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.

• Muhammad Umar Godal and others vs Muhammad Umer (deceased)2020 YLR 1268 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Mst. Samiya and another2020 YLR 2523 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tarique vs 6th. Civil Family Judge Hyd anothers2020 SHC 1366 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs Gulab & another2020 SHC 970 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Khan Chandio & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 232 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-17
  police uniformunity of commandcadre creationservice conditionsseniorityadministrative lawpolice establishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the re-designation and adjustment of police personnel into a non-uniformed Information Technology (IT) cadre. The core legal questions were whether police officers are legally required to wear uniforms and whether a new police cadre can be created without formal legislative action or government sanction. The Court held that under the Police Act, 1861 and the Police Rules, 1934, all police officers and men performing official duties must wear uniforms, as this is essential for maintaining the unity of command and public authority. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the purported creation of an IT cadre was illegal and void ab initio because it lacked proper legislative backing, government sanction, and Cabinet approval as required by the principles in Mustafa Impex. The Court affirmed that terms and conditions of service, including cadre creation and seniority, cannot be altered without valid legal instruments. Consequently, the Court set aside the re-designation orders, prohibited the stripping of uniforms from the petitioners, and declared the new IT cadre appointments illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Are police officers legally required to wear uniforms while performing official duties?
  • Can a new police cadre be created without formal legislative action or government sanction?
  • Does the creation of a new cadre or the re-designation of civil servants require Cabinet approval?
  • Can the reallocation of administrative work within a department ipso facto merge existing service cadres?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suhail vs Ali Ahmed & Others2020 SHC 1096 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26
  acquittal appealbenefit of the doubtdelay in FIRQatl-e-Amdpresumption of innocenceappraisal of evidencecriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby private respondents were acquitted of charges relating to Qatl-e-Amd and disappearance of evidence. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the trial court's evaluation of evidence and the justification for interfering with an acquittal judgment in criminal proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court was justified in granting the benefit of the doubt to the respondents due to an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, delayed Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, the unseen nature of the incident, and doubtful identification of the dead body. Reaffirming the principle that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is extremely narrow and subject to a doubled presumption of innocence, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that acquittal judgments should not be interfered with unless found to be perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from grave misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal judgment?
  • Can an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements form the basis for granting the benefit of the doubt to an accused?
  • Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with factual conclusions reached by a trial court in an acquittal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suhail and others vs The State2020 PTD 519 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-24
  post-arrest bailsales tax evasionfurther enquiryclearing agentabatementtax fraudcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications filed by a clearing agent and a broker accused of abetting sales tax evasion under the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question was whether the applicants possessed conscious knowledge of the main accused's fraudulent scheme—which involved obtaining sales tax registration as a manufacturer using a fake address to evade taxes—thereby justifying their continued detention. The Court held that the case against the applicants falls within the scope of "further enquiry." The ratio of the decision is that clearing agents and brokers are not legally required to verify the physical existence of a manufacturing unit; their duty is limited to verifying the authenticity of the registration certificate, which is verifiable online. Since the prosecution failed to establish active connivance or that the applicants were aware of the main accused's fraudulent registration, and given that the evidence was documentary and beyond the applicants' control, the Court granted bail. The principle laid down is that without evidence of conscious knowledge or active participation in the fraud, mere routine business transactions by agents do not warrant the denial of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Are clearing agents legally obligated to verify the physical existence of a manufacturing unit for their clients?
  • Does the mere processing of import documents for a registered person constitute active connivance in tax evasion?
  • When does a criminal case against an accused fall under the category of 'further enquiry' for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sufyan vs The State2020 SHC 22 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequecheatingforgeryprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Sufiyan, seeking confirmation of interim bail in Crime No. 214 of 2019 registered under Sections 489-F, 468, 463, 465, 506/2, 504, 420, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Market. The core legal question involves whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail where the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the case has already been challaned, and the matter requires further inquiry into whether cheques were issued in good faith or as part of a business transaction. The Sindh High Court held that since the case has been challaned, the applicant is no longer required for investigation, the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, and grant of bail is the rule while refusal is the exception, the interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause and the accused is no longer needed for investigative purposes, bail should ordinarily be granted unless exceptional circumstances warrant refusal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a rule when the challan has been submitted and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
  • Does the question of whether a cheque was issued in good faith or for a genuine business transaction warrant further inquiry at trial rather than refusal of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Soomar vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Irrigation2020 YLR 1044 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail and 2 others vs The State2020 MLD 1629 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31
  gas theftexclusive jurisdictioncoram non judicespecial courtde novo trialanti-corruptionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three criminal appeals challenging a conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, Anti-corruption (Central), Hyderabad, for offences related to natural gas theft and illegal gratification. The core legal question is whether the Special Judge, Anti-corruption, possessed the jurisdiction to try the case following the promulgation of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, which mandates exclusive jurisdiction for Gas Utility Courts. The Court held that the trial conducted by the Special Judge was coram non judice, as the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, explicitly ousted the jurisdiction of all other courts regarding gas theft matters. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Gas Utility Court for a de novo trial. The judgment establishes that jurisdiction is a fundamental legislative function that cannot be conferred by consent or waiver. Furthermore, it affirms that where a special statute provides a specific forum for adjudication, that forum holds exclusive jurisdiction, rendering any proceedings in other courts a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Judge, Anti-corruption, retain jurisdiction to try cases of natural gas theft after the enactment of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016?
  • Can an objection regarding the lack of jurisdiction of a trial court be raised for the first time at the appellate stage?
  • Does the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, confer exclusive jurisdiction upon Gas Utility Courts to the exclusion of all other courts?
  • Is a judgment passed by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction considered a nullity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State2020 SHC 642 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-13
  protective bailpre-arrest apprehensionsurrender before courtcriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for protective bail filed by the applicant, Muhammad Siddique, who is implicated in Crime No. 19 of 2020 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Lakhat. The applicant contends that he has been falsely implicated due to mala fide intentions and ulterior motives, and he expresses a willingness to surrender before the trial court but fears immediate arrest by the police. The core legal question addressed is whether the applicant is entitled to protective bail to facilitate his appearance before the competent court. Without delving into the merits of the case, the Sindh High Court granted the applicant protective bail for a period of ten days, from August 13, 2020, to August 22, 2020. The court established the principle that protective bail may be granted to enable an accused to surrender before the concerned court, provided that the order remains time-bound and subject to the furnishing of solvent surety and a personal recognizance bond.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted protective bail to facilitate their appearance before a trial court?
  • Is protective bail subject to a specific time limitation?
  • What are the requirements for granting protective bail in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and Others vs Federation Of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 94 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaukat Qadri vs Federation of Pakistan2020 SHC 38 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State2020 MLD 723 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-23
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryjoint mashirnamafurther inquirystatutory delayCNS Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail application filed by the applicant Muhammad Sharif seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No.248/2019 registered under Section 6-9-C of the CNS Act, 1997. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of a joint mashirnama of arrest and recovery in multiple cases, the absence of independent private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the effect of grant of bail in a connected arms case, and whether prolonged incarceration warrants bail. The Sindh High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry since the prosecution relied solely on police officials without associating private witnesses despite availability, a joint mashirnama was used for both the narcotics and arms cases wherein bail was already granted in the latter, and the applicant had been behind bars for a considerable period without trial progress. The court laid down the principle that where a joint mashirnama forms the basis of multiple cases and independent witnesses are not joined, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, and prolonged detention without speedy trial entitles the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the preparation of a joint mashirnama for multiple cases without independent witnesses create grounds for further inquiry for the grant of bail?
  • Whether the grant of bail in a connected case based on the same recovery memo entitles the accused to bail in the narcotics case?
  • Does the pendency of other criminal cases without a conviction disentitle an accused from obtaining bail?
  • Can prolonged incarceration and lack of trial progress serve as grounds for granting bail in offences falling under prohibitory clauses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Sajid son of Khushi Muhammad vs Trade Development2020 SHC 1328 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamshad Sulaiman vs Mst. Almas Begum and 2 others2020 CLC 392 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel vs The State2020 MLD 1255 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-23
  post-arrest bailcontrol of narcotic substancesrecovery of charasprohibitory clauseindependent mashirscrime against society
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Muhammad Shakeel under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, seeking bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of 3.5 kilograms of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the quantity of narcotics recovered, the lack of independent mashirs, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant had failed to make out a case for bail, noting that he was caught red-handed with a huge quantity of charas, the chemical report was positive, the offense fell within the prohibitory clause, and narcotics offenses are crimes against society where bail should be granted sparingly. The court laid down that under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the absence of independent mashirs is not of huge significance at the bail stage as the special law exempts their presence, and noted that police officials made efforts to join independent witnesses who refused.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when caught red-handed with a large quantity of charas falling within the prohibitory clause?
  • Does the absence of independent mashirs at the time of recovery vitiate the case against an accused in narcotics matters under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Whether bail should be granted sparingly in narcotics cases keeping in view Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Khan vs Fed of Pakistan & Ors.2020 SHC 504 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid and another vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 115 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-16
  stolen propertydacoitydishonestly receiving stolen propertyburden of proofbenefit of doubtcriminal appealrecovery of property
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from a criminal appeal filed by the applicants against their conviction for receiving robbed property under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the court was whether the mere recovery of articles, without proof that the property was stolen or robbed and that the accused received it with active knowledge of that fact, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 412. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and holding, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational ingredients of the offense—namely, that the property was robbed or stolen and that the accused had knowledge thereof. The court laid down the principle that in offenses relating to receiving stolen property or property obtained through dacoity, the prosecution must positively discharge the initial burden of proving both the stolen nature of the property and the accused's guilty knowledge before any burden shifts to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients that the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the mere recovery of alleged stolen or robbed property suffice to establish an offense under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of the accused's guilty knowledge?
  • What is the effect of the prosecution's failure to prove the ownership and stolen character of the case property in a trial for receiving robbed property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Kakar vs Intellectual Property Tribunal at Sindh Et2021 CLD 48, 2021 P C T L R 402, 2020 SHC 398 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah alias Shah Jee and 9 others vs Gulshan Ellahi and 22020 PLD Sindh 446 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-21
  illegal dispossessionrestoration of possessionacquittalproperty grabbersjurisdictioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an impugned judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Karachi South arising from a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant alleged illegal dispossession from a commercial property by the appellants, who claimed pre-partition possession without producing any supporting evidence. The trial court acquitted the accused of the offense under Section 3 due to a failure to prove forcible dispossession beyond reasonable doubt, but nevertheless ordered the restoration of possession to the complainant. The core legal question is whether a trial court can order the restoration of property possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, after acquitting the accused of the underlying offense. The Sindh High Court held that an order for the restoration of possession under Section 8 of the Act is contingent upon the conviction and sentencing of the accused under Section 3, and cannot be independently granted following an acquittal. The court established the principle that where an accused is acquitted of the offense of illegal dispossession, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to order the delivery or restoration of property to the complainant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court order the restoration of property possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, after acquitting the accused of the offense under Section 3?
  • Whether an order for the delivery of possession under Section 8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, can be passed independently of a conviction?
  • Does the failure of a complaint under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, bar an owner from seeking possession through other legal remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Throgh His LRS vs Raja Muhammad Bashir Khan &2020 SHC 682 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salman vs The State2020 SHC 530 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh vs Manzoor & Others2020 SHC 118 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 100 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Haresh Kumar and others2021 PLD Sindh 381, 2020 SHC 778 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Shaikh vs Messrs Kasb Bank Limited2020 CLD 981 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Shaikh & others vs Province of Sindh & others2021 KLR Labour & Services Cases 56, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 1156, PLJ 2021 Karachi · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-13
  Combined Competitive Examinationfraud in public examinationtampering of resultSindh Public Service Commissionconstitutional petitionright to fair triallocus poenitentiaedoctrine of lachescivil service appointments
  Summary & questions settled

  The subject constitutional petitions challenged the Combined Competitive Examination 2003 conducted by the Sindh Public Service Commission, alleging widespread fraud, tampering with answer sheets, and manipulation of results to favor undeserving candidates at the expense of qualified individuals. The core legal question revolved around whether appointments made through a tainted and fraudulent examination process could be sustained after a lapse of time, and how the court should balance the principles of merit and natural justice. The Sindh High Court held that while the examination process suffered from blatant tampering and illegalities, outright cancellation of the entire process after many years of service by the appointees was not feasible, but such ill-gotten gains could not be protected without scrutiny. The court disposed of the petitions by directing the Chief Secretary of Sindh to constitute a high-powered Inquiry Commission to thoroughly examine the 2003 examination process, fix responsibility, provide a fair opportunity of hearing to all affected parties, and submit a comprehensive report with recommendations for action by the competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional petitions challenging a public competitive examination can be dismissed solely on the ground of laches when official inquiries reveal large-scale fraud and tampering?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect public appointments obtained through illegal means, forgery, and violation of merit?
  • Can a court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the manipulation of examination mark sheets within its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether an inquiry report recommending adverse action against selected candidates is legally sustainable if enacted without affording them an opportunity of hearing in violation of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Shahzad S/O Paro vs The State2021 YLR 1769, 2020 SHC 410 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-04
  criminal appealrash and negligent drivingfake driving licenceenhancement of sentenceabetmentmotor vehicle accidentabsconding appellant
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 323 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance for an accidental death while excluding Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite answering the core factual question regarding rash and negligent driving in the affirmative. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court erred in dropping charges under Section 320 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 despite finding the accused guilty of causing death through negligent driving, and addresses the legal consequence of driving with a fake license. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's acquittal under Section 320 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 contradicted its own factual findings, noted that the appellant was driving on a fake driving license, and ordered the SSP Investigation to arrest the absconding appellant while issuing notice for enhancement of sentence under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principles laid down include that an owner allowing an unlicensed driver to operate a vehicle may be treated as an abettor, and contradictory findings within a judgment warrant appellate correction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 after recording a positive finding that the accused caused death through rash and negligent driving?
  • What is the liability of a vehicle owner who permits an unlicensed person or a person holding a fake driving licence to drive a motor vehicle involved in a fatal accident?
  • Whether the High Court can issue a notice for enhancement of sentence under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an appellant absconds during the pendency of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Presiding Officer Accountability Court No.IV, Karachi2020 P Cr. L J 683 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-28
  fair trialexculpatory documentsNational Accountability Bureauinvestigationduty of investigating officerconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an accused facing a reference before an Accountability Court, filed an application seeking certain documents collected by the investigating officer during inquiry that were not provided to him. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that mandatory documents under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had already been provided and the petitioner could produce defense documents later under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court examined whether withholding exculpatory material collected during investigation violates the right to a fair trial. The Court held that investigating officers and the National Accountability Bureau must provide an accused with any material in their possession that tends to exonerate the accused, even to the slightest extent, to ensure a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petition was disposed of with a direction to provide the relevant documents to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to receive exculpatory material collected during an investigation that is not part of the formal section 265-C Cr.P.C. copies?
  • Does withholding material that tends to exonerate an accused violate the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What is the primary duty of an investigating officer under Rule 25.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Akhtar vs Taha Mobeen Qureshi2020 CLC 1974, 2020 SHC 400 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State & others2020 SHC 906 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Zia and 04 others vs Government of Sindh & 02 others2020 SHC 978 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Bhatti vs Federation of Pakistan and 02 others2020 SHC 972 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-03
  civil servicepromotion defermentservice tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicede-novo inquiryconstitutional jurisdictionArticle 212
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Inspector in the Federal Investigation Agency, sought promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Investigation-BS-17), which had been deferred by the respondent-department pending a de-novo inquiry as mandated by a previous Federal Service Tribunal judgment upheld by the Supreme Court. The petitioner challenged this deferment, arguing that the departmental action was arbitrary, capricious, and violated Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as he had been exonerated in previous disciplinary proceedings. The Court observed that the petitioner admitted the de-novo inquiry had not yet been conducted, rendering the deferment consistent with the prior judicial directives. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's challenge to his supersession was already pending before the Supreme Court. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition because the matter concerned the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, which fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Can a civil servant challenge the deferment of promotion in the High Court when the matter relates to disciplinary proceedings and service terms?
  • Does the pendency of a mandated de-novo inquiry justify the deferment of a civil servant's promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State2020 SHC 1442 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-30
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtocular and medical contradictiondoubtful recoveryappreciation of evidence in acquittalmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted Respondent No.1 of charges under Section 302 and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in extending the benefit of the doubt and acquitting the accused based on material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, doubtful recovery of weapon and empties, and suspicious circumstances surrounding the time of the incident. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's findings regarding the discrepancies in medical evidence, failure of the prosecution to prove safe custody of recovered items, and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony were well-founded. The court reaffirmed the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal order unless it is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or foolish, which was not the case here. Accordingly, the criminal acquittal appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal when the trial court's appreciation of evidence is based on plausible reasoning?
  • Does a material contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence justify granting the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when recovered weapons and empties remain in the custody of the investigating officer without being deposited in the Malkhana?
  • Can an acquittal be set aside in the absence of proof that the trial court's judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or foolish?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home2020 YLR 537 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan S/O Karim Bux vs The State2020 SHC 408 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-02
  fatal accidentnegligent drivingabetmentfake driving licensevicarious liability of ownerinvestigative negligencemotor vehicle insurance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a conviction for a fatal road accident involving a water tanker. The appellant was convicted for driving negligently and rashly, resulting in a death. During the appellate proceedings, the Court scrutinized the investigation, noting that the Investigating Officer (IO) had unlawfully released the vehicle to the owner without court orders and failed to investigate the owner's liability. It was discovered that the appellant possessed a fake driving license and the vehicle lacked mandatory insurance. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that an owner who permits an unlicensed person to drive their vehicle commits abetment under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, punishable under Section 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court directed the police to initiate proceedings against the vehicle owner as a co-accused and mandated that the SSP Investigation examine all pending cases under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to ensure owners are prosecuted where drivers lack valid licenses, thereby enforcing strict compliance with the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965.

  Questions settled

  • Is the owner of a motor vehicle liable for abetment if they permit an unlicensed person to drive their vehicle?
  • Does an investigating officer have the authority to release a vehicle involved in a fatal accident to the owner without a court order?
  • Should the owner of a vehicle be prosecuted as a co-accused in cases where the driver involved in an accident holds a fake or invalid license?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Channa vs Bashir Ahmed Alias Bashoo Channa &2020 SHC 1436 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-29
  direct complaintanticorruptionKhasra Girdawarirevision applicationdismissal of complaintjurisdiction of civil court
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges an order passed by the Special Judge Anticorruption (Provincial), Sukkur, which dismissed a direct complaint filed by the applicant. The applicant alleged that he paid a bribe to two public officials—a clerk at the Municipal Committee and a Kotwar in the revenue department—to secure the cancellation of a Khasra Girdawari entry regarding inherited property. The core legal question was whether the Special Judge correctly dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting that the applicant failed to disclose the specific date, time, and place of the alleged bribe demand and acceptance. Furthermore, the Court observed that the accused officials lacked the legal authority to cancel Khasra Girdawari entries, as such functions regarding ownership and inheritance rights fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Consequently, the High Court held that the Special Judge’s order was legally sound, dismissing the revision application in limine, thereby affirming that complaints lacking essential particulars and involving matters outside the accused's jurisdiction are rightly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Judge have the authority to dismiss a direct complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the complaint lacks specific details regarding the alleged offense?
  • Can public officials who lack the legal authority to perform a specific administrative act be held liable for corruption regarding that act?
  • Is a revision application maintainable against an order of a Special Judge dismissing a direct complaint for lack of jurisdiction and specific allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan alias Chotu vs The State2020 YLR 2582 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-12
  unlicensed weaponarms actbenefit of doubtrecoverymandatory provisionsballistic expertcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, arising from FIR No. 11/2017. The prosecution alleged that during a police encounter, the appellant was arrested in an injured condition and an unlicensed pistol was recovered. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the recovery, non-compliance with mandatory search provisions, unexplained delay in dispatching the weapon for ballistic analysis, and the credibility of the prosecution evidence where the complainant himself acted as the investigating officer. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that multiple infirmities, including the failure to associate independent public witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, self-contradictory ocular testimony, and delayed forensic dispatch, created serious doubts in the prosecution case, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-compliance with the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the recovery of an unlicensed weapon doubtful?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending the recovered weapon to the Ballistic Expert compromise the evidentiary value of the forensic report?
  • Can a police officer who acts as the complainant also fairly and impartially investigate the same criminal case?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when multiple material contradictions exist between ocular and circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raheel Kamran vs Ist. Addditional District Judge & Ors2020 SHC 1164, 2022 PLD Sindh 52 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Province Of Sindh and Others2020 SHC 676 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Dist: & Session Judge South and Ors2020 SHC 1406 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs Iind Additional Sessions Judge/Ex Officio Justice2020 P Cr. L J 119 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-20
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peacepolice conductquasi-judicial functionadverse remarksdue processSection 22-A Cr.P.C.natural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, wherein the judge, while declining to order the registration of an FIR against a police officer, included pejorative remarks and recommended the officer's transfer. The core legal question was whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, exercising quasi-judicial functions under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, has the jurisdiction to pass adverse remarks or disciplinary recommendations against a police officer without conducting a formal inquiry or providing the officer an opportunity of hearing. The Court held that the impugned remarks were unsustainable and beyond the scope of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace's authority. The Court reasoned that while the Justice of Peace performs quasi-judicial functions, such powers are limited to the specific scope of Section 22-A(6). The key principle laid down is that an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace cannot pass adverse orders or disciplinary recommendations against a police official without first establishing the alleged excess through a proper inquiry and affording the official an opportunity to be heard.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have the jurisdiction to pass adverse remarks or disciplinary recommendations against a police officer without a formal inquiry?
  • Is an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace required to provide an opportunity of hearing to a police officer before passing orders regarding alleged police excess?
  • What is the scope of the quasi-judicial functions performed by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State2020 YLR 2700 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-22
  extortionbhattaanti-terrorismcriminal appealbenefit of doubtFIR delayCDR evidenceextra-judicial confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 7(1)(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for allegedly demanding extortion money (bhatta). The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the identity of the caller and the veracity of the prosecution's narrative. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court emphasized that the unexplained two-month delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the prosecution's case, as it provided an opportunity for fabrication. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an extra-judicial confession made to the police lacks evidentiary value, and Call Detail Record (CDR) evidence, absent voice identification, is insufficient to conclusively link the appellant to the extortion calls. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case through credible, corroborative evidence, and any significant gaps or doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is a confession made before the police admissible as evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Can Call Detail Record (CDR) evidence alone establish the identity of an accused in an extortion case without voice identification?
  • Does the lack of enmity between the complainant and the accused automatically validate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed alias Bagri and 3 others vs The State2020 YLR 1071 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05
  murderbenefit of the doubtwithholding best evidencechance witnesscriminal appealcontradictions in evidencedelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision challenge the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside an application for enhancement of sentence. The core legal questions involve evaluating the reliability of chance witnesses, the effect of unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the consequences of withholding essential prosecution witnesses and failing to produce forensic evidence. The court held that numerous glaring contradictions in the testimony of eyewitnesses, the withholding of crucial witnesses like the police officer who transported the injured and the medical officer who first attended him, and the absence of forensic reports regarding the recovered weapon created serious and unresolvable doubts in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants on the basis of benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the revision petition for sentence enhancement. The key principles laid down include that withholding best evidence without explanation weakens the prosecution, and material contradictions combined with missing forensic support warrant acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when essential witnesses, such as the person who brought the injured to the hospital or the doctor who first attended him, are withheld without explanation?
  • Does an unexplained, significant delay in lodging the First Information Report create room for consultation and deliberation?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a complete absence of forensic science laboratory reports or production of alleged weapons during trial?
  • What is the consequence on a revision petition for enhancement of sentence when the underlying conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused are acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem Jan and 3 others vs Muhammad Azeem Jan and others2020 CLC 371 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs General Tyer And Rubber Company Of Pakistan2020 PLC 108 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-15
  constitutional petitionwrongful dismissalback benefitsburden of proofindustrial disputemisconductremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an appellate decision of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal that had remanded his service dispute back to the Labour Court. The petitioner, a permanent mechanical helper and union official, was dismissed following a domestic inquiry concerning allegations of misconduct involving a canteen worker. The Labour Court initially allowed his grievance application, ordering his reinstatement without back benefits, which led to cross-appeals before the Tribunal. The High Court examined the validity of the remand and the core legal question of whether the petitioner's dismissal was sustainable and whether he was entitled to back benefits given his assertion of unemployment. The High Court held that remanding the matter was unwarranted given the long delay and the sufficiency of evidence on record, and further found that the employer failed to prove the charges of misconduct or establish that the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere. The Court laid down that a worker's negative assertion of unemployment satisfies the initial burden of proof regarding back benefits, shifting the onus to the employer to prove gainful employment affirmatively. The petition was accepted, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted reinstatement with full back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate tribunal is justified in remanding a labour dispute instead of deciding it on merits when sufficient evidence is already available on record?
  • Does the initial burden of proof to establish unemployment for claiming back benefits rest upon the employee or the employer?
  • Whether an employee's negative assertion of being unemployed during the period of dismissal is sufficient to discharge the initial onus for claiming back benefits?
  • Whether failure by the employer to examine material eye-witnesses during a domestic inquiry and before the labour court renders the dismissal order unsustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs The State2020 YLR 1299 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-30
  circumstantial evidencelast-seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of the doubtcapital punishmentmurderstrangulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant, Muhammad Nadeem, under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court for the murder of Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui. The core legal question involved whether the circumstantial evidence, including last-seen testimony, mobile phone contacts, and an extra-judicial confession before the police, was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in the absence of direct eyewitnesses and a definitive motive. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence and that the extra-judicial confession made to the police and uncorroborated last-seen testimony were insufficient and unreliable. The court laid down the principle that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the links must form a complete, unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused, and any single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can an extra-judicial confession made before the police form the sole basis of a capital conviction without unimpeachable independent corroboration?
  • Whether uncorroborated last-seen evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder involving capital punishment?
  • What is the standard required for circumstantial evidence to form an unbroken chain pointing to the guilt of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem A. Shaikh vs Govt. of Sindh and Ors2020 SHC 1266 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq and others vs Govt of Sindh and others2020 SHC 464 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mureed s/o Ghulam Qadir vs The State2020 SHC 436 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11
  post-arrest bailfsl reportfurther inquirytentative assessmentmurderbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed on behalf of the accused Muhammad Mureed, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 114, 504, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Thatta. The applicant previously had several bail applications dismissed by the trial court and the High Court, but filed the present second bail application before the High Court raising fresh grounds, primarily relying on a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report dated 20.06.2019, examination of eyewitnesses, and COVID-19. The Sindh High Court held that the FSL report was already available during previous bail proceedings and could not be urged as a fresh ground, that deeper appreciation of evidence and ballistic reports is impermissible at the bail stage where only a tentative assessment is required, and that the trial was already at an advanced stage. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within thirty days.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an FSL report available on record during previous bail applications can be raised as a fresh ground in a subsequent bail petition?
  • Can a deeper appreciation of the ballistic expert's report be undertaken by the court at the post-arrest bail stage?
  • Does the mere reliance on an FSL report showing mismatch of crime empties automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail in a murder case involving direct eyewitness accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz vs Province Of Sindh and others2020 MLD 1748 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moosa Kunbhar vs Salman Bajeer and others2020 SHC 174 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-21
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtdouble innocenceappreciation of evidencedelayed FIRinterested witnessestheft
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment dated 20.02.2010, which acquitted the respondents of theft charges by extending the benefit of doubt. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a perverse appreciation of evidence or if the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon review, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused. The Court noted significant delays in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in the testimony of interested witnesses, the absence of independent witnesses, and the lack of any recovery from the accused. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to provide a plausible explanation for the nine-day delay in reporting the incident. The key principle laid down is that an acquittal by a competent court grants the accused a presumption of double innocence, which an appellate court should not disturb lightly without compelling grounds, particularly when the prosecution's evidence is not confidence-inspiring.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal by a competent court create a presumption of double innocence that limits appellate interference?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment based on minor contradictions in prosecution evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moosa alias Mooso vs The State2020 YLR 2626 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-20
  criminal appealpolice encounterfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusreasonable doubtwitness credibilitySection 342 CrPCAnti-Terrorism Actacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, which found the appellant guilty of murder and terrorism-related offenses following an alleged police encounter. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the significant contradictions in witness testimony and the trial court's prior acquittal of co-accused based on the same evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material inconsistencies regarding the time, place, and identification of the accused, rendering the evidence unreliable. Furthermore, the trial court failed to put all incriminating evidence to the appellant during his examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, violating a mandatory procedural requirement. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies to criminal jurisprudence, and that any doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused. The appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to put all incriminating evidence to an accused during their examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's evidence is contradictory and the trial court previously acquitted co-accused based on the same evidence?
  • What is the effect of the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus on the reliability of witness testimony in criminal cases?
  • Is identification of an accused by police officials reliable when the accused was previously unknown to them and the encounter occurred in a chaotic environment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Manzoor through L.Rs vs Muhammad Younus Mughal2020 CLC 2104 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Liaquat vs J.M No III Nawab Shah & Others2020 SHC 56 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 2 ot vs The State2020 MLD 1387 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-20
  criminal appealanti-terrorismbenefit of the doubtmischief by firecriminal intimidationappreciation of evidenceconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing the appellants under sections 427, 435, and 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sections 6(2)(c) and 7(d) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 for allegedly setting a water pipeline on fire and issuing threats. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, considering material contradictions, doubtful presence of eyewitnesses at the time of Friday prayers, lack of article evidence, and failure to examine key independent witnesses like firemen. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt due to numerous infirmities, procedural lapses, and doubtful evidence. The court established the principle that when the prosecution case suffers from serious doubts and material contradictions, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the allowance of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of the doubt should be extended to the accused when prosecution witnesses are under the influence of the complainant and material contradictions exist?
  • Does the failure to produce primary article evidence such as burnt pipes weaken the prosecution's case?
  • Whether a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 can be sustained when the presence of eyewitnesses at the alleged time of the incident is highly doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 123 others vs The Commissioner, Hyderabad2020 MLD 1181 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The State2020 SHC 176 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-24
  bail applicationexpeditious trialcriminal proceduretrial court directionsnot pressed
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed before the Sindh High Court. The applicant, through counsel, requested that the application be dismissed as not pressed, provided that the trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings by framing the charge and recording the complainant's evidence within a specific timeframe. The State, represented by the Assistant Prosecutor General, offered no objection to this proposal. The Court, accepting the request, dismissed the bail application as not pressed. It directed the Presiding Officer of the trial court to frame the charge and record the complainant's evidence within thirty working days of receiving the order, explicitly prohibiting unnecessary adjournments. The Court further held that upon the completion of these procedural steps, the applicant is at liberty to file a fresh bail application before the trial court, which shall then be decided in accordance with the law. This judgment reinforces the principle of expeditious trial disposal in criminal matters where the accused seeks relief through procedural timelines rather than immediate adjudication of the bail merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court direct a trial court to frame charges and record evidence within a specific timeframe upon the withdrawal of a bail application?
  • Is an applicant entitled to file a fresh bail application before a trial court after the conclusion of specific procedural directions issued by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs Federation of Pakistan and 11 others2020 SHC 952 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-12
  service terminationmisconductdomestic inquiryconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by a staff nurse impugning his termination from service by the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD) following an inquiry into allegations of misconduct, forgery, and misuse of hospital services. The core legal question was whether the termination order and underlying inquiry proceedings violated applicable rules and principles of natural justice, and whether a constitutional petition was maintainable against the institute's disciplinary action. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunities of hearing, was found guilty of misconduct through a lawful domestic inquiry, and failed to point out any violation of rules or discrimination. The court dismissed the petition in limine, establishing the principle that factual controversies and disciplinary actions of autonomous bodies supported by lawful inquiries and regular service regulations do not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction unless a clear violation of rules or mala fides is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against the disciplinary action of the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases?
  • Can a major penalty of termination from service be sustained when an employee fails to appear before the inquiry committee despite receiving notices?
  • Does the High Court interfere with factual determinations of a domestic inquiry under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kashif vs Furqan Karim & 02 others2020 SHC 334 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kashif Vohra vs Muhammad Ismail and 3 others2020 YLR 2024 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kashif S/O Sher Muhammad & Another vs The State2021 YLR 2318, 2020 SHC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-12
  test identification paradeocular evidencerobberysystem variablesestimator variablescriminal identificationappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 397 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular evidence and test identification parade proceedings in establishing the identity of the accused, particularly when the incident occurred at night. The Court evaluated the identification evidence using the two-step framework established in Mian Sohail Ahmed v. The State, assessing both system variables (procedural precautions during the identification parade) and estimator variables (factors like lighting, duration, and witness characteristics). The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the perpetrators during the 20-30 minute robbery in lit conditions, and that procedural safeguards were strictly followed during the identification parades. The key principle laid down is that identification evidence must be assessed through a dual-process approach—verifying procedural compliance and evaluating witness credibility based on environmental and psychological factors—to ensure the reliability of convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the identification of an accused at a test identification parade constitute substantive evidence or merely corroborative evidence?
  • What is the two-step process for evaluating the reliability of identification evidence in criminal cases?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony when the incident occurred at night and the faces of the robbers were partially obscured?
  • Are system variables and estimator variables both necessary for assessing the credibility of an eye-witness identification?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Juman Jumani vs The State2020 MLD 1729 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-07
  pre-arrest baildelayed FIRfurther inquirygovernment servantcriminal procedurePakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by applicant Muhammad Juman Jumani seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.133 of 2019 registered at Police Station Phuleli under sections 336, 506, and 337-T of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the delayed FIR, the nature of the incident involving a fallen electric wire due to heavy rains, and his status as a government servant. The Sindh High Court held that the inordinate delay of 76 days in lodging the FIR without plausible explanation, coupled with the incident stemming from natural causes and the applicant's status as a government servant posing no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, made out a case for further inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that mere heinousness of an offence or severity of punishment is no ground to withhold bail if the accused has a good case on merits, and that unexplained delay in lodging an FIR enures to the benefit of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution case when no plausible explanation is furnished?
  • Does the heinousness of an offence or the maximum punishment provided by law justify withholding bail if the accused has a good case on merits?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted to a government servant when there is no apprehension of absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jibran Nasir & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2020 SHC 88 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jawed through Authorized Attorney vs First Women Bank2020 CLD 254 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel and another vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 1250 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-28
  Criminal Revision ApplicationSection 249-A CrPCAcquittalBank account fraudRevisional jurisdictionFactual disputesFinal challan
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application challenged the trial court's dismissal of an application under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought acquittal in a case involving allegations of misusing a complainant's CNIC to open a bank account. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to acquit the accused at a preliminary stage despite their claims of innocence and lack of evidence. The High Court dismissed the revision application, holding that the dispute involved complex factual contentions regarding the consent and purpose of the bank account, which necessitated the recording of evidence. The Court affirmed that its revisional jurisdiction is limited to the legality and propriety of proceedings and does not extend to a full-fledged reappraisal of evidence or the consideration of new documents not previously presented to the trial court. The principle laid down is that where a case involves disputed facts requiring trial, an application for acquittal is premature; however, the accused may renew their application before the trial court now that the final challan has been submitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court exercise revisional jurisdiction to consider documents that were not placed before the trial court?
  • Is an application for acquittal under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 maintainable when the case involves disputed factual contentions requiring evidence?
  • Does the submission of a final challan provide grounds for an accused to renew an application for acquittal under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jam vs Mst. Waheeda Aslam and others2020 CLC 1173 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jam vs Federation of Pakistan and 05 others2020 SHC 1174 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The State2020 MLD 839 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-21
  pre-arrest baildishonouring of chequedelay in FIRprohibitory clausecivil litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the High Court through a bail application filed by the applicant seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 119 of 2019 registered at Police Station Mehar for offences under sections 489-F, 506/2, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after his pre-arrest bail plea was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail given the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the prior civil litigation between the parties, and the fact that the charged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The court held that the applicant made out a case for pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR shows inordinate delay, the parties are already embroiled in civil litigation, and the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, pre-arrest bail ought to be confirmed, especially when the accused has joined the trial without misusing the concession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the parties are already engaged in civil litigation?
  • Does an offence 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 confirmation of pre-arrest bail justified when the accused has regularly joined the trial and not misused the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Fed of pakistan2020 SHC 62 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Mari & Others vs The State2020 SHC 526 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07
  pre-arrest baildismissal for non-prosecutionbail applicationmisuse of reliefinterim bail recall
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court upon a criminal bail application filed by Muhammad Ismail Mari and others seeking pre-arrest bail. The core legal question concerns the conduct of the applicants and whether a pre-arrest bail application should remain active when the applicants and their counsel fail to appear at the hearing for confirmation of the ad-interim bail. The court held that the non-appearance of the applicants without any intimation amounts to a misuse of the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail previously granted to them. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application for non-prosecution and recalled the interim order of pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that failure to prosecute a pre-arrest bail application or appear at the appointed date for its confirmation constitutes an abuse of judicial relief, warranting the immediate dismissal of the application and the recall of any protective interim orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-appearance of an applicant on the date fixed for confirmation of pre-arrest bail warrants dismissal for non-prosecution?
  • Does the failure to appear at a bail hearing amount to a misuse of extraordinary judicial relief?
  • What is the legal consequence of dismissing a pre-arrest bail application for non-prosecution regarding the operating interim order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs Spl judge Anti Corrupution hyd & others2020 SHC 188 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Ullah Khan vs Federation of Pakistan & 03 others2020 SHC 198 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-02
  constitutional petitionpensionary benefitsdaily wages serviceregularization of servicequalifying servicecivil aviation authoritymaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking the inclusion of the petitioner's prior daily-wage service period as a Meter Reader with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) into his regularized service period for the calculation of pensionary benefits. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against the CAA under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in light of its non-statutory service regulations, and whether an employee's continuous temporary or daily-wage service followed by regularization can be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The court held that the constitutional petition is maintainable against public authorities like the CAA when actions violate applicable service regulations, and that the petitioner's previous continuous temporary/contingent service must be counted alongside his regular service for the purpose of computing pension and retirement benefits. The key principles laid down are that a constitutional petition is maintainable against a public authority despite non-statutory service rules if a grievance involves a violation of applicable regulations, and that continuous temporary service followed by regularization counts toward qualifying service for pensionary benefits under the relevant civil service and authority regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the Civil Aviation Authority despite its service regulations being non-statutory?
  • Can continuous temporary or daily-wages service rendered prior to regularization be counted towards the qualifying service for pensionary benefits?
  • Whether an employee is entitled to have their previous contingent service protected and added to their regular service for the purpose of fixation and calculation of retirement dues?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Pirani vs Khurram Ashraf2020 YLR 1678 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal alias Kalloo vs Mst. Eidi Begum2020 YLR 466 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal & another vs Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 502 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran vs Mst. Beenish2020 SHC 1370 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State2020 SHC 678 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-18
  post-arrest bailprohibited substancesGutka and Manpuri Actfurther inquirypolice witnessespre-trial detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Ibrahim, who was charged under Section 8 of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storing, Sale and Use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019, following the alleged recovery of prohibited substances. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail pending trial, given the nature of the offense and the circumstances of the recovery. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, reasoning that the prosecution's case relied entirely on police witnesses without independent corroboration, and the trial had not yet commenced. The Court emphasized that the applicant's continued incarceration served no useful purpose, as he was no longer required for investigation and there was no risk of evidence tampering. The key principle laid down is that where an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the bail statute, and the prosecution relies solely on police evidence, the scale of justice tilts in favor of granting bail pending trial to avoid unjustified incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution case rests entirely on the testimony of police officials without independent witnesses?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a recovery case justify the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Should an accused be kept in custody pending trial when the investigation is complete and no risk of tampering with evidence exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan Rajar vs P.O Sindh & Others2020 SHC 692 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and another vs The State2020 SHC 426 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-28
  Anti-Terrorism Actjurisdictionpersonal enmityprivate vendettatransfer of caseconstitutional petitionterrorism definition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal application, subsequently converted into a constitutional petition, challenging an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur Mirs, which refused to transfer a case to a regular Court of Sessions. The core legal question was whether an incident involving firearms and fatalities, allegedly stemming from personal enmity, constitutes "terrorism" under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ghulam Hussain v. The State, the High Court held that the offense did not qualify as terrorism. The Court reasoned that the absence of the specific design to coerce, intimidate, or overawe the public or government, as required by Section 6(1)(b) and (c), precluded the application of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The key principle laid down is that actions, regardless of their gravity or the use of firearms, do not constitute terrorism if they are committed in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta, as they fail to meet the statutory requirements for terrorism under the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was transferred to a regular court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense committed in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta qualify as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can an order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, be challenged via a constitutional petition?
  • Does the use of firearms in an incident automatically classify the act as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is a design to coerce, intimidate, or overawe the public or government a necessary ingredient for an act to be classified as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim s/o Ali Muhammad vs The State2020 SHC 440 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-13
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryGutka and Manpuri Actstatutory interpretationrecovery of tobaccoprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Hashim, who was charged under Section 8 of The Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019, following the alleged recovery of tobacco bundles by police. The core legal question was whether the possession of raw tobacco, in the absence of a mixture constituting Gutka or Manpuri as defined by the Act, falls within the scope of the penal provisions of the 2019 Act, and whether the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the recovered substance met the statutory definition of Gutka or Manpuri, as tobacco alone does not constitute the prohibited mixture. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, ruling that the case required further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that the possession of a single ingredient of a prohibited mixture, such as raw tobacco, does not satisfy the statutory definition of Gutka or Manpuri under the 2019 Act, thereby precluding conviction under that specific legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of raw tobacco alone constitute an offence under The Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019?
  • Can a case be considered one of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the recovered substance does not meet the statutory definition of the prohibited item?
  • Is the evidence of police officials alone sufficient to deny bail in the absence of independent witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haseeb Fatani son of Muhammad Hanif Fatani vs Federation2021 CLC 1222, 2021 CLD 951, 2020 SHC 1428 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon vs Province of Sindh through Secretary (L.U.) Board2020 YLR 408 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Zonal Manager and 5 others2020 MLD 96 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State2020 SHC 614 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and another2020 SHC 1130 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30
  constitutional petitionVoluntary Separation SchemeEOBI benefitsestoppelmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The present constitutional petitions involve the same subject matter as previously decided by this Court in a common order dated 16.11.2020 passed in C.P. No. D-3026 of 2015. The core legal question revolves around the entitlement of former employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited to certain benefits under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 after opting for the Voluntary Separation Scheme. The Court held that since the petitioners opted for the Voluntary Separation Scheme, they are estopped from claiming such benefits, and the respondent-PTCL had already satisfied its statutory contribution demands. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, with the petitioners left to pursue other remedies available under the law. The key principle laid down is that employees who voluntarily separate through a scheme are estopped from claiming subsequent employment-related statutory benefits not contributed during their active tenure.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees who opted for a Voluntary Separation Scheme entitled to claim additional EOBI benefits?
  • Whether constitutional petitions under Article 199 are maintainable when the core issue has already been settled by a prior common order of the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Anjuman-E-Imamia (Registered Society), through Patron and another2020 CLC 2080 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghayas alias Baba and another vs The State2020 MLD 1996 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-07
  criminal appealreasonable doubtidentification paradepost-mortem examinationballistic expert reporthearsay evidenceacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for murder and causing injuries under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the absence of an identification parade for unknown accused, the failure to conduct a post-mortem examination, and significant delays in forensic analysis. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt, citing multiple fatal lacunae. Specifically, the court ruled that when an FIR is lodged against unknown persons, an identification parade is mandatory, and its absence is fatal. Furthermore, the failure to conduct a post-mortem examination to determine the cause of death and the unexplained delay in sending crime weapons to the ballistic expert created insurmountable doubts. Emphasizing that the prosecution must prove its case to the hilt, the court held that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Is the holding of an identification parade mandatory when the accused are unknown at the time of the FIR?
  • Does the failure to conduct a post-mortem examination on the deceased constitute a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending crime weapons to a ballistic expert?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant is not an eye-witness and the evidence is based on hearsay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs M/s. Silk Bank Limited & Others2020 PLJ Karachi 25 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faisal through General Power of Sub-Attorney and others vs The Cantonment Board Faisal, Karachi through Cantonment Executive Officer and 2 others2020 PLD Sindh 427 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Essa vs Raja Kamran & another2020 SHC 588 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dawood Wagan and others vs The Province Of Sindh through Secretary Local Government Department, Karachi2020 CLC 1638 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dabeer Hussain Shah vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 788 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs The State & another2020 SHC 122 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Mst. Sakina and others2020 PLJ Karachi 105 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir & Another vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 950 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs Mst. Rani through Special Attorney and 2 others2020 YLR 1932 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem Mahar vs The State2020 SHC 1446 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-31
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirydelayed FIRmurderpoisoningcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered regarding the alleged murder of his wife by administering a poisonous substance and subsequently burying her dead body. The core legal question was whether the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delayed First Information Report lodged by the police on behalf of the State based on spy information, the lack of eyewitnesses, and the unascertained actual cause of death. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report by the police based on spy information, coupled with an unascertained cause of death and absence of eyewitnesses, creates reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the First Information Report is lodged with a delay by the police on the basis of spy information?
  • Does the failure to ascertain the actual cause of death during investigation bring the case within the scope of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no eyewitnesses connect him to the alleged crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Masood vs Muhammad Rauf through L.Rs. and 11 others2020 MLD 1655 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-31Read full judgment →