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.

• Sikandar Ali Lashari vs The State2020 YLR 2543, 2020 SHC 308 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-20Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali and others vs The State2020 YLR 1877 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-29
  murdercommon intentionunproved motivemitigating circumstancesreduction of sentencedeath sentence commutationeyewitness testimonybenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b), 504, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence for the primary appellant and life imprisonment for the others. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence, the imputation of common intention, and whether the failure of the prosecution to prove the asserted motive constitutes a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the active role and guilt of the primary appellant through consistent eyewitness and medical evidence, while failing to establish active participation or common intention for the co-appellants, who were consequently acquitted. The Court further held that an unproved motive serves as a mitigating circumstance sufficient to commute a death sentence to imprisonment for life. The key principles laid down include the rule that the failure of the prosecution to substantiate a set-up motive acts as a mitigating factor against the imposition of the death penalty, and that mere presence without overt acts or proven common intention does not sustain a conviction for murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a sentence of death to imprisonment for life?
  • Can co-accused be convicted of murder solely on the basis of presence at the crime scene without proof of active participation or shared common intention?
  • Whether consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to uphold a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali & others vs The State2020 SHC 134 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
• Sicpa Sa vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 MLD 2049, 2020 SHC 222 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Sibghatullah vs The State2020 MLD 776 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-23
  qatl-i-amdcapital punishmentdefective chargeright to legal representationde novo trialremand of casemurder reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference originated from a trial court judgment wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for qatl-i-amd. The core legal questions pertained to the validity of a defective charge framed under Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the non-compliance with statutory rules requiring legal representation for the accused in capital cases under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the failure of the trial court to comply with Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by failing to specify whether the conviction pertained to single or double murder. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that conducting trial proceedings in a capital offence without legal counsel prejudiced the defense, and that an ambiguous judgment violating Section 367 rendered the verdict illegal. The case was remanded to the trial court for a de novo trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does recording the examination of prosecution witnesses in a capital case in the absence of defense counsel invalidate the trial?
  • What is the effect of framing a defective charge under Section 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 that misstates the place of incident and name of the deceased?
  • Does a judgment convicting an accused under Section 302(b) PPC violate Section 367 CrPC if it fails to specify whether the conviction applies to single or multiple murders?
  Read full judgment →
• Sht. Marvi vs The Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 584 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Hussain Jokhio vs The Stae through Chairman NAB & others2021 PCr.LJ 24, 2020 SHC 434 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
• Shoe Planet (Pvt.) Ltd vs Collector of Customs & Others2021 PTD 875, 2020 SHC 834 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-16Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Ahmed Qazi & others vs Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 1100 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-27Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2020 SHC 840 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
• Sher Asfandyar Khan and others vs Neelofar Shah and others2020 CLD 1260 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16
  Oppression and MismanagementCompanies Ordinance 1984Transfer of SharesComparison of SignaturesSecondary EvidenceOfficial AssigneeExtraordinary General MeetingLimitation and Laches
  Summary & questions settled

  These three High Court Appeals arose from an order of a learned Single Judge in J.M. No. 31 of 2007, filed under Sections 290 and 291 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The dispute concerned alleged oppression and mismanagement in Ofspace (Pvt.) Ltd., where shares kept in safe custody were unlawfully transferred, converting the majority group into a minority. Appellants contended that the petition was time-barred, agreements were unproved photocopies, issues were not framed or evidence recorded, and the Judge erred in personally comparing signatures under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Single Judge's directions to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM) under the Official Assignee’s supervision on undisputed shareholdings. The Court held that company petitions under Section 290 do not mandatorily require framing issues or recording evidence, secondary evidence is admissible where appropriate, the Court is competent to compare signatures itself under Article 84, and continuous correspondence prevents the bar of limitation or laches.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Company Judge mandatorily required to frame issues and record oral evidence before deciding a petition under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Can a Court compare disputed signatures with undisputed signatures on official record itself under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 without referring the matter to a handwriting expert?
  • Does an unlawful transfer of shares that alters the majority shareholding of a company constitute 'oppression' within the meaning of Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Can a company petition under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 be dismissed on the ground of limitation or laches when there has been continuous correspondence and pursuit regarding company mismanagement?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Asghar vs NAB & others2021 YLR 188, 2020 SHC 378 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-29Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Kashif Imtiaz vs Faysal Bank Limited and another2020 CLD 904 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-21Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Junaid Iqbal vs The State2020 MLD 1407 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-29
  consumer protectionfair trialnatural justicebenefit of doubtnon-compliancecriminal appealsubstandard goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a conviction and sentence imposed by the Consumer Protection Court for non-compliance with a prior order under the Sindh Consumer Protection Act, 2014. The complainant alleged that the appellant sold substandard bread lacking manufacturing and expiry dates, causing physical illness. The core legal question was whether the conviction was sustainable given the lack of evidence regarding the alleged illness and the procedural fairness of the trial court's proceedings. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the absence of medical evidence to substantiate the complainant's claims of illness. Furthermore, the court found that the trial court violated the principles of natural justice and Article 10A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by denying the appellant a fair opportunity to respond to a show-cause notice. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reinforces the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide a medical report to substantiate claims of illness resulting from consumption of a product create a reasonable doubt in a consumer protection case?
  • Is a trial court's order requiring a response to a show-cause notice within one hour a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheharyar Ahmed vs The State2020 PTD 645 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-24
  post-arrest bailclearing agentfake PRCProceeds Realisation Certificatemens reafurther inquiryCustoms Act 1969illegal import
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose from an FIR lodged against a clearing agent for allegedly submitting a forged Proceeds Realisation Certificate (PRC) to clear an imported vehicle under the personal baggage transfer of residence scheme. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant possessed the requisite mens rea to justify his continued detention, and whether a case for post-arrest bail under further inquiry was made out. The High Court granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing a solvent surety. The court observed that the applicant was merely a clearing agent and not the primary importer, and that prior to the registration of the FIR, a letter had been sent on behalf of his firm requesting Customs authorities to verify the authenticity of the PRC. This conduct raised a presumption negating mens rea at the tentative stage. Furthermore, as the imported vehicle remained in Customs custody, no financial loss was caused to the public exchequer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a clearing agent who submits a forged document to Customs can be granted post-arrest bail if mens rea is prima facie absent?
  • Does a clearing agent's prior request to Customs authorities to verify the authenticity of a document negate mens rea at the bail stage?
  • Whether a charge of causing loss to the public exchequer holds when the imported goods remain seized in Customs custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheeraz s/o Imam Buksh vs The State2021 MLD 292, 2020 SHC 336 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-04
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquiryFIR nominationcriminal liabilitypolice encounter
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns the applicant, Sheeraz, seeking post-arrest bail for offenses under sections 353, 324, 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his alleged involvement in a firing incident resulting in the death of a police constable. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being named in the FIR, given the general nature of the allegations and the grant of bail to co-accused. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the mere naming of an accused in an FIR without disclosing the source of identity is insufficient to deny bail, especially when the role assigned is general and indistinguishable from co-accused who have already been granted bail. Furthermore, the Court established that the rule of consistency applies based on the role played rather than mere nomination, and that prior criminal involvement does not automatically preclude bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere naming of an accused in an FIR without disclosing the source of identity constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Does the rule of consistency in bail matters depend on the role played by the accused or merely on whether they were nominated in the FIR?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of involvement in other criminal cases without prior conviction?
  • Is the recovery of a crime weapon from a co-accused sufficient to deny bail to an accused from whom no weapon was recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheeraz Jamali vs Province of Sindh, through Secretary Department, Local2020 CLC 1532 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Sheer Muhammad vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 864 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-26
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancesreduction of sentenceunproven motivetazircriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentencing him to death, alongside compensation and default terms. The appellant did not contest the conviction on merits but sought reduction of the sentence from death to life imprisonment based on mitigating circumstances, including unproven motive and the welfare of his children. The Sindh High Court evaluated the evidence, affirming the conviction beyond reasonable doubt based on eyewitness, medical, and corroborative evidence. On the question of sentencing, the court held that Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies to Qisas rather than Tazir cases, rendering it inapplicable here. However, the court found that the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive, coupled with the absence of extreme brutality and the appellant's willingness to support his children, constituted sufficient mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the death reference, maintained the conviction, but converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is applicable to cases of Tazir?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive justify the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether mitigating circumstances such as the welfare of children and unproven motive warrant the conversion of a death penalty to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Saleem Akhund vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation limited and 022020 SHC 760 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-16
  superannuationdisciplinary proceedingsabatement of inquirypensionary benefitsremoval from serviceback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his removal from service by Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, which was initially struck down by the High Court on December 16, 2015, due to procedural defects in the second show-cause notice. The Court had permitted the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings and pass a speaking order within 20 days, failing which back benefits were to be paid. The respondents subsequently maintained the removal penalty via an Office Memorandum dated January 8, 2016. The petitioner, who had reached superannuation on April 30, 2011, challenged this action. The High Court held that under Fundamental Rule 54-A, disciplinary proceedings against an employee abate upon reaching superannuation. Since the petitioner was no longer in service, no fresh inquiry could be conducted or continued against him. Consequently, the Court declared the departmental proceedings abated, set aside the impugned memorandum, and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner all admissible service and retirement benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated or continued against an employee after they have reached the age of superannuation?
  • What is the legal effect on pending disciplinary inquiries under Fundamental Rule 54-A when a government servant retires?
  • Is pension considered a bounty from the employer, or is it an earned right for services rendered?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary & others2020 SHC 696 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• Sharjeel Inam Memon vs National Accountability Bureau through Director2020 MLD 614 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-25Read full judgment →
• Shareef son of Muhammad Younas Lakho vs The State2020 SHC 1268 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-08
  criminal appealmurderdeath referencebenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRdelayed weapon recoveryeyewitness contradiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant preferred a criminal appeal against the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing him under Section 302(h), Section 506(ii), and Section 337-H(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a reference for confirmation of his death sentence. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness accounts, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and recording statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the evidentiary value of a delayed weapon recovery. The Sindh High Court held that material contradictions among eyewitnesses, an unexplained five-day delay in lodging the FIR, a subsequent delay in recording police statements, and a delayed, unverified weapon recovery created serious doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, and acquitted the appellant on the principle of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR create a presumption of consultation and deliberation?
  • What is the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with an unexplained delay?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when material contradictions exist regarding the time and manner of the deceased's death?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharaf Shipping Agency (Pvt) Ltd vs Sindh and Others2020 SHC 800 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-22Read full judgment →
• Shan khalid and Ors vs Chairman HEC and Ors2020 SHC 1038 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-20Read full judgment →
• Shan Foods (Pvt.) Ltd vs Pakistan and 2 others2020 PTD 1865 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed Siddiqui & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 1258 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-08Read full judgment →
• Sham Kumar vs Mst. Ulfat Shaheen2020 SHC 402 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-10Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Akbar vs The State and another2020 SHC 1014 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-20
  CNIC blockageabsconderproclamation and attachmentcriminal miscellaneous applicationNADRA
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal miscellaneous application has been filed to question two impugned orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge respectively, through which the CNIC of the applicant was ordered to be blocked upon being reported as an absconder in Crime No. 06/2020 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mithadar. The core legal question concerns the legality of blocking an accused person's CNIC without initiating formal proclamation and attachment proceedings under Section 87 and Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that adverse proceedings such as digitally impounding a CNIC cannot be taken unless it is established that the person is purposely and knowingly absconding, and specifically until proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have been initiated and completed. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and NADRA authorities were directed to unblock the applicant's CNIC.

  Questions settled

  • Can the CNIC of an accused person be blocked without initiating proceedings under Section 87 and Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether adverse proceedings regarding the digitally impounding of a CNIC can be taken without establishing that a person is purposely and knowingly absconding?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Kashif Imtiaz vs Faysal Bank Limited & another2020 SHC 310 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-06Read full judgment →
• Shahzaib Hussain through Attorney vs Muhammad Ahsan and 6 others2020 YLR 1317 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-22
  Illegal Dispossession Actforcible dispossessionpendency of civil litigationagreement to selllawful authoritycriminal revisionpossession for renovation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application assails an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question revolves around whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act is maintainable when civil litigation regarding the property is pending between the parties, and whether an entry into property for renovation under a sale agreement constitutes lawful possession. The Sindh High Court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act provides an independent remedy and its proceedings are maintainable regardless of pending civil litigation, provided a prima facie offence under Section 3 of the Act is made out. The Court established that a sale agreement allowing access solely for renovation or repair does not amount to a lawful transfer of possession, and entering or withholding possession beyond such limited permission violates the law. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the impugned dismissal order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for recording evidence and a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is maintainable during the pendency of civil litigation between the same parties regarding the same property?
  • Does an agreement to sell accompanied by permission to enter the property solely for renovation or repair constitute a lawful transfer of physical possession?
  • Can a vendee who enters a property under a sale agreement without a formal delivery of vacant possession be prosecuted under Section 3(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 for unauthorized occupation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Noor Muhammad vs Karachi Gymkhana and others2021 YLR 1963, 2020 SHC 1390 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-05Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Nabi vs Naseer Turabi and 9 others2020 CLC 300 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-18Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ali vs Province of Sindh and 06 others2020 SHC 934 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-10Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh Akbar vs Mst. Farah Naz and 2 others2020 MLD 170 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-02
  illegal dispossessionappeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencewithholding material witnesscivil disputecontradictions in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment passed by the trial court which acquitted the respondents under Sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant claimed to be the lawful owner and possessor of the subject property through a sale agreement, alleging that the respondents forcibly dispossessed him and his chowkidar. The core legal questions involved whether the trial court's appreciation of evidence was perverse and whether the essential ingredients of illegal dispossession were established. The court held that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature, that the appellant failed to produce the material witness (the chowkidar) or the vendor, and that material contradictions existed in the prosecution evidence. Consequently, the High Court upheld the acquittal, reiterating that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless there is gross misreading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice, as the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal when the trial court's findings are based on a proper appreciation of evidence?
  • Does the non-production of a material witness, such as a chowkidar allegedly maltreated during dispossession, create a fatal dent in the prosecution's case?
  • Whether a dispute primarily of a civil nature regarding title and ownership can be converted into a criminal matter under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What is the standard of proof required to interfere in an appeal against an acquittal where the accused has acquired a double presumption of innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz s/o Abdul Razzaq & another vs The State2020 SHC 1440 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-30
  anti-terrorism actpolice officer on dutylife imprisonmentremissionmurdercriminal appealpenal code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the anti-terrorism provisions were correctly invoked where a police officer victim was not on active official duty or in uniform at the time of the incident. The Sindh High Court held that since evidence established the victim was not on duty or in uniform, the provisions of Section 6(2)(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 were not attracted. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 while maintaining the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, granting the appellants the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that an attack on a police officer or public servant does not fall within the definition of terrorism under Section 6(2)(n) unless it is proven that the victim was actively discharging official duties at the relevant time.

  Questions settled

  • Does an attack on a police officer fall under terrorism provisions if the officer was not on official duty at the time of the incident?
  • What constitutes a valid application of Section 6(2)(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 regarding attacks on public servants?
  • What is the minimum substantive period of imprisonment required to be served by a life convict under the Pakistan Prison Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahmir Khan vs The State2020 SHC 550 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Shahid Isran vs The State through Prosecutor General2020 MLD 1599 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-21
  Qatl-e-AmdCriminal AppealEye-witness testimonyMitigating circumstanceDeath penalty commutationMedical evidence corroborationMotive in murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite alleged delays in FIR registration and the absence of a motive, and whether the death penalty was appropriate given the evidentiary circumstances. The Court held that the conviction was sound, relying on the testimony of a natural and independent eye-witness corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports, noting that minor contradictions do not vitiate the prosecution's case. However, the Court modified the sentence. It established the principle that while a single reliable eye-witness corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient for conviction, the failure of the prosecution to prove a motive constitutes a significant mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the necessity of judicial caution in sentencing when the motive remains unproven or shrouded in mystery.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of a single eye-witness?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove a motive for murder justify the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Do minor contradictions in prosecution evidence necessarily invalidate a conviction?
  • Is an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 mandatory when a witness fails to testify?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali and 8 others vs Province of Sindh and 03 others2020 SHC 966 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-19Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali alias Guddo vs The State2020 YLR 2452 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-10
  alteration of chargecriminal revisionframing of chargefailure of justicecommon intentionprejudice to accusedCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order dismissing the applicant's request under Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to alter or amend the charge framed against him in a murder trial. The applicant contended that the charge was imprecise and misleading, asserting that it erroneously attributed injuries caused by co-accused to him, thereby causing serious prejudice to his defense. The High Court examined the purpose of framing a charge, emphasizing that it must provide the accused with sufficient notice of the accusations, including material particulars of the incident, to enable an effective defense. The Court held that the impugned charge clearly outlined the nature of the offense, the time, place, and the common intention of the accused, and did not mislead the applicant. Furthermore, under Section 225, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, errors or omissions in a charge are not fatal unless they result in a failure of justice. Finding that the applicant had actively cross-examined witnesses, the Court concluded he was fully aware of the accusations and dismissed the application, affirming that no prejudice had occurred.

  Questions settled

  • Does an error or omission in a charge automatically invalidate the trial proceedings?
  • What is the legal test to determine if a charge requires alteration or amendment?
  • Can an accused seek alteration of a charge solely based on the contents of the FIR?
  • When does an error in a charge constitute a failure of justice under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ahmed vs The State2020 SHC 586 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  pre-arrest bailinfructuous bail applicationacquittalcriminal bailSindh High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail granted by the Sindh High Court. At the hearing, the applicant's counsel submitted that the applicant had already been acquitted of the charge by the trial court vide judgment, rendering the bail application infructuous. The Deputy Prosecution General raised no objection to this submission. To verify the contention, the court directed the Assistant Registrar (Admin) to confirm the fact directly from the presiding officer of the concerned trial court through telephone, which was duly confirmed. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the criminal bail application as having become infructuous due to the subsequent acquittal of the accused by the trial court. The key principle established is that a pre-arrest bail application becomes infructuous and is disposed of accordingly once the accused is acquitted of the underlying charges by the competent trial court during the pendency of the bail proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pre-arrest bail application become infructuous upon the acquittal of the accused by the trial court?
  • Can a bail application be disposed of as infructuous based on telephonic confirmation of an acquittal from the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheedar Khan vs The State2020 SHC 674 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman Ashraf vs The State2020 SHC 720 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-24
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausefurther inquirycheating and forgerycriminal breach
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant seeking bail in crime No.42 of 2020 registered under Sections 489-F, 506/2, 420, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Cantonment, Hyderabad, concerning the dishonour of a cheque issued for the purchase of tiles. The core legal question revolved around whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail when the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the case had already been challaned, and further investigation was not required. The Sindh High Court held that the case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail subject to enhanced surety. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and no further investigation is required, sending an accused to jail serves no useful purpose, and bail should be granted as a rule when the case warrants further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere issuance of a cheque that is subsequently dishonoured constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of dishonest intention?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the case has already been challaned?
  • Can bail be confirmed subject to the deposit of an additional security or surety equivalent to the amount of the subject cheque?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Rehman Dostay vs NAB2020 SHC 748, 2021 P Cr. L J 729 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-08
  post-arrest bailpre-arrest bailcorruptionNational Accountability OrdinanceSub-Registrar dutiesland fraudrevenue records
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple petitions for post-arrest and pre-arrest bail arising from a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference involving allegations of corruption and forgery regarding government land. The core legal questions involve determining whether the petitioners, including revenue officials and beneficiaries, are entitled to bail, and specifically, whether a Sub-Registrar is legally obligated to verify the validity of documents presented for registration. The court held that the main beneficiary and revenue officials who failed to verify records were not entitled to bail, as there was sufficient evidence connecting them to the fraud. Conversely, the court granted bail to one official where evidence was lacking. Crucially, the court held that a Sub-Registrar’s duty is ministerial; under the relevant registration rules, they are not concerned with the validity or genuineness of documents presented for registration, provided the formal requirements are met. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petitions for most accused but confirmed the pre-arrest bail for the Sub-Registrar, establishing that registration officers are not responsible for adjudicating the underlying validity of transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Sub-Registrar legally obligated to verify the validity or genuineness of documents presented for registration?
  • Does the failure of revenue officials to verify land records constitute sufficient grounds to deny pre-arrest bail in a corruption case?
  • Is pre-arrest bail an extraordinary relief that requires proof of mala fides on the part of the investigating agency?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz and another vs The State2020 MLD 466 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-18
  murderdeath sentence confirmationidentification paradeextra-judicial confessionbenefit of the doubtcircumstantial evidenceanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants were tried and convicted by the Anti-Terrorism Court under section 7(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with sections 302(b) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving death sentences for murder. On appeal, the Sindh High Court examined whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, including an identification parade, extra-judicial confessions, and weapon recoveries. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and evidence, noting fatal flaws in the joint identification parade, inadmissible and contradictory extra-judicial confessions, lack of corroboration, and failure to produce eye-witnesses at trial. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, set aside their convictions and sentences, and answered the death sentence confirmation reference in the negative. The key principle laid down is that extra-judicial confessions made to police while in custody and joint identification parades conducted without supporting eye-witness testimony at trial carry no legal weight, and any material gaps in circumstantial evidence must result in the benefit of the doubt being given to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a joint identification parade where the eye-witnesses do not appear at trial for cross-examination?
  • Can an extra-judicial confession made to police officers while in custody form the sole basis for a capital conviction without strong independent corroboration?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to produce key natural eye-witnesses cited in the first information report attracts an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does a sudden night-time shooting incident with no design to create public insecurity fall within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Mehran vs The State2020 SHC 522 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07
  pre-arrest bailtheft of electricityprohibitory clausefurther probeconfirmation of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court where the applicant sought confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of electricity theft and snatching wires from HESCO officials. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of bail when the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and further inquiry was warranted. The court held that since the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail was the rule and refusal the exception, and the conflicting versions of the incident required further probe at trial. The court confirmed the interim bail on the same terms and conditions, directed the trial to conclude within forty-five working days, and established the principle that for non-prohibitory offences where guilt requires further inquiry, bail should be confirmed as a matter of rule.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be confirmed when the case involves conflicting allegations requiring further inquiry at trial?
  • Is a trial court competent to cancel bail if the accused misuses the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Elahi Shaikh vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax2020 PTD 604 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 483 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-20
  Qatl-i-amddeath sentencemitigating circumstanceslife imprisonmentcriminal appealdeath referencesentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and death reference arose from the conviction of the appellant for the Qatl-i-amd of the deceased, for which the trial court had imposed a death sentence. The core legal question was whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, specifically the absence of deep-rooted enmity and the inability to examine the complainant due to his death. Upon review, the High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's evidence, including eyewitness testimony and the recovery of the weapon, sufficient to establish guilt. However, the Court exercised judicial discretion to modify the sentence. Relying on the principle that even a single mitigating circumstance is sufficient to warrant life imprisonment over the death penalty to avoid the risk of executing an innocent person, the Court converted the death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life. The Court emphasized that judicial caution must be exercised when determining the appropriate sentence, prioritizing the preservation of human life where reasonable doubt exists regarding the necessity of the capital punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Is a single mitigating circumstance sufficient to warrant the imposition of life imprisonment instead of a death sentence in a murder case?
  • Does the death of a complainant during trial proceedings constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing purposes?
  • What is the judicial obligation when deciding between a death sentence and life imprisonment in a Qatl-i-amd case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafaullah Niazi s/o Habibullah Niazi vs The State2020 SHC 442 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-14
  post-arrest bailroad accidentQatl-bis-Sababprohibitory clausedriving license verificationDiyat
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by Shafaullah Niazi, who was implicated in FIR No. 86/2020 under Sections 320, 427, and 322/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a fatal road accident involving a truck and a motorcycle that resulted in the deaths of two persons. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the primary offenses were bailable, and the applicability of Section 322 PPC fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending verification of the driving license and motor vehicle inspection report. The Sindh High Court held that since the offense under Section 322 PPC was punishable only with Diyat and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., and because the verification of the driving license and fitness of the vehicle were yet to be conclusively established, the case warranted further inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that pre-trial incarceration is not justified where the applicability of a non-bailable section remains tentative and unverified, entitling the accused to bail as a matter of right under Section 497 Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense punishable only with Diyat under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the verification of a driving license and the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report are still pending?
  • Does a traffic accident case involving disputed allegations under Section 322 PPC warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Aslam vs The Adjutant General & 04 others2020 SHC 224 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed and another vs The State2020 MLD 995 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-20
  rapeabductioncriminal appealfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusbenefit of doubtDNA evidenceidentification paradecredibility of witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Sections 365-B and 376(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for abduction and rape. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, considering significant discrepancies in the victim’s testimony regarding the number of assailants and the place of occurrence, the absence of conclusive DNA evidence, and the trial court's acquittal of a co-accused based on the same evidentiary record. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and acquitting the appellants. The court held that material contradictions in the prosecution's case, particularly regarding the identity of the accused and the crime scene, destroy the credibility of the evidence. It reaffirmed that the rule falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is an integral part of Pakistani criminal jurisprudence. Furthermore, the court emphasized that in rape cases, the failure to conduct mandatory DNA testing and the reliance on inconsistent witness statements necessitate the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused, regardless of the offense's severity.

  Questions settled

  • Is the rule falsus in uno falsus in omnibus an integral part of criminal jurisprudence in Pakistan?
  • Does a positive medical report of zina alone constitute sufficient proof to convict a specific accused?
  • Should the benefit of doubt extended to an acquitted co-accused be applied to convicted co-accused when the evidence against them is identical?
  • Is an identification parade necessary when the accused were previously known to the victim?
  Read full judgment →
• SGS Sa through authorized Attorney and 3 others vs Syed Farukh Mazhar2020 CLC 928 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-18Read full judgment →
• Schlumberger Seaco Inc vs Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1208 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Sawera Industries Cotton Ginning Pressing Factory and Oil Mills vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2020 SHC 1046, 2021 PTD 318, 2022 PCTLR 1367 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Sawan vs Muhammad Jaffar & another2020 SHC 670 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Satabo vs The State2020 SHC 726 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-24
  criminal appealreduction of sentenceillegal armsreformative theory of punishmentSindh Arms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 23(1) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, arising from Crime No. 08 of 2014 registered at Police Station Taluka Umerkot, where he was sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel did not press the appeal on merits but sought a reduction of the sentence based on the appellant's advanced age, medical issues, and the substantial portion of the sentence already served, which the Additional Prosecutor General did not oppose. The Sindh High Court examined the principles of sentencing, noting the distinction between retributive, deterrent, and reformative approaches, and emphasized the concept of reformation, particularly for elderly convicts. The court dismissed the appeal on merits but reduced the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone, including the default sentence for the fine, while cancelling his bail bonds and discharging his surety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can reduce a sentence to the period already undergone when the appellant does not press the appeal on merits?
  • What role do the concepts of retribution, deterrence, and reformation play in determining the quantum of punishment?
  • Can the old age and medical condition of a convict serve as mitigating circumstances for the reduction of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarvech Shaikh vs NAB and Others2020 SHC 1168 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-12
  service lawmajor penaltyformal inquirynatural justiceaudi alteram partemNAB employeesappellate authorityreasoned order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two constitutional petitions challenging the removal from service of two National Accountability Bureau (NAB) employees. The core legal questions were whether a major penalty of removal from service could be imposed without conducting a formal inquiry, and whether the appellate authority, the President of Pakistan, is legally required to provide reasons for dismissing an appeal. The Court held that the imposition of a major penalty without a formal inquiry, based solely on a fact-finding committee report, violates the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. It further held that the appellate authority is duty-bound to record reasons for its decisions. The key principles laid down are that a civil servant cannot be subjected to a major penalty without a regular inquiry unless specific, plausible reasons for dispensing with such an inquiry are provided and communicated; that findings of a fact-finding committee cannot replace a formal inquiry; and that all appellate authorities must provide reasoned orders to ensure transparency and compliance with due process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a major penalty of removal from service be imposed on a civil servant without conducting a formal inquiry?
  • Is a fact-finding committee report sufficient to dispense with a formal disciplinary inquiry against a civil servant?
  • Is an appellate authority, such as the President of Pakistan, required to provide reasons for dismissing a statutory appeal?
  • Must an authorized officer provide and communicate plausible reasons when exercising discretion to dispense with a formal inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Qurban Ali vs The Chairman NADRA & others2020 SHC 1218 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Jarwar vs The State2020 SHC 818 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-03
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconsistencyabductionrapefacilitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving alleged abduction, illegal confinement, and rape. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry and consistency with co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained seven-day delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of a recovery mashirnama, the distinguishable role of the applicant regarding alleged facilitation, and the grant of bail to co-accused with similar roles justified releasing the applicant on bail. The court laid down the principle that an accused attributed a general or facilitative role, where co-accused with similar roles are already enlarged on bail and where foundational circumstances require further inquiry, is entitled to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused with a role of facilitation is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail?
  • Does an unexplained delay of seven days in lodging the FIR warrant further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted on the principle of further inquiry when the main allegation of a heinous offense is directed against a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Santosh Kumar & anothers vs P.O Sindh & others2020 SHC 462 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-04Read full judgment →
• Sanjay Kumar vs Siemens Pakistan Engineering Company Ltd., through Director and 4 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 80 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-13
  Master and ServantSpecific performanceContract of personal serviceTermination of employmentInjunctive reliefPrivate employmentDamages
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a former employee of a private engineering company, sought an injunction to suspend his termination letter, secure reinstatement, and recover withheld salary. The core legal question was whether a court could grant injunctive relief to enforce a contract of personal service against a private employer. The court held that the relationship between the parties was governed by the rule of Master and Servant, as the defendant was a private organization not subject to statutory service rules. Relying on Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the court affirmed that contracts for personal service cannot be specifically enforced. The principle laid down is that a court cannot force an unwilling master to accept the services of an employee; consequently, an employee cannot be reinstated through an injunction. Where a breach of a service contract occurs, the only available remedy for the aggrieved employee is a suit for damages or monetary compensation, as money constitutes adequate relief. The court dismissed the plaintiff's applications, finding no prima facie case for injunctive relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant an injunction to reinstate an employee in a private organization governed by the rule of Master and Servant?
  • Is a contract for personal service specifically enforceable under the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for an employee when a private employer breaches a contract of service?
  • Can an injunction be granted to prevent the breach of a contract that cannot be specifically enforced?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanghar Sugar Mills Ltd. through Authorized Officer vs Sindh Labour2020 PLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-31
  permanent workmanseasonal workerretrenchmenttermination of servicesugar industrylabour disputereinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an industrial sugar mill, challenged an order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside the Labour Court's decision and held that the termination of the respondent (a centrifugal operator) was improper. The respondent had been employed as a seasonal worker but was retained during the off-season on half salary, a practice spanning several years. The petitioner contended that the respondent was a seasonal worker and was lawfully retrenched due to financial constraints. The High Court examined whether a seasonal worker retained during the off-season qualifies as a 'permanent workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Court held that the practice of off-season retention on partial salary, combined with the essential and continuous nature of a centrifugal operator's duties, satisfies the statutory definition of a permanent workman. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to prove compliance with the 'last in, first out' retrenchment rule or the mandatory notice requirements. The petition was dismissed, and the respondent's reinstatement was ordered.

  Questions settled

  • Does a seasonal worker in a sugar factory who is retained during the off-season on partial salary qualify as a permanent workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to follow the 'last in, first out' procedure prescribed for retrenchment under Order XIII of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Can the services of a permanent workman be terminated on the ground of financial constraints without serving the mandatory statutory notice or paying wages in lieu thereof?
  Read full judgment →
• Sana Jabeen Khan vs Chairman SPSC2020 SHC 1430 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
• Samran vs The State through Prosecutor General, Sindh and 2 others2020 MLD 1794 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-02
  juvenile justiceage determinationcriminal revisionmedical examinationstatutory interpretationjuvenile status
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge, which dismissed an application for age determination filed by the accused, Samran, who is charged under section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly declined to determine the accused's age, particularly given the transition from the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 to the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The High Court held that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a proper age determination inquiry, noting that such a determination is vital when the charged offence carries a potential death sentence. The Court clarified that while the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 shifted the primary responsibility for age determination to the police, the trial court retains the duty to record findings on age. The Court reaffirmed that the guidelines established in the Sultan Ahmed case regarding the necessity of thorough inquiries and medical examinations remain applicable and binding, requiring trial courts to avoid perfunctory decisions on juvenile status.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 require the trial court to record findings regarding the age of an accused person?
  • Is the guidance provided by the Supreme Court in the Sultan Ahmed case regarding age determination still applicable under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018?
  • Does a trial court have the discretion to refuse an inquiry into the age of an accused person when the offence charged carries a potential death sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiuulah vs The State2020 SHC 546 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  protective bailnon-bailable warrantssurrender before courtcriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for protective bail filed by the applicant, Samiullah, who sought relief to surrender before the concerned trial court in connection with Crime No. 20 of 2020, registered at Police Station Railway Police, Hyderabad. The applicant faced allegations under Sections 420 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the applicant, fearing arrest due to the issuance of non-bailable warrants, was entitled to temporary protective bail to facilitate his appearance before the trial court. The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, granted protective bail for a period of ten days. The holding established that protective bail may be granted to enable an accused to surrender before the appropriate forum, provided the applicant furnishes solvent surety. The key principle laid down is that the High Court may exercise its discretion to grant temporary protective bail to prevent immediate arrest, thereby allowing the accused to seek regular bail or face trial before the court of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court grant protective bail to an accused against whom non-bailable warrants have been issued?
  • Does the grant of protective bail require an examination of the merits of the underlying criminal case?
  • What is the effect of protective bail on outstanding non-bailable warrants?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah vs The State2020 MLD 1466 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-26
  post-arrest bailunnominated accuseddelay in FIRfurther inquirycriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from an impugned order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West, which dismissed the post-arrest bail of the applicant in a case registered under Sections 395, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail where he was unnominated in the FIR, the FIR was delayed without explanation, and no recovery was effected from him at the time of arrest. The Sindh High Court held that the unnominated status of the accused, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, absence of direct evidence, and completion of the challan making further incarceration unnecessary brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the key principles that mere registration of other criminal cases without conviction is no ground to withhold bail, that pre-trial incarceration should not be used as a punishment, and that grant of bail is the rule while refusal is the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused, without conviction, constitutes sufficient ground for withholding the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report provide grounds for making a case one of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an unnominated accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no direct evidence or recovery is established during investigation at the pre-trial stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Samira Mahamadi vs Province of Sindh and Others2020 SHC 290 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-15Read full judgment →
• Sami Pharmaceuticals (Pvt) Ltd vs Province Of Sindh & Ors2021 PTD 731, 2021 SHC 2, 2020 SHC 962 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-17Read full judgment →
• Samano Kanrani vs The State2020 MLD 486 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-30
  narcotic substancessafe custody of samplesbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmaterial contradictionschemical examiner reportpossession of charas
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1200 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the safe custody and transmission of the narcotic samples and the consistency of witness testimony. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court reasoned that the failure to examine the Malkhana in-charge or the official who delivered the samples to the chemical examiner created a fatal gap in the chain of custody. Furthermore, significant material contradictions between the complainant and the mashir regarding patrol routes and the description of the recovered contraband rendered the evidence unreliable. The Court emphasized that Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, does not shift the burden of proof until the prosecution establishes the recovery beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presumption contained in Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 shift the burden of proof before the prosecution establishes the recovery beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Is the failure to examine the in-charge of the Malkhana or the official who transmitted the samples to the chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Do material contradictions between the complainant and the mashir regarding the recovery proceedings entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman vs Station House Officer, Police Station Cantonment Hyderabad2020 P Cr. L J 817 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-16
  second FIRregistration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peacecognizable offenceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking to set aside an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed his application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, for the registration of a second FIR concerning an incident for which an FIR had already been registered and challaned. The core legal question was whether a second FIR can be registered in respect of the same incident when an FIR is already in existence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the registration of a second FIR for the same incident is not permissible. Relying on the precedent Sughran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 595), the court established the principle that once a first information report is registered, the matter becomes a case, and subsequent steps in investigation pertain to that case, thereby barring the registration of a second FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second FIR can be registered in respect of the same incident when an FIR has already been registered?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace direct the registration of a second FIR for an occurrence that is already the subject of an existing case?
  • Does the registration of a first information report preclude the registration of subsequent FIRs regarding the same transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Salik Aziz vs Muhammad Emad and others2020 YLR 147 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-20Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ran and 23 others vs IInd Additional Session Judge, "Malir" Karachi2020 YLR 634 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-08
  Illegal Dispossession Actcorporate bodyencroachmentsimultaneous proceedingscriminal revisionlachesland grabbing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Malir, Karachi, under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which directed the restoration of possession of 25 acres of land to a cooperative housing society. The applicants, claiming to be residents of an established village on the land, contended that the society, being a corporate body, lacked the legal capacity to initiate proceedings under the Act, and that civil and criminal proceedings could not run simultaneously. The Court held that the definition of "person" under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, interpreted in light of Article 260(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 11 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, includes corporate bodies, thereby permitting them to initiate criminal complaints. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that there is no legal bar to the simultaneous pursuit of civil and criminal remedies. Finding the applicants to be encroachers without valid title, the Court dismissed the revision application on grounds of both laches and merits, upholding the trial court's order for the restoration of possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a corporate body initiate criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit bar the initiation of criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Are encroachers entitled to remain in possession of land pending the resolution of title disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Khokhar vs Government Of Sindh through Secretary Social Welfare2020 PLD Sindh 221 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-11Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar Qureshi vs Habib-Ur-Rehman2020 CLC 1289, 2020 CLD 404 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-20Read full judgment →
• Sajjan vs The State2020 SHC 560 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  post-arrest bailexpeditious trialbail applicationcriminal proceduretrial court directions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sajjan, seeking release pending trial. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to bail or if an alternative direction for an expeditious trial would suffice to address the grievance. During the proceedings, the applicant's counsel expressed satisfaction with a directive for the trial court to conclude the proceedings within a specified timeframe, opting not to press the bail application further. The Assistant Prosecutor General Sindh offered no objection, noting that the case was ready for trial following the receipt of the chemical report. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application as not pressed. The Court held that in light of the parties' consensus, the trial court must proceed expeditiously and conclude the trial preferably within two months of receiving the order, with a compliance report to be submitted through the Additional Registrar. The principle established is that where parties agree to an expedited trial timeline, the court may dispose of a bail application as not pressed while issuing mandatory directions for trial completion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bail application be disposed of as not pressed if the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a specific timeframe?
  • Does the receipt of a chemical report justify a direction for the expeditious conclusion of a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjan vs Mehboob Ali and 2 others2020 P Cr. L J 928 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-23
  appeal against acquittalidentification paradebenefit of doubtattempt to commit Qatl-i-amddouble presumption of innocenceunnamed accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jamshoro, acquitting the respondents of charges under sections 324, 504 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in relation to FIR No. 05 of 2018 registered at Police Station Kotri. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of unnamed accused persons, in the absence of an identification parade or description in the FIR, warranted interference by the appellate court. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned and free from misreading or non-reading of evidence. The court reaffirmed the principle that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and will not be interfered with unless found to be perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, noting also that identification of unknown accused persons in court without a prior identification parade holds no evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal that is based on valid and cogent reasons?
  • What is the evidentiary value of identifying an unknown accused for the first time in court without a prior identification parade?
  • What is the standard of proof and scope of review in an appeal against an acquittal where a presumption of double innocence is attached?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali vs The State2020 SHC 1274 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-09
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharas recoveryfurther inquirychemical examination delaycriminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal bail application arises from a post-arrest bail plea filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on behalf of Sajjad Ali, who was booked for the alleged recovery of 2400 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant made out a case for post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting the absence of independent witnesses, a five-day delay in sending the narcotic substance for chemical examination, previous filing of a habeas corpus application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 suggesting prior police custody, and the conclusion of investigation with the applicant remaining incarcerated for over four months without effective trial progress. The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of circumstances—such as unexplained delay in chemical analysis, lack of independent corroboration, and antecedent police custody—brings the case within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in sending a narcotic substance for chemical examination justifies the grant of post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses to the alleged recovery of narcotics make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether previous filing of an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding wrongful custody is a relevant consideration for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmed vs The State2020 SHC 528 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
• Sajid Plastic Factory vs MSC Bahamas & others2020 PLD Sindh 568, 2021 PLJ Karachi 78, 2020 SHC 226 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Saindad vs The State2021 YLR 1719, 2020 SHC 342 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-06
  kidnapping for ransomidentification paradejoint identification paraderecovery of ransomunlicensed armsCall Detail RecordAnti-Terrorism Act 1997
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Karachi, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 13(e) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether procedural irregularities in conducting a joint identification parade and delay in recording police statements vitiated the prosecution's case, and whether the testimony of the abductee, combined with recoveries, sufficed for conviction. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the appeals and affirmed the convictions and sentences. The Court held that an identification parade is corroborative in nature and not strictly mandatory when an abductee remains in prolonged captivity with the accused, allowing them ample opportunity for identification. Furthermore, all participants in a kidnapping for ransom enterprise bear equal criminal responsibility, and minor investigative shortfalls or irregularities do not override credible, consistent eyewitness and circumstantial evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a formal test identification parade mandatory where the abductee spent a prolonged duration in the physical custody of the accused?
  • Does a joint identification parade vitiate the conviction if corroborated by other independent evidence?
  • Are all co-accused participating in different roles of a kidnapping for ransom operation held equally liable under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Sain Bux through Legal Heirs and 5 others vs Nadir Ali and 13 others2020 MLD 1607 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-24Read full judgment →
• Sain Bux S/O Jumah Khan vs Nadir Ali S/O Lakhi Muhammad2020 SHC 322 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
• Sahab Khan Junejo vs Abid Hussain Junejo2020 SHC 1236 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  post-arrest bailcounter-FIRmurdertentative assessmentinstigationcriminal liabilitymedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sahab Khan Junejo, facing charges under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 504, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being specifically nominated in the FIR for instigating violence and actively participating in an attack that resulted in a fatality and multiple injuries, particularly given the existence of a counter-FIR. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant’s specific role in the commission of the heinous offence, supported by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon (lathi), established a prima facie case. The Court affirmed the principle that the existence of a counter-FIR does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, as each case must be evaluated on its own merits. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that at the bail stage, the judiciary must conduct only a tentative assessment of the material rather than a deeper appreciation of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a counter-FIR automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible while deciding a bail application?
  • Can an accused be denied bail if they are specifically nominated in the FIR for instigating a crime resulting in death?
  Read full judgment →
• Sagheer Ahmed alias Bhaya vs The State2020 MLD 1377 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-27
  circumstantial evidencekidnapping for ransommurderpointationrecovery of dead bodyanti-terrorismcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under sections 365-A and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as well as section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, arising from the kidnapping and murder of the victim for ransom. The core legal question involved whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and unbroken, notably established by the appellant's leading to the recovery of the deceased's dead body, weapon, and other incriminating materials. The key principle laid down is that where an accused in a circumstantial evidence case leads the police to the discovery of a dead body or material facts exclusively within their knowledge, and the evidence is corroborated by medical and forensic reports, it forms an unbreakable chain pointing inexorably to the guilt of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of evidence is complete and unbroken?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a discovery of a dead body resulting from information provided by an accused while in custody under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does the failure of an accused to put forward a defense plea during cross-examination weaken the defense evidence produced later?
  • Whether minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to discard an otherwise trustworthy prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Safe Mix Concrete Limited through Company Secretary vs Pakistan2020 CLC 602, PTCL 2020 CL. 298, 2020 YLR 749, 2020 PTD 263 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-12Read full judgment →
• Safdar Hussain Jatt & others vs Zafar Ali & others2021 MLD 624, 2020 SHC 746 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-03Read full judgment →
• Saeeduddin Qureshi vs Waqar Saeed and 3 others2020 MLD 1441 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-30Read full judgment →
• Saeed Mazhar Ali vs Mrs. Aroosa Mubashir through Attorney and another2020 YLR 61 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-22Read full judgment →
• Saeed Habib vs National Bank of Pakistan2020 SHC 1344, 2022 PLJ Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-16Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Choliani vs Muhammad Ramzan2020 SHC 1296 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencemedical evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibusappreciation of evidenceminor contradictionscommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the reliability of ocular evidence in the presence of minor contradictions, and whether the acquittal of a co-accused necessitated the appellant's acquittal under the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution’s case was supported by consistent ocular and medical evidence, alongside the recovery of the weapon used. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not render a case doubtful if the evidence is otherwise trustworthy. Furthermore, it held that the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistani criminal law, as courts are empowered to sift the grain from the chaff. Consequently, the acquittal of a co-accused does not mandate the acquittal of the appellant where strong, independent corroboration exists. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically entitle the remaining accused to acquittal?
  • Are minor contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimony sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case?
  • Is the principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applicable in the Pakistani criminal justice system?
  • Can ocular evidence be relied upon when supported by medical evidence and recovery of the weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ali Khan vs University of Karachi and another2020 SHC 14 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-10Read full judgment →
• Sadan General Trading LLC vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan & another2021 P C T L R 2, 2021 PLD Sindh 57, 2020 SHC 394 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-25Read full judgment →
• Sada Bux son of Lal Bux Laghari vs Farooq Ali son of Arz Muhammad2020 SHC 1324 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sabir Shah vs The IInd Additional District and Session Judge East Karachi2020 YLR 2347 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31
  surety bond forfeiturebail bondcriminal procedureshow-cause noticedormant fileabsconding accusedjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, which forfeited a surety bond of Rs. 600,000 following the non-appearance of the accused. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction in forfeiting the bond without adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements stipulated by law. The High Court held that the trial court’s order was unsustainable. The record demonstrated that the trial court failed to issue a show-cause notice to the surety during the accused's lifetime, despite the case being placed on a dormant file. The Court emphasized that the forfeiture of a bail bond is a judicial act requiring strict compliance with statutory procedures. The key principle laid down is that a court must first be satisfied through proof that a bond has been forfeited, record the grounds for such satisfaction, and mandatorily issue a show-cause notice to the surety before imposing any penalty. As these procedural safeguards were ignored, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the return of the surety documents.

  Questions settled

  • What is the mandatory procedure for a trial court to follow before forfeiting a surety bond?
  • Can a court forfeit a bail bond without issuing a show-cause notice to the surety?
  • Is an order passed by a court outside the ambit of the law considered a valid judicial order?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Shafique-Ur-Rehman through LRs vs Ministry Of Housing And Works2020 MLD 1428 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
• Rustam vs The State2020 SHC 1058 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Rustam vs Province Of Sindh and others2020 YLR 1001 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-04Read full judgment →
• Rotocast Engineering Co (Pvt) Ltd vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1214 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ara and others vs Abdul Karim and others2020 CLC 1670 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-11Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Farooq vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 968 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-10Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ali vs Akhtar Hussain Chairman Appeal Committee Pakistan Bar2020 CLC 1322 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-29Read full judgment →