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.

• Waheed Ali vs Zahir Hussain & others2020 SHC 626 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11
  criminal acquittal appealnon-prosecutiondismissal for defaultabsence of appellant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter is a criminal acquittal appeal filed before the Sindh High Court. The core legal question concerns the disposal of the appeal upon the repeated absence of the appellant and their counsel despite being called. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the lack of interest shown by the appellant. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts may dismiss criminal appeals for non-prosecution when the appellant and their legal representative fail to appear and prosecute the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal acquittal appeal be dismissed on account of non-prosecution when the appellant and their counsel are absent?
  • What action can the court take when the appellant fails to appear after being called in a criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors B.V. vs Federation of Pakistan2020 PTD 2008, 2020 SHC 890 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-13Read full judgment →
• Uzair Ahmed vs The District Coordination Officer (DCO) District Jamshoro2020 MLD 1293 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-23Read full judgment →
• Usman Hamid son of Hamid Pervaiz vs Mst. Sundus Wahid d/o Abdul2020 SHC 1172 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Usman Ali vs Secretary Excise Department Government of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 158 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-17Read full judgment →
• Universal Cables Industries Limited through Chief Executive vs Federation2020 PLD Sindh 601 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-30
  jurisdictionFederal Investigation Agencytax evasionprivate disputescheduled offencescorporate mismanagementquashment of inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an unlisted public limited company challenging an inquiry initiated against it by the Assistant Director, Corporate Crime Circle, Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The inquiry, prompted by a private complaint regarding alleged mismanagement and tax violations, required the petitioner to produce income tax and sales tax records. The petitioner argued that the FIA lacked jurisdiction over private corporate affairs and specialized tax matters, which are governed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The High Court of Sindh allowed the petition and quashed the inquiry. The Court held that the FIA's jurisdiction is strictly confined to the scheduled offences under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, which do not include offences under tax laws. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the FIA cannot initiate inquiries into disputes between private parties or bypass the procedural requirements of Section 3 of the FIA Act and Rule 5 of the FIA (Inquiries and Investigations) Rules, 2002.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency have jurisdiction to initiate inquiries into matters falling under specialized tax laws such as the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Can the Federal Investigation Agency initiate an inquiry against private individuals or companies over disputes that do not involve public servants or scheduled offences?
  • What is the legal effect of an inquiry initiated by the Federal Investigation Agency without complying with the procedural requirements of Section 3 of the FIA Act, 1974 and Rule 5 of the FIA Rules, 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Ghulam Rafiq2020 CLD 129 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-08
  banking recoverylimitation periodtime-barred suithypothecationcondonation of delayrunning finance facility
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Banking Court order that dismissed a recovery suit filed by the appellant bank as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the suit, involving a finance facility secured by a letter of hypothecation, was governed by the six-year limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, or the standard three-year period. The Court held that the suit was time-barred, affirming the dismissal. It ruled that the presence of a hypothecation agreement does not alter the nature of the underlying finance relationship, which remains subject to the three-year limitation period. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that limitation is not a mere technicality; it is a mandatory threshold issue that courts must determine at the outset. The appellant failed to seek condonation of delay under Section 24 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, which allows for discretionary relief if sufficient cause is shown. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing that statutory limitation periods are substantive and must be strictly adhered to in banking recovery litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a letter of hypothecation extend the limitation period for a banking recovery suit to six years under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is a court obligated to determine the issue of limitation in a banking recovery suit even if the defendant does not raise it as an objection?
  • Can a banking court entertain a suit filed after the expiry of the statutory limitation period without an application for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Unilever Pakistan Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2020 PTD 2052, 2020 SHC 888 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-14Read full judgment →
• Umedoo vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1170 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-10
  trial in absentiaabsconderanti-terrorismright to counseldue processretrialcriminal jail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal impugns the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced in absentia under section 324 read with section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 353 read with section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the trial and conviction of an accused person in absentia by an Anti-Terrorism Court is valid and sustainable under the law. The Court held that conducting a trial in absentia without providing the accused an opportunity of hearing violates Articles 9 and 10(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and section 10(11-A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that trial in absentia violates fundamental constitutional rights regarding liberty and the right to counsel, necessitating setting aside the judgment and remanding the case for a fresh trial in the presence of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trial of an accused person in absentia by an Anti-Terrorism Court is violative of Articles 9 and 10(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does conviction of an absconding accused without affording an opportunity of hearing contravene the principles of natural justice?
  • What is the legal effect of conducting a criminal trial in the absence of the accused under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The State2020 SHC 1318 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
• Umair vs The State2020 SHC 16 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustdelay in FIRbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused seeking confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of dishonoured cheques and criminal breach of trust. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the grant of bail given the nature of the alleged offences and the circumstances of the case. The court held that the accused is entitled to bail, confirming the interim order previously granted. The court reasoned that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of 29 days, the investigation was complete with the challan submitted, and the accused was not required for further investigation. Crucially, the court noted that while the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is non-bailable, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, absent exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted to the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Umair Shahab (since deceased) thr. his LRs Shahab Mazhar Bhalli & others2020 SHC 396 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
• Umair Maqbool vs The State2020 PLD Sindh 487 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-15
  criminal investigationmedico-legal reportpolice rulesexpert opinioninvestigating officer dutiespost-mortem examinationcoordination mechanism
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose during criminal proceedings where a discrepancy emerged between the prosecution's theory of asphyxia and the applicant's claim of hanging, highlighting a critical lack of coordination between the investigation wing and medical experts. The core legal question concerned the procedural obligations of investigating officers and medical personnel in ensuring a thorough, objective investigation. The Court observed that the current system lacks a proper mechanism for the specialized appointment and training of Medico-Legal Officers (MLOs) and Police Surgeons, often resulting in general cadre appointments without necessary expertise. The Court held that the investigation wing must be trained to identify all reasonable possibilities of an offense, as mandated by the Police Rules 1934. The key principle laid down is that the 'expert opinion' of medical officers is vital for guiding investigations, and there must be a formal, structured coordination mechanism between investigating officers, prosecutors, and medical experts. The Court directed the competent authorities to establish a policy ensuring that future appointments are based on specialized skills rather than general cadre status to facilitate effective criminal investigation.

  Questions settled

  • What are the duties of an investigating officer at the scene of a death under the Police Rules 1934?
  • Is an investigating officer required to investigate a matter from all possible angles including all versions of the incident?
  • Does the lack of coordination between the investigation wing and medical officers constitute a failure in the investigative process?
  Read full judgment →
• Umaid Ali vs The Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary2020 CLC 344 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Ubedullah Pahore vs The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and 32020 PLD Sindh 739 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-05Read full judgment →
• Ubaidullah & Others vs Province Of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 1372 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Messrs. Cox & King Agents Ltd2020 SHC 380 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-29Read full judgment →
• Total Parco Pakistan Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & others2020 SHC 1120 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• The State/Anti-Narcotics Force through Deputy Director (Law) vs Shah2020 YLR 1861 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-11
  Criminal Acquittal AppealControl of Narcotic Substances ActDouble presumption of innocenceSafe custody and transmissionSearch warrantAppraisal of evidenceBenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Acquittal Appeal was filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) against the trial court's judgment acquitting respondents of offences under sections 6, 9(C), 8-B, 12, 13, 19, and 37 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that 748 kilograms of charas were recovered from two vehicles and an office room, with two co-accused escaping and one arrested on site. The core legal questions pertained to whether the trial court correctly appraised the evidence regarding the unconvincing escape of two accused in the presence of 14 armed ANF officials, unexplained delay in sample dispatch, chain of custody failures, non-compliance with statutory search procedures under section 21, and the scope of appellate interference in acquittal orders. The High Court affirmed the acquittal, holding that the trial court's findings were neither perverse nor arbitrary. It reiterated the established principle that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence into a double presumption, which appellate courts will not disturb unless the trial judgment is palpably perverse or artificial.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard and scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does failure by the prosecution to prove the safe custody and timely transmission of narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner create a fatal defect in the prosecution case?
  • Can an acquittal judgment be reversed merely because a contra view of the evidence is possible on re-appraisal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State/Anti-Narcotics Force through Assistant Director vs Special Judge2020 YLR 2401 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-17Read full judgment →
• The State/ANF through Assistant Director ANF vs Hazar Khan and 2 others2020 P Cr. L J 1035 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31
  Criminal revisionGuilty pleaNarcotics offenceDue processIncharge JudgeSentencing discretionFair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed by the State/ANF challenging an order passed by an Incharge 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CNS) Sukkur, which disposed of a narcotics case by accepting the accused's guilty plea and imposing a lenient sentence. The core legal question was whether an Incharge Judge possesses the jurisdiction to finalize a trial by accepting a guilty plea and sentencing the accused without providing the prosecution an opportunity to be heard, particularly when the decision was based on the accused's age and financial status. The High Court held that the impugned order was illegal and passed in improper exercise of jurisdiction. The court determined that an Incharge Judge is limited to urgent matters and that disposing of a serious narcotics case based on extraneous factors like poverty or age, without hearing the prosecution, violates the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case afresh in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Incharge Judge have the jurisdiction to dispose of a criminal case by accepting a guilty plea and sentencing the accused?
  • Is it mandatory for a court to provide the prosecution an opportunity to be heard before accepting a guilty plea and passing a sentence?
  • Can a court base a sentence on the age and financial condition of the accused in a narcotics case?
  • Does the word 'may' in Section 265-E(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandate the conviction of an accused upon a plea of guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• The State / A.N.F vs Ajab Gul2020 SHC 52 · Sindh High Court
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencenarcotics possessionbenefit of doubtrecovery memochemical examiner delaycriminal evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the State/Anti-Narcotics Force's appeal against the acquittal of three respondents by the trial court in cases involving the possession of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal, based on alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, thereby warranting appellate interference. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted significant flaws in the prosecution's evidence, including the failure to associate private witnesses with the recovery despite the public location of the incident, a two-day delay in sending contraband for chemical analysis, and inconsistencies in the recovery memo. The Court affirmed the principle that an acquittal by a competent court creates a double presumption of innocence, which places a heavy burden on the prosecution to rebut. Finding no illegality or misreading of evidence by the trial court, the High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal by a trial court create a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt extended to an accused as a matter of right or as a concession?
  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses in a narcotics recovery case create a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Owais Khan Niazi2020 SHC 1438 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-30
  criminal acquittal appealnarcotics recoveryterritorial jurisdictionbenefit of doubtdefense pleapolice rulesanti-narcotics force
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force against the judgment of the Special Court-II, CNS Karachi, whereby the respondent was acquitted of a charge under Section 6/9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that four kilograms of heroin were recovered from a truck following spy information. The core legal questions involved the legality of conducting a raid outside territorial jurisdiction without informing the local police station in violation of police rules, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in light of reliable defense evidence regarding a conflicting place of arrest. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the raiding officer acted without lawful authority outside his jurisdiction and that the prosecution's case was severely compromised by credible defense evidence and missing station diary entries creating shadow of doubt. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and a substantiated defense plea creating doubt in the prosecution's narrative entitles the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an action taken by a police officer outside his territorial jurisdiction without informing the local police station violate mandatory police rules?
  • Can an acquittal appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution and lack of serious pursuit by the appellant state authorities?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when a defense plea regarding a conflicting place of arrest is substantiated by contemporaneous evidence?
  • Does the burden of proof shift from the prosecution even when an accused raises a specific defense plea in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through prosecutor General Sindh vs Dr. Zulfiqar Mizra and 112020 YLR 568 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-06
  criminal acquittal appealSection 249-A Cr.P.C.probability of convictiondeterrence of public servantgroundless chargeabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged an order passed by the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which acquitted the respondents in a case involving allegations under Sections 353, 146, 147, and 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused without a full trial when the allegations, even if accepted as true, lacked the necessary ingredients to constitute the charged offences. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the trial court is competent to exercise powers under Section 249-A if the charge is groundless or there is no probability of conviction. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the charged offences, specifically the intent to deter public servants from discharging their official duties. The key principle laid down is that for an acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C., the court must assess whether the available material, even if taken as true, provides a reasonable probability of conviction; if the allegations are vague and fail to meet the statutory requirements of the offences charged, the proceedings are an abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a trial court exercise its power to acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove the intent to deter a public servant from discharging official duties to sustain a charge under Section 353 or Section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order passed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial court's reasoning is not perverse or illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State Through Muhammad Ibrahim vs Peer Bukhsh & Ors2020 SHC 30 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →
• The State through Chairman NAB vs Syed Hamid Umer2020 P Cr. L J 514 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-28
  appeal against acquittalassets beyond known sources of incomecorruption and corrupt practicesbenamidarburden of proofNAB referencedouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State through the Chairman NAB against the judgment of the Accountability Court, which acquitted the respondent, a customs official, of charges under Section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for allegedly accumulating assets beyond his known sources of income. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the essential ingredients of corruption and corrupt practices, specifically establishing the accused's known sources of income and demonstrating that the acquired assets were disproportionate thereto. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational ingredients of the offence, notably omitting to quantify the accused's known sources of income or properly investigate the independent financial standing and business income of the accused's wife, whose name appeared on several disputed properties. Emphasizing the narrow scope of interference against an acquittal where the double presumption of innocence attaches, the Court laid down that mere possession of assets is not an offence without proving known income sources, and an acquittal judgment will not be interfered with unless found perverse or arbitrary.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients that the prosecution must prove to establish an offence under Section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to quantify the known sources of income of an accused invalidate a charge of possessing assets disproportionate to known sources?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court against a judgment of acquittal in accountability cases?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 14(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• The State (Chairman National Accountability Bureau) vs Muhammad2020 SHC 346 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-07
  acquittal appealcorruptionmisappropriationNational Accountability Bureauaccountability courtabuse of process of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal accountability acquittal appeal was filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against the order of the Accountability Court, whereby the respondent was acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a reference concerning corruption, fraud, and misappropriation of public funds. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondent under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. in the absence of tangible incriminating evidence connecting him to the crime. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's acquittal order was well-founded, noting that the respondent was initially a prosecution witness, no transactions tied him to the fraudulent accounts, and the sole witness's testimony failed to implicate him. The court laid down the principle that while acquittals under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. do not carry the double presumption of innocence attached to full trial acquittals, continuing proceedings in the absolute absence of tangible and reliable evidence amounts to an abuse of the process of law, making acquittal proper when no possibility of conviction exists.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be sustained in the absence of tangible and reliable evidence against the accused?
  • Does continuing criminal proceedings where there is no possibility of a conviction amount to an abuse of the process of law?
  • What is the standard of review for an appellate court when examining an order of acquittal passed under Section 265-K Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• The Province of Sindh and another vs Mst. Rasheeda Begum2020 SHC 1262 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-08Read full judgment →
• The Fauji Foundation Charitable Trust vs Federal Land Commission &2021 P C T L R 584, 2020 SHC 374 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
• The Director of Customs Valuation vs Kapa Enterprise & others2020 SHC 850 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-03Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Sales Tax And Federal Excise vs Messrs Agro Chemical2020 PTD 679 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-29Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs M/s. Afeef Trading & Furniture2020 SHC 806 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-26Read full judgment →
• The Collector Of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs vs Muhammad Arif Ur Rehman and another2020 PTD 627 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of CustomsPTCL 2020 CL. 281, 2020 PTD 47 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-22Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs MCC vs Abid Ali2020 SHC 1332 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-14Read full judgment →
• The Bank Of Khyber vs Muhammad Tariq Ikram and 4 others2020 CLC 1344 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-08Read full judgment →
• The Asia & Pacific Alliance of Ymca vs Khalid Malik and Ors2020 SHC 922 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-11Read full judgment →
• The Ansar Burney Trust International, & another vs The Prime Minister of Pakistan, & others2020 SHC 1092 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
• Telenor Micro Finance Bank Limited through Authorized Person vs The State2020 CLD 359 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-21
  FIR registrationJustice of Peacemicrofinance institutioncriminal liabilitycivil vs criminal disputecollateral verification
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, a microfinance bank, challenged an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismissing its application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. for the registration of an FIR against a jeweller who had verified fake and imitation gold ornaments pledged as loan collateral. The core legal question was whether the dispute was purely of a civil nature barring criminal proceedings, and whether a microfinance institution could initiate criminal proceedings despite the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The Sindh High Court held that the replacement of genuine collateral with imitation jewelry by a professional jeweller raised a prima facie criminal liability not barred by civil remedies or the existence of an indemnity clause. The court further held that a microfinance institution is not a banking company under the Microfinance Institutions Ordinance, 2001, and is entitled to seek the registration of an FIR. The criminal miscellaneous application was accordingly allowed, and the concerned SHO was directed to record the statement and proceed under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the verification of fake gold ornaments by a professional jeweller hired as a schroff constitutes a criminal offence or a purely civil breach of agreement?
  • Can a microfinance institution lodge an FIR for offences related to financial institutions under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Is a microfinance institution considered a banking company under the Microfinance Institutions Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Tehseen Ahmed H. Qureshi & others vs Ld. Distt: & Session Judge2020 SHC 708 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-20Read full judgment →
• Tayyab Khan and another vs Mrs. Basheera Begum and others2020 YLR 2458 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-04Read full judgment →
• Tarruf Ali vs Inspector General of Police Sindh and 02 others2020 SHC 76 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-24Read full judgment →
• Tarique and 3 others vs The State2020 YLR 2509 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-26
  criminal revisionbenefit of doubtSection 103 CrPCSection 342 CrPCpolice encountermedical evidenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged the conviction and sentence of the applicants for various offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged police encounter. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, whether the failure to associate private witnesses in a populated area violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether medical evidence not put to the accused during their Section 342 examination could be used against them. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the applicants beyond reasonable doubt due to significant evidentiary gaps, including the unexplained failure to secure independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a populated area, contradictions regarding the timing of medical examinations, and the failure to confront the accused with medical evidence during their examination. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the applicants, reiterating the principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses in a populated area during a police raid constitute a violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can medical evidence be used to maintain a conviction if it was not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Tarique alias Kaloo vs The State2020 MLD 1883 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-11
  criminal appealnarcotics controlbenefit of doubtpolice witnessesindependent mashirschemical examinersafe custodyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge for CNS, Tando Allahyar, convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine. The core legal questions involved the reliability of uncorroborated police testimony, non-association of independent witnesses in a populated area, procedural lapses regarding the safe custody and delayed transmission of the sample to the Chemical Examiner, and exclusive possession of the alleged narcotics. The Sindh High Court held that material contradictions among prosecution witnesses, failure to join independent mashirs, lack of proof regarding safe custody of the case property, and absence of exclusive possession created serious and reasonable doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when material contradictions exist?
  • Does the failure of the police to associate independent witnesses from a populated locality vitiate recovery proceedings under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending narcotics samples to the Chemical Examiner and the failure to produce malkhana registers?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Liaqat Ali Khan vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 759 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-20
  post-arrest bailcyber-crimeharassmentPrevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016dignity and modestytentative assessmentbail concession
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application concerns an accused charged under Sections 16, 20, and 21 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016, and Sections 419 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for allegedly engaging in cyber-stalking, harassment, and the dissemination of edited, objectionable pictures of the complainant’s family. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of bail despite prima facie evidence linking him to the alleged offences. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that although the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail remains a concession rather than an absolute right. The court established that where there is sufficient technical evidence—such as IP logs and subscriber details—connecting an accused to crimes against the dignity and modesty of individuals, particularly in the context of cyber-crimes, the court must prioritize the protection of societal interests and the victim's rights over the accused's liberty at the tentative assessment stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail a right or a concession for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the existence of prima facie technical evidence, such as IP logs and subscriber details, justify the denial of bail in cyber-crime cases?
  • Can an accused be denied bail for offences involving the violation of an individual's dignity and modesty even if the punishment is less than the threshold of the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner (Legal), Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office, Hyderabad vs Messrs Fateh Textile Mills LtdPTCL 2020 CL. 247, 2020 PTD 203 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
• Tara Chand vs Imtiaz Ali and another2020 MLD 1176 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-20
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtburden of proofSection 342 statementforged documentsdouble presumption of innocenceappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Civil and Judicial Magistrate, Matiari, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 406, 420, 468, and 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the respondents obtained a loan by mortgaging forged vehicle documents and subsequently issued threats. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a proper appraisal of evidence or if it warranted interference. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court identified major contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, including the complainant's inability to specify the loan transaction date and the lack of verified documentation. Furthermore, the court emphasized that evidence not confronted to the accused during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be considered against them. Reaffirming the principle of double innocence in acquittal appeals, the court ruled that interference is only permissible if the acquittal is capricious or perverse, which was not established here.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment that is not capricious or perverse?
  • Can evidence not put to an accused during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered against them?
  • Does the prosecution's failure to prove the essential facts of a transaction beyond reasonable doubt entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Tapal Tea Pvt Ltd vs Pakistan and Ors2020 SHC 794 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-20Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmed Tahir vs The State and 2 others2020 YLR 2661 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-08
  corruptionmisuse of authorityNational Accountability Ordinancebenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalmens reaprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an appeal against conviction by Tanveer Ahmed Tahir and an appeal against acquittal by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) regarding Syed Fida Hussain Shah, both arising from alleged corruption involving fake petrol invoices in the Sindh Police Department. The core legal question was whether the accused committed corruption under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 (NAO) or if their actions constituted mere procedural irregularities. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against Tanveer Ahmed Tahir, noting a lack of mens rea, insufficient evidence of personal gain, and the absence of specific charges. Consequently, his conviction was set aside. Regarding the NAB's appeal against the acquittal of Syed Fida Hussain Shah, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no perversity in the trial court's reasoning. The judgment reaffirms that procedural irregularities or negligence by public officials do not equate to criminal corruption under the NAO without evidence of dishonest intention, personal gain, or misuse of authority, and that the prosecution bears the burden of proof.

  Questions settled

  • Does a procedural irregularity or negligence by a public official in financial matters constitute corruption under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999?
  • Is the prosecution required to specify the exact sub-section of Section 9(a) of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 in the charge to ensure the accused can prepare a defense?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove mens rea or personal gain preclude a conviction for corruption under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Talat Parvaiz and 2 others vs The State2020 YLR 1225 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-04
  narcotics transportationconscious possessioncharas recoveryexcise officials testimonynon-applicability of section 103 Cr.P.C.burden of proofcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court CNS, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for transporting 100 kilograms of charas in a troller. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants as drivers were in conscious possession and control of the narcotics recovered from the vehicle, whether the non-association of private mashirs violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether the testimony of excise officials without independent corroboration was sufficient for conviction. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the person on the driving seat of a vehicle is presumed to have knowledge and control of articles found therein, that Section 103 Cr.P.C. is explicitly excluded in narcotics cases by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that police or excise officials are competent witnesses whose testimonies can form the basis of a conviction in the absence of proven animosity. The key principles laid down include the attribution of knowledge of contraband to the driver of a vehicle, the non-applicability of Section 103 Cr.P.C. to narcotics searches, and the shifting of the burden of proof onto the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the driver of a vehicle can be held legally responsible for the transportation of narcotics recovered from hidden compartments of the vehicle?
  • Does the non-association of private persons as mashirs of arrest and recovery vitiate a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of police or excise officials be relied upon to sustain a conviction for a narcotics offence in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 once the prosecution establishes a prima facie recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Talal Ahmed vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 170 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-19Read full judgment →
• Taimoor Mirza vs Maliha Hussain and others2020 CLC 1029 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-01
  family courtcross-examinationelectronic evidenceemail admissibilityadditional evidenceguardianship and wardsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the lower appellate court and family court in a guardianship and visitation matter, wherein the petitioner was restrained from confronting the respondent during cross-examination with an email printout and from introducing additional evidence. The core legal question centered on whether a party can confront a witness in family proceedings with digital documents like emails, despite the non-strict applicability of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order and Civil Procedure Code. The Sindh High Court held that although the technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply in family courts under Section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, basic principles of evidence and jurisprudence—such as the right to effectively cross-examine and impeach a witness using previous statements and electronic documents—must be upheld. The court laid down the principle that emails and other digital communications originated by a witness can be used to confront them during cross-examination, provided they are relevant, and discussed the methods for authenticating electronic evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party confront a witness during cross-examination in family proceedings with digital documents such as emails?
  • Does the non-applicability of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order and the Code of Civil Procedure under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 bar the application of basic principles of evidence?
  • Is it mandatory to formally list or plead a document in the plaint before it can be used to confront a witness during cross-examination?
  • How can electronic mail and digital communications be authenticated and admitted as evidence in judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Syeda Anis Sughra Jafri and others vs Province Of Sindh through Chief2020 PLC (C.S.) 557 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-19
  Constitutional petitionfake appointmentsalary arrearsmedical fitness certificateservice lawquestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a set of Constitutional Petitions filed by individuals claiming to be appointed as Junior School Teachers (JST) in BPS-09, seeking a declaration of entitlement to salary payments from the date of their respective appointments. The Petitioners alleged that their salaries were arbitrarily stopped despite their continuous service. The Respondents contended that the Petitioners' initial appointments were fraudulent, citing that their medical fitness certificates were found to be fake and fabricated by the Civil Surgeon, Services Hospital, Government of Sindh. The core legal question was whether the Petitioners were entitled to salary payments when the foundational documents for their employment were disputed as fraudulent. The Court held that the Petitioners failed to establish their entitlement to salaries. It reasoned that the finding regarding the fake medical certificates constituted a question of fact that could not be resolved through Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court established the principle that where the foundational documents of appointment are proven or prima facie established as fake or fabricated, the claim for salary payments cannot be sustained, and such factual disputes are not amenable to relief under Constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a claim for salary payments be entertained in a Constitutional petition when the foundational appointment documents are disputed as fake?
  • Is a finding by a medical authority regarding the authenticity of a medical certificate a question of fact that precludes relief in Constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure to establish the validity of appointment documents bar a claim for salary arrears?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zain-Al-Abidin vs The State2020 SHC 1106 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Zain ul Abideen vs Federal Board of Revenue & others2021 PLD Sindh 130, 2020 SHC 294 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahid Hassan Rizvi vs The Province of Sindh & 03 others2020 SHC 250 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-17
  constitutional petitionup-gradation of postpay scalecivil servicepromotionlength of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought a direction from the Sindh High Court for the up-gradation of his post as a Compounder from BPS-9 to BPS-16, alleging discrimination as his colleagues had allegedly been placed in BPS-16. The core legal question was whether an employee is entitled to claim up-gradation to a higher pay scale as a matter of right without fulfilling the requisite conditions and length of service. The court held that up-gradation is restricted to the post and not the person occupying it, does not amount to promotion, and requires department restructuring or reform in the public interest, alongside meeting the mandatory length of service. Consequently, the court dismissed the constitutional petition, ruling that the petitioner lacked the requisite length of service and that personal up-gradation is impermissible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether up-gradation of a post applies to the office or the person occupying it?
  • Does up-gradation of a post constitute promotion in stricto sensu?
  • Is an employee entitled to claim up-gradation to a higher pay scale without fulfilling the mandatory length of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Yasir Ali Jaffri vs The State2020 SHC 24 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustcheatingbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Syed Yasir Ali Jaffari, who is accused of offenses under Sections 489-F and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dishonor of a cheque issued to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail, given the nature of the transaction and the procedural status of the case. The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, confirming the interim order previously granted. The Court reasoned that the investigation was complete, the challan had been submitted, and the applicant was no longer required for investigative purposes. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Establishing the principle that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception for non-prohibitory offenses, the Court concluded that incarceration would serve no purpose, particularly as the applicant is a first-time offender.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offense of dishonoring a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted to the trial court?
  • Can bail be granted to a first-time offender in a case involving a business dispute where the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Umar Baqi and Ors vs Fed. of Pakistan and ORs2020 SHC 1272 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Sharafat Ali vs Abdul Rasheed and others2020 SHC 596 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Shan Nazir Ahsan through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Sakina Khatoon2020 YLR 2123 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Shah Mumtaz Alam vs Federation of Pakistan and 03 others2020 SHC 72 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-23
  old-age pensioninsurable employmentqualifying serviceEOBIpension stoppagestatutory interpretationlabor policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the stoppage of his monthly pension by the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) after drawing it for several years. He had worked in a private company for approximately thirteen years, and his contributions were duly paid. The core legal question was whether an employee with less than fifteen years of insurable employment qualifies for an old-age pension under the relevant statute, and whether an executive policy or circular can override statutory requirements. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner failed to meet the mandatory minimum threshold of fifteen years of insurable employment stipulated under the statute, and that administrative policy circulars cannot override the parent legislation. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that benefits under the Self-Employed Scheme or administrative circulars cannot create pension entitlements contrary to express statutory qualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee with less than fifteen years of service qualifies for a monthly old-age pension under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act 1976?
  • Can an administrative policy or circular override the express provisions of a parent statute?
  • Does a self-employed scheme or executive circular create enforceable pension rights contrary to statutory qualifying periods?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sami Ahmad and another vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited2020 MLD 1021 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Rizwan Ali vs Muhammad Irfan Ali & Ors2020 SHC 956 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Riffat Hussain and others vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1486 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-27
  test identification paradebenefit of the doubtremand of casefair trialjoint investigation teampolice confessionamended chargeanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprises criminal appeals directed against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing the appellants for murder and anti-terrorism offences. The core legal questions involve the assessment of an identification parade conducted after an unexplained delay without proper safeguards, the admissibility of police confessions and joint investigation team reports, and whether a case should be remanded for re-recording witness testimony following the framing of an amended charge. The court held that identification parades suffering from serious legal irregularities and delays cannot form the basis of a conviction, that police confessions and joint investigation team reports are inadmissible, and that remanding a case to allow the prosecution to fill lacunae or prejudice the accused is unwarranted. The appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt, laying down principles regarding judicial discretion against remands that prejudice the accused and the strict standards required for test identification parades.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade conducted after a considerable delay and without proper safeguards can be relied upon to uphold a conviction?
  • Is a joint investigation team report admissible in evidence to prove the guilt of an accused?
  • Whether an appellate court should remand a case to the trial court for re-recording witness evidence after the amendment of a charge when it prejudices the accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a confessional statement made before the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Rashid Hussain vs S.S.P Sanghar & others2020 SHC 1322 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Qamar Ali vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad2020 MLD 1488 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Umair Shah vs The State2020 SHC 998 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali Raza vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2020 PLC (C.S.) 1385 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-01
  Police Service of Pakistaninter-se seniorityencadrementretrospective seniorityout-of-turn promotioncivil service law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notification withdrawing the petitioner's encadrement into the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) and sought a direction to fix his inter-se seniority alongside his batch mates. The core legal question was whether a police officer encadered into the PSP is entitled to claim seniority retrospectively from the date of their service in the Provincial Police Cadre or from the date of their actual encadrement into the PSP. The Court held that the petitioner's claim for seniority from an earlier date was untenable. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that appointment and encadrement into the PSP must be prospective, not retrospective, and that seniority in the PSP cadre is strictly reckoned from the date of encadrement. The Court affirmed that the impugned notification was issued in compliance with Supreme Court directives regarding out-of-turn promotions. The key principle laid down is that under the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985, seniority in the PSP cannot be antedated to the period of provincial service, as such retrospective seniority violates the statutory framework governing the cadre.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police officer claim seniority in the Police Service of Pakistan from the date of their initial appointment in the Provincial Police Service?
  • Is the appointment and encadrement of provincial police officers into the Police Service of Pakistan governed by prospective or retrospective effect?
  • Does the withdrawal of out-of-turn promotions pursuant to Supreme Court orders justify the denial of antedated seniority in the PSP cadre?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohammad Ahmed vs P.O Sindh & others2020 SHC 488 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehroz Mehdi Zaidi vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1609 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-25
  criminal appealretracted judicial confessionbenefit of the doubtcapital punishmenttarget killinganti-terrorismmurderconfessional statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under sections 302(b), 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentencing him to death and imprisonment. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession recorded in another case, the necessity of independent corroborative evidence for capital punishment, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of an eyewitness. The Sindh High Court held that the retracted judicial confession was neither voluntary nor truthful, that a confession recorded in one case cannot be relied upon in another, and that the prosecution failed to establish any circumstantial or direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentences, acquitted the appellant on the benefit of the doubt, and answered the confirmation reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted solely on a retracted judicial confession without independent corroborative evidence linking him to a capital crime?
  • Whether a judicial confession recorded in one case can be relied upon or used as evidence in another distinct case?
  • Does a retracted confession made while in police or rangers custody after an unexplained delay meet the legal tests of voluntariness and truthfulness?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when the sole eyewitness fails to appear before the trial court for recording testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehroz Mehdi Zaidi alias Mehdi Badshah vs The State2020 MLD 1344 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-21
  judicial confessionbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealanti-terrorismprocedural irregularitypolice custodyexplosive substancesconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction for terrorism and explosives-related offenses, arguing false implication and lack of incriminating evidence. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the appellant's judicial confession and the sufficiency of evidence. The Court held that the confession was inadmissible because the Magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically by failing to ascertain voluntariness through necessary questioning and by returning the accused to police custody. Additionally, the Court noted a critical discrepancy: a Rangers press release indicated the appellant was in custody prior to the alleged date of the offense, rendering the prosecution's narrative inherently doubtful. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming the principle that if any circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. The judgment emphasizes that procedural safeguards in recording confessions are mandatory and that contradictory prosecution evidence warrants acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does returning an accused to police custody after a judicial confession invalidate the confession?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for a Magistrate when recording a confession under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if prosecution evidence is contradictory?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehdi Hassan vs Federation of Pakistan and 02 others2020 SHC 1198 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Jawaid Haider Kazmi vs The state and another2020 PLD Sindh 719 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-17
  fabrication of false evidenceSection 193 PPCprocedural lawjudicial discretionpolice misconductcriminal procedureSection 195 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged the refusal of lower courts to initiate proceedings under Section 193, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, against a police officer for allegedly fabricating a false case. The core legal question was whether a court can initiate action for fabricating false evidence after the conclusion of a trial and the transfer of the presiding officer. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that while courts must proactively curb the menace of fabricated evidence, the statutory mechanism under Section 195 and Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, requires the specific presiding officer before whom the proceeding occurred to initiate the complaint. The Court established that a successor judge cannot initiate such proceedings once a trial has concluded and the original presiding officer is no longer available. While the Court acknowledged the police officer's potential liability for fabricating evidence, it determined that directing the trial court to act after a significant lapse of time would be futile. The judgment underscores that judicial control over fabricated evidence is essential but must be exercised within the strict procedural confines of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a successor judge initiate proceedings under Section 193, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after the conclusion of a trial?
  • Is a private party entitled to directly initiate criminal proceedings for offences listed under Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the appellate court have the power to initiate proceedings under Section 193, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, when no additional evidence was recorded during the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Jarar Waesia Zarar vs The State & another2020 SHC 1064 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam raza Shah @Raj Shah vs SSP Jamshor & others2020 SHC 80 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Farhat Hussain vs Salman and Ors2020 SHC 1314 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Azhar Hussain vs The National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and another2020 YLR 2139 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Azhar Hussain Rizvi vs Irfan Umar and another2020 CLC 1514 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Asadul Haq vs Balochistan Glass Limited2021 PLD Sindh 108, 2020 SHC 1396 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Anees Haider vs Station House Officer, Police Station Malir Cantt and others2020 P Cr. L J 467 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-04
  registration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peaceexecution proceedingsproperty disputeconstitutional petitionprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing his application filed under section 22A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the registration of a first information report against the respondents regarding the alleged demolition of his residential house and removal of property. The core legal question was whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace erred in refusing to direct the registration of a criminal case in the wake of a prolonged property dispute and execution proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order suffered from no illegality or irregularity, noting that a long history of civil litigation existed between the parties, the executing court's satisfaction of the decree had not been challenged, and the petitioner had the alternate remedy of filing a private complaint. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that an application for a criminal case direction is rightly refused where underlying civil disputes and execution matters have been lawfully concluded and alternative remedies such as private complaints exist.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is justified in dismissing an application under section 22A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a prolonged civil and execution dispute exists between the parties?
  • Can a petitioner bypass the remedy of a private complaint to insist upon the registration of a criminal case through constitutional jurisdiction after dismissal of an application by the Justice of Peace?
  • Does the execution of a civil court decree satisfying a property dispute preclude the aggrieved party from seeking a criminal case registration against the executing acts?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Zaidi & Ors vs The State2020 SHC 1006 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-20
  joinder of chargesmis-joinder of chargessame transactioncriminal breach of trustseparate trialright to fair trialframing of charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application is directed against an order of the trial court dismissing the applicants' application for framing separate charges for each distinct offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question concerns the legality of a joint charge and joint trial of multiple accused persons operating across different bank branches at different times, and whether such acts constitute the 'same transaction'. The High Court held that the offences committed by different sets of accused persons at two separate bank branches at different times lacked proximity of time, place, continuity of action, and community of purpose, and therefore did not form part of the same transaction under the law. Setting aside the impugned order, the Court established the principle that under Sections 233 and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, distinct offences committed by separate individuals across unrelated episodes without transactional nexus must be tried separately to safeguard the accused's right to a fair trial and prevent prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • What are the principal criteria for determining whether separate acts constitute the 'same transaction' under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply when there are multiple accused persons involved in a case?
  • Can distinct offences committed by different sets of accused persons at separate bank branches at different times be tried jointly?
  • What is the general rule regarding the framing of separate charges for distinct offences under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Surfactant Chemical Company (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Officer vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance and 3 others2020 PTD 1985 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
• Suresh Kumar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and another2020 PLD Sindh 62 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-19
  tax amnestyconstitutional petitionholder of public officeintelligible differentiareasonable classificationultra viresdiscriminationlocal government
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the exclusion of "holders of public office" from the benefits of the Assets Declaration Ordinance, 2019. The petitioner, a former Councilor, argued that the definition of "holder of public office"—which includes a ten-year "preceding" period—and the subsequent exclusion of this class from the amnesty scheme, lacked reasonable classification or intelligible differentia. The petitioner contended this exclusion was discriminatory and violated Articles 8, 14, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether the legislature acted unconstitutionally by creating a distinct class of public office holders and excluding them from the tax amnesty scheme. The Court held that the definition clause itself creates no charge or liability and that the legislature possesses the discretion to classify persons for the purpose of tax exemptions. The Court found no discrimination, affirming that public office holders, including local councilors entrusted with public funds, constitute a distinct and reasonable class for such exclusions. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, upholding the validity of the challenged provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of "holders of public office" from a tax amnesty scheme violate the constitutional right to equality?
  • Can a definition clause in an Ordinance be challenged as unconstitutional independent of the charging provisions?
  • Does the classification of local councilors as "holders of public office" for the purpose of tax amnesty exclusions constitute reasonable classification?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs The State2020 SHC 1070 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Sultan Lanjwani Jat vs Ali Asghar Chandio2020 SHC 1352 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-17
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencemedical evidenceinterested witnesseslife imprisonmentappreciation of evidencenon-recovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's father. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence provided by interested witnesses, the impact of minor contradictions in testimony, and the effect of the non-recovery of the crime weapon on the prosecution's case. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. The court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular evidence corroborated by medical reports and the recovery of spent cartridges. The court established that the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them unreliable if their testimony is consistent and credible. Furthermore, it affirmed that minor discrepancies in evidence do not undermine the prosecution's case, and the non-recovery of a weapon is not fatal when other direct, confidence-inspiring evidence establishes the accused's active participation in the offense.

  Questions settled

  • Does the close relationship of prosecution witnesses to the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is the non-recovery of the crime weapon fatal to the prosecution's case when other direct evidence is available?
  • Do minor contradictions in witness testimony necessitate the rejection of the entire prosecution case?
  • Can an accused be convicted for murder when multiple assailants fired shots and it is difficult to attribute the fatal shot to a specific individual?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed vs The State2020 MLD 682 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-19
  narcotics possessionsampling procedurebenefit of doubtrecovery memoindependent witnessescriminal appealcase property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the possession of narcotics. The prosecution alleged that 1500 grams of charas were recovered from the appellant during routine patrolling, though only 10 grams were sampled. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the sampling procedure where multiple items were recovered but not sampled individually, and whether the prosecution's failure to associate private witnesses despite prior information, combined with contradictions regarding the sealing of the case property, undermined the case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that when multiple items are recovered, each must be sampled separately to establish the quantity of the contraband. Furthermore, the failure to secure independent witnesses despite prior knowledge of the incident and contradictions regarding the sealing process created fatal doubts. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and affirmed the principle that the benefit of any doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory to sample each item separately when multiple items of narcotics are recovered from an accused?
  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses when the police have prior information regarding a crime cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal consequence of contradictions between prosecution witnesses regarding the sealing of case property?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed Shaikh vs Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. through Managing Director Chief Executive and 3 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 138 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31
  rejection of plaintmaster and servantpromotiondamagesnon-statutory rulesOrder VII Rule 11 CPCSpecific Relief Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the revisional court which set aside the trial court's dismissal of an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., and rejected the petitioner's plaint. The petitioner, an employee of respondent No. 1 organization governed by non-statutory rules, filed a civil suit for declaration, specific performance, and damages after being denied promotion to Grade-V despite fulfilling the threshold points. The core legal question was whether a plaint containing a claim for damages in a master-and-servant relationship can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground that the suit is barred by Sections 21 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The Sindh High Court held that even if declaratory relief or specific performance is barred under non-statutory service rules, a plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. where a specific claim for damages has also been made. The court laid down the principle that mixed questions of fact and law regarding employment grievances and damages require a full trial, and plaints should not be dismissed or rejected summarily on technicalities without allowing parties to adduce evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. in a master-and-servant employment suit where a specific claim for damages has been made alongside declaratory reliefs?
  • Can an employee governed by non-statutory service rules enforce a claim for promotion through a declaratory suit?
  • Does the principle of master and servant completely bar an employee from claiming damages for denial of service benefits during employment?
  • Is a trial court justified in dismissing an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. when the determination of the suit involves mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman Shah @ Sunny vs The State2020 YLR 2226, 2020 SHC 324 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-27
  benefit of doubtcircumstantial evidencekidnapping for ransomcontradictory evidencepointation of dead bodycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for offences including kidnapping for ransom and murder. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the prosecution had proven its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, pointation, and recoveries. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a coherent chain of circumstantial evidence, and that major contradictions in recovery witnesses, doubtful pointation of the dead body and weapon, and lack of direct ocular testimony created serious doubts regarding the guilt of the accused. The key principle laid down is that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions among recovery witnesses regarding the pointation of a dead body are sufficient to create reasonable doubt leading to the acquittal of the accused?
  • Does the recovery of an alleged weapon of offence days after the recovery of the body from the same searched location create a serious doubt requiring acquittal?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person?
  • Can a conviction for murder and kidnapping for ransom be sustained solely on weak circumstantial evidence and unverified ransom call details?
  Read full judgment →
• Suit No. Nil (392) of 2018 vs Karachi Port Trust through Chairman and others2020 CLC 1817 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-27
  bank guaranteeperformance bondautonomy principleinjunctionmaintainability of suitunauthorized signatoryencashmentconstruction contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit challenged the encashment of a performance guarantee by the Karachi Port Trust regarding a construction contract. The core legal questions were whether an injunction should restrain the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee and whether the suit was maintainable given the signatory’s lack of authorization at the time of filing. The Court dismissed the injunction application, holding that bank guarantees are independent, autonomous contracts that must be honored upon demand regardless of underlying contractual disputes. The Court emphasized that interference is only permissible in cases of clear fraud or irretrievable injustice, neither of which was established. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the suit in its entirety, ruling that the signatory lacked valid authorization when the suit was instituted. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that the initial lack of authority is a fundamental defect that cannot be cured by subsequent ratification. The judgment reaffirms the autonomy principle of bank guarantees and the strict requirement for proper authorization in legal proceedings, establishing that an incompetently filed suit remains legally void.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant an injunction to restrain the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee based on an underlying contractual dispute?
  • Is a suit filed without valid authorization at the time of institution curable by subsequent ratification?
  • Does the autonomy principle require banks to honor performance guarantees regardless of disputes between the parties to the primary contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Limited vs M/s. Data Steel Pipe Industries (Pvt.)2021 CLC 892, 2020 SHC 762 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-30Read full judgment →
• State through Deputy Attorney General vs Shaikh Muhammad Munawar2020 YLR 1368 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-23
  acquittal appealcondonation of delaylimitation perioddepartmental delaycriminal procedurefinality of acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The State filed an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Special Judge (Central-II) Karachi, which was filed three days beyond the statutory period of limitation. The State sought condonation of delay, citing departmental procedures as the reason for the delay. The core legal question was whether a delay in filing an appeal against an acquittal, caused solely by departmental procedural delays, constitutes a 'circumstance of a compelling nature' sufficient to warrant condonation. The Court, relying on established Supreme Court precedents, held that an acquittal, once recorded, attains finality unless challenged within the prescribed time. It ruled that delay in acquittal appeals cannot be condoned unless the petitioner demonstrates they were prevented from filing by an act of the acquitted respondent or by compelling circumstances beyond their control. Departmental delay or procedural lethargy does not satisfy this threshold. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, affirming that departmental delays are insufficient grounds to reopen an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a delay in filing an appeal against an acquittal be condoned solely on the ground of departmental procedural delays?
  • What criteria must be satisfied to condone a delay in filing an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does departmental delay constitute a circumstance of a compelling nature beyond the control of the petitioner for the purpose of condoning a delay in filing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Soomar vs Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate, Khipro District Sanghar and 8 others2020 P Cr. L J 835 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-30
  constitutional petitiondischarge of accusednegative police reportpolice opinionstatements under section 161 Cr.P.C.cognizance of offencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 30.05.2018 passed by the respondent Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, whereby a police summary recommending disposal of the case in "B" class was accepted in "C" class. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate can discharge accused persons or accept a negative police report when prosecution eye-witnesses have fully implicated the accused in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The Sindh High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order of the Magistrate. The Court held that where prosecution witnesses fully implicate the accused in their statements, a Magistrate cannot discharge the accused or rely blindly on police opinion or defence statements at the initial stage, as a tentative assessment of the material collected by the investigating officer must be made. The key principle laid down is that an investigating officer's opinion cannot be accepted to exonerate accused persons when incriminating material and supporting statements of prosecution witnesses exist on record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate discharge an accused on the basis of police opinion when prosecution witnesses have fully implicated the accused under Section 161, Cr.P.C.?
  • Whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence despite a negative report submitted by the police?
  • Is a Magistrate justified in accepting a police summary based on the statements of defence witnesses at the initial stage without assigning cogent reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Uddin vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 957 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-27
  pre-arrest bailgas theftfurther inquirycriminal procedurerecoverymala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arose from the dismissal of the applicant's pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court regarding allegations of gas theft at a factory premises. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in the illegal extraction of gas through unauthorized connections. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the defense's claims of mala fide. The Court observed that while the raiding party recovered various pipes used for the illegal connection, the absence of any raw manufacturing material or finished products at the site cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Consequently, the Court held that the case against the applicant fell within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant statutory provisions. The Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that where the prosecution's case lacks essential corroborative evidence such as raw materials in a manufacturing-related offense, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry, thereby satisfying the criteria for bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of raw materials or finished products at an alleged illegal manufacturing site constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is the failure to associate private witnesses in a recovery case a ground for granting bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the prosecution's case regarding the nature of the premises is disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ilahi and others vs Usman Elahi and others2020 SHC 454 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-09Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed vs Mst. Tehniat and another2020 CLC 1489 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-31Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin Sikandar vs L.A.O.and others2020 SHC 672 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-17Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin Shaikh vs Spl; Judge Anticorruption Provicial Sukkur An Other2020 SHC 1444 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-31
  criminal revisioncross-examinationfair trialrecall of witnessanticorruptiondue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order dated 17-11-2020 passed by the Special Judge Anticorruption (Provincial), Sukkur, which dismissed the applicant's request under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall a prosecution witness, Ghulam Hussain, for cross-examination. The applicant contended that the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine a crucial witness violated the principles of a fair trial. The Deputy Prosecutor General for the State did not oppose the application. The Court held that cross-examination is an essential mechanism that assists both the accused and the Court in reaching a just decision. The Court emphasized that denying such an opportunity undermines the right to a fair trial. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to recall the witness for cross-examination. The judgment affirms the principle that the right to cross-examine witnesses is integral to the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial, ensuring that the determination of rights and obligations in criminal proceedings remains transparent and just.

  Questions settled

  • Does the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness violate the constitutional right to a fair trial?
  • Is the recall of a witness for cross-examination permissible under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 apply to the process of cross-examination in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Revenue Board vs M/s. Hafiz Brothers Media Solution (Pvt) Ltd2020 SHC 1126 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs The State2020 SHC 1246 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  post-arrest bailmurderfirearm injuryfurther enquiryrecovery of weapontentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving charges of double murder and attempted murder. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to enmity over landed property, that the FIR was delayed, and that no specific role was attributed. The State and complainant opposed the application, pointing out that the applicant was specifically named in the FIR for causing a firearm injury to one of the deceased and that a crime weapon was recovered from him upon arrest. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was prima facie connected with the commission of the offence based on the specific allegations and recovery of the weapon, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage. The court concluded that reasonable grounds existed to believe the applicant was guilty, distinguished the case law cited by the applicant, and dismissed the bail application with a direction to expedite the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused named in the FIR with a specific firearm injury attribution is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further enquiry?
  • Does the relationship of the complainant and prosecution witnesses inter se furnish sufficient ground to disbelieve them at the bail stage?
  • Can deeper appreciation of facts and circumstances be undertaken by the High Court while deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali vs The State2020 SHC 1056 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →