, and a junior officer was posted in his place on an Own Pay Scale (OPS) basis. The core legal question concerned the legality of making appointments or postings of civil or public servants on an OPS basis without statutory sanction. The court held that posting or transferring a civil or public servant on an Own Pay Scale is not legally permissible and lacks sanction under the law, except for permissible temporary arrangements like acting charge or current charge strictly in accordance with relevant rules. The court set aside the impugned office order to the extent of the private respondent and directed the competent authority to comply with Supreme Court judgments prohibiting OPS postings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether posting or transferring a civil or public servant on an Own Pay Scale (OPS) basis is legally permissible?
  • Can a competent authority appoint an officer on an Own Pay Scale without statutory sanction?
  • What are the lawful alternatives to an Own Pay Scale arrangement under the applicable rules for filling vacancies temporarily?
  Read full judgment →