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.

• Hakim Ali vs The State2020 SHC 904 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-02Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Naseem Ahmed Qasmi vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1288 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
• Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan (Sindh Zone) & others vs Federation2020 PLD Sindh 42, 2019 SHC 200 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-26
  Hajj Policy 2019Hajj Group Organizersjudicial reviewultra viresproportionality testWednesbury unreasonablenessexecutive discretionCabinet approval
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, were filed by the Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan (HOAP) and its member Hajj Group Organizers (HGOs) challenging a condition imposed by the Ministry of Religious Affairs via letter dated 09.04.2019 requiring private HGOs to book 5% of their allocated quota at the Government Rate Package. The core legal questions were whether the Hajj Formulation Committee possessed the legal authority to alter or impose additional preconditions beyond the Cabinet-approved Hajj Policy-2019 under the guise of general compliance clauses, and whether such unilateral condition was arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of fundamental rights. The Sindh High Court allowed the petitions and set aside the impugned condition, holding that once the Federal Cabinet approves a Hajj Policy, the executive committee is strictly bound to execute it and cannot make unilateral additions or curtail quotas. The court established that executive discretion must satisfy the tests of reasonableness, proportionality, and non-arbitrariness under judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive policy formulation committee alter or impose new substantive conditions on a policy after it has been approved by the Federal Cabinet?
  • Does a general contractual clause requiring private operators to follow ministry instructions empower an authority to impose obligations that indirectly curtail their approved quota?
  • Can an administrative decision be struck down under Article 199 of the Constitution on the grounds of disproportionate burden and lack of rational connection to its stated objective?
  • Is a claim of unwritten 'tacit approval' legally sufficient to enforce a prejudicial condition against an association that actively disputes it on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ashraf Qureshi vs Nanki Bai and 6 others2020 CLC 1599 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Mohammad Ismail Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 2 others2020 PLD Sindh 85 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-10
  stock exchange regulationsdefaulters segmentofficial gazette publicationdirectory vs mandatory provisionssuspension of tradingwinding-up petitioninfructuous application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff company challenging notices issued by the Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) that placed the plaintiff on the 'Defaulters Segment' and suspended its trading. The core legal question was whether the PSX notices were void ab-initio due to the relevant regulations not being gazetted at the time of issuance, and whether the suspension of trading was legally justified given the pending winding-up proceedings against the plaintiff. The Court held that the application had become infructuous as the impugned notices had expired and subsequent notices had been issued. Furthermore, the Court determined that the notification in question, though gazetted later, was effective from an earlier date. The Court laid down the principle that statutory requirements for publication in the official gazette are generally directory rather than mandatory, and failure to strictly comply with publication requirements does not automatically invalidate actions taken under such instruments, particularly when legal certainty and the actions of public functionaries are involved.

  Questions settled

  • Are statutory requirements for the publication of regulations in the official gazette considered mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to gazette a regulation at the time of its issuance automatically render actions taken under that regulation void?
  • Can a court grant injunctive relief against the suspension of trading when the impugned notices have already expired and fresh notices have been issued?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghano Khan and 5 others vs Dr. Bhagwandas and 24 others2020 MLD 1127 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Razzak (Deceased) through Legal Heirs vs Faysal Bank Limited2020 CLD 238 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-28
  special high court appealattachment before judgmentinterlocutory ordermaintainability of appealfinancial institutions recovery of financesbanking suitspecial law versus general law
  Summary & questions settled

  This Special High Court Appeal challenged an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's applications under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and section 16 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 in a pending recovery suit. The core legal questions were whether an appeal lies against an interlocutory order under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and whether an application under section 16 of the said Ordinance is maintainable when filed by a borrower rather than a financial institution. The court held that the appeal against the interlocutory order of attachment before judgment and the dismissal of the application under section 16 was not maintainable, as section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 explicitly bars appeals against interlocutory orders that do not dispose of the entire case, and special banking laws prevail over general procedural laws. The court affirmed the impugned order, holding that interlocutory orders cannot be challenged in a Special High Court Appeal under the special banking legal framework.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can a borrower maintain an application under section 16 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the special law under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 exclude the application of general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding appeals against interlocutory orders?
  • What constitutes a final order for the purpose of filing an appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafizullah s/o Hidayatullah Bangulani vs Muhammad Raheem s/o Zareen2020 SHC 1238 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionmurderdelayed FIRvicarious liabilitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Hafizullah, in a criminal case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the applicant, whose name appeared in the FIR but who was not attributed any specific injury, was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, including a significant delay in the FIR's registration and the absence of incriminating recovery. The court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that where no specific role is attributed to an accused in the commission of injuries, and the prosecution case relies on mere presence at the scene, continued incarceration is not justified, particularly when the investigation is complete and trial proceedings have not commenced. The court further emphasized that the question of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is a matter to be determined during the trial after recording evidence, and an accused cannot be detained indefinitely without trial progress.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the FIR assigns no specific role in causing injuries and only alleges presence at the crime scene?
  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR without plausible explanation impact the grant of bail?
  • Can an accused be kept in custody indefinitely when the investigation is complete but the trial has not commenced?
  • Is the question of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a matter to be decided at the bail stage or during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Hanif vs The State2020 SHC 1052 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-23Read full judgment →
• Habibullah and another vs Insp. Rasool Bux and another2020 YLR 313 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-19
  criminal revision applicationmarginal witnesssummoning court witnessprosecution discretionrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mirpurkhas, whereby an application filed by the applicant under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for summoning a given witness as a court witness was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the prosecution can be compelled to examine all marginal witnesses or whether the trial court was justified in refusing to summon the given witness after the prosecution gave him up. The Sindh High Court held that it is the prerogative of the prosecution to decide upon the number and order of witnesses to be produced, and cumulative evidence can be avoided if the prosecution is satisfied with producing one marginal witness. The court ruled that the prosecution cannot be forced to examine all witnesses on the calendar, and the impugned order declining the application did not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the criminal revision application was dismissed, upholding the discretion of the prosecution regarding witness production.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can be forced to examine all marginal witnesses listed in the calendar of witnesses?
  • Does the trial court have the discretion to decline an application for summoning a witness as a court witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court interfere with an order declining to summon a witness in its revisional jurisdiction when the prosecution has given up a marginal witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Ur Rehman ( Khi To Hyd ) vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 130 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-06Read full judgment →
• Habib Ismail vs The Learned Addl Dist: Judge IX and Ors2020 SHC 1148 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-02Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmed vs The State2020 YLR 238 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-30
  retracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencebenefit of the doubtcapital punishmentmurderpointation and recoveryfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 365, 302, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence and imprisonment, alongside a reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value and voluntariness of a retracted judicial confession, the legal significance of recoveries made on the appellant's pointation, the reliability of identification of a decomposed body without a DNA report, and whether the circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain linking the appellant to the crime. The Sindh High Court held that the retracted judicial confession suffered from material irregularities and lacked sufficient corroboration, recoveries of the body and murder weapon were legally flawed, the body's identity was unproven, and the circumstantial evidence failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, allowed the appeal, acquitted him of the charges, and answered the confirmation reference in the negative, establishing principles regarding the strict standard of proof in circumstantial evidence cases and the evaluation of retracted confessions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis of a conviction in a capital case without strong independent corroboration?
  • Whether material irregularities in recording a judicial confession vitiate its voluntariness and truthfulness?
  • Is a conviction based on circumstantial evidence sustainable if there are missing links in the chain of evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
  • Does the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to completely disregard the testimony of a witness found to be untruthful on material aspects?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzer vs The State2020 SHC 1140 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30
  right to fair trialright to counseldue processremandcriminal appealnatural justiceconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and sentence imposed by an Additional Sessions Judge regarding the possession of 'mainpuri' sachets. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to provide him with a fair opportunity to engage legal counsel, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Deputy Prosecutor General for the State did not oppose the request for a remand. Upon review, the Court found that the trial court had indeed failed to ensure the appellant was afforded a fair chance to secure representation. The Court held that this omission constituted a violation of the constitutional mandate guaranteeing the right to a fair trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial, ensuring the appellant is given adequate opportunity to engage counsel. The Court further directed the appellant's release on bail pending the new trial proceedings, subject to the furnishing of fresh bail bonds, thereby upholding the fundamental right to due process and legal representation in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide an accused a fair chance to engage counsel violate the right to a fair trial under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a conviction and remand a case if the trial court denied the accused the right to legal representation?
  • Is a trial court required to ensure an accused has the opportunity to engage counsel before proceeding to judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ali vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Board of Revenue2020 YLR 116 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-04Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ali and 3 others vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others2020 PLD Sindh 1 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad & another vs The State2020 SHC 1254 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeFIR delayprohibitory clausefurther inquirymala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused of dishonestly issuing a cheque that subsequently bounced, leading to the registration of a criminal case. The applicants, having been denied pre-arrest bail by the trial court, approached the High Court under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically regarding the delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the alleged offence. The High Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of over two months and that the underlying dispute appeared to be civil in nature, concerning the sale and purchase of land. Furthermore, the court noted that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry and mala fide, confirming the interim bail previously granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted on the grounds of further inquiry and mala fide in a case involving a dishonoured cheque?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 698 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan and another vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1558 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-01
  post-arrest bailhardship bailtrial delayunlawful assemblyexpeditious trialcommon object
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from a case registered against the applicants for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly and assaulting the complainant and a prosecution witness with the intent to commit murder, alongside acts of humiliation. The applicants sought post-arrest bail from the High Court after their previous application was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the grounds of hardship due to the trial court's failure to conclude the proceedings within the three-month timeframe previously directed by the High Court. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the delay in trial was attributable to the applicants' own requests for adjournments to pursue a compromise. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a failure to conclude a trial within a specified period does not automatically entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that non-compliance with directions for expeditious trial disposal does not constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail, particularly when the delay is not solely attributable to the prosecution or the court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to conclude a trial within a time-bound direction from the High Court automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can an accused claim bail on the ground of hardship when the delay in trial is caused by their own requests for adjournments?
  • Is non-compliance with a High Court direction to conclude a trial within a specified time a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Greesh Kumar and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and others2020 YLR 1053 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayoob and another vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 984 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-17
  pre-arrest bailgutka recoveryprohibitory clausetentative assessmentdoubtful recoverybail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was brought before the Sindh High Court by the applicants seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 246/2019 registered under sections 269, 272, 273, and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly transporting injurious betel nuts (Gutka). The core legal question concerned whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the applicability of section 337-J, the statutory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the nature of the recovery where private witnesses were not associated by the police. The court held that the recovery appeared doubtful due to the failure to associate private mashirs despite ample opportunity, and that section 337-J did not prima facie apply at the bail stage. The High Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that offences not falling prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the grant of bail as a rule, and deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible during tentative assessment at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-association of private mashirs during a police recovery makes the recovery doubtful for the purpose of bail?
  • Does an offence under section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence permissible while deciding a pre-arrest bail plea?
  • What is the general rule regarding the grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan and another vs Mian Khalid Manzoor2021 YLR 1137, 2020 SHC 1392 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• Girdani alias Giddu son of Peetho Kolhi vs The State2020 SHC 1156 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-02
  narcotics possessionsentence reductionfirst-time offendercriminal appealremissionlenient sentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and four-year sentence for possession of 1400 grams of opium under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, handed down by the trial court. During the appeal, the appellant's counsel did not contest the conviction on merits but requested a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, citing the appellant's status as a first-time offender and the sole breadwinner for his family. The Court examined the record, noting the absence of independent witnesses and the lack of a prior criminal history. Considering the appellant had already endured a protracted trial and served a significant portion of his sentence, including remissions, the Court found a lenient approach appropriate. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, while maintaining the fine and stipulating a default sentence, granting the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone based on the appellant's status as a first-time offender?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics case justify a reduction in sentence?
  • Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable when reducing a sentence to the period already undergone?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs The State2020 MLD 1762 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-06
  false evidenceperjurystatement under section 161 Cr.P.C.criminal revisionpolice statementdirect complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant challenged the appellate court judgment upholding his conviction and sentence under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly giving false evidence, arising from a direct complaint filed by a Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether a witness can be convicted for giving false evidence solely because their deposition in court contradicts an earlier statement recorded by the police during investigation under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not bear the maker's signature and lacks the sanctity of a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and a witness cannot be prosecuted for perjury merely for contradicting a police statement unless the previous statement was recorded before a judicial officer or established as a formal contradiction under the law. Consequently, the court set aside the lower courts' judgments and acquitted the applicant. The key principle laid down is that contradictions between a witness's trial deposition and their police statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not suffice to sustain a charge of giving false evidence under Section 193 P.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Can a witness be convicted for giving false evidence based solely on a contradiction with their statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a statement recorded by an Investigation Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 enjoy the same sanctity as a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When can a witness be legally charged for giving false evidence before a court of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir alias Papi vs The State2020 MLD 1417 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-11
  criminal appealanti-terrorismpolice encountercredibility of police witnessesrobberyillegal arms possessionbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellant by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offences involving robbery, firing at a police party, and illegal possession of arms. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the appellant's defense that the police encounter was fabricated and that he was falsely implicated due to a prior dispute. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence, including the testimony of an independent private complainant and police witnesses, remained consistent and unshaken during cross-examination. The Court rejected the appellant's plea of mala fide, noting the absence of any prior complaints against the police and the appellant's established criminal history. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of police officials is as credible as that of private witnesses and cannot be discarded solely on the basis of their official status, provided the defense fails to demonstrate any specific enmity, ill-will, or mala fide intent against the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely because they are police officers?
  • Does the failure to file a prior complaint against police officers undermine a defense claim of false implication?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution evidence remains unshaken during cross-examination despite defense allegations of a fake encounter?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool son of Shahzado Marfani vs The State2020 SHC 1398 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18
  illegal possession of firearmbenefit of doubtpolice witnessindependent corroborationsafe custody of weaponballistic expertcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for illegal possession of a firearm. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the recovery of the weapon and whether the reliance on exclusively police witnesses, without independent corroboration, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the Court noted the failure to associate independent witnesses despite the recovery occurring in daylight, and the absence of evidence regarding the safe custody and transmission of the weapon to the Ballistic Expert. The Court emphasized that when a case rests solely on police testimony, judicial caution is required to assess if independent witnesses could have been secured. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, rather than grace. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is the evidence of police officials alone sufficient to maintain a conviction without independent corroboration when independent witnesses could have been secured?
  • Does the failure to prove safe custody and safe transmission of a recovered weapon to a Forensic Science Laboratory create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rabbani vs State Bank Of Pakistan and another2020 PLC (C.S.) 483 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-03
  compulsory retirementcompoundable offencecompromise acquittalmaster and servantState Bank of Pakistanconstitutional binding precedentcivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a civil suit challenging an office order and subsequent compulsory retirement from service passed by the State Bank of Pakistan against its employee, who had been implicated in a criminal murder case but later acquitted on the basis of a compromise. The core legal question was whether an acquittal resulting from the compounding of an offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure constitutes an honorable acquittal that obliterates the guilt and prevents an employer from penalizing or compulsorily retiring an employee on the basis of that settled criminal charge. The Sindh High Court held that a successful and complete compounding of a compoundable offence acts as an honorable acquittal which completely erases, effaces, and washes away the alleged guilt, entitling the employee to all benefits and fruits of a lawful acquittal. The court laid down the principle that the rule of master and servant does not strictly apply to autonomous bodies controlled by the government lacking statutory rules in a manner that allows unfettered or discriminatory powers, and that judgments of the Supreme Court declaring the legal effect of a compromise-based acquittal are binding on all departments and courts under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the compounding of an offence under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to an honorable acquittal?
  • Does the rule of master and servant strictly apply to an autonomous body controlled by the government that lacks statutory service rules?
  • Can an employee be compulsorily retired from a public sector organization solely on the basis of a criminal charge that has been legally compromised and resulted in acquittal?
  • Are the decisions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on questions of law binding on all courts and government functionaries under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 1097 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-19
  circumstantial evidencemurderballistic reportmitigating circumstancesudden provocationpolice constableconversion of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, a police constable, for the murder of his colleague under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through circumstantial evidence, ocular testimony, medical evidence, and forensic reports beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether sudden provocation or absence of motive constituted a mitigating circumstance. The Sindh High Court held that while direct eyewitness testimony was absent, the chain of circumstantial evidence—including the appellant standing beside the injured victim holding his official SMG immediately after gunfire, admissions made at the scene, matching forensic ballistic reports, and corroborating medical evidence—conclusively proved the appellant's involvement. However, because the prosecution failed to establish a motive and evidence suggested the incident occurred suddenly, the court held that a mitigating circumstance existed. Consequently, the court converted the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years' rigorous imprisonment, and adjusted the compensation payable to the legal heirs under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted of murder solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence when the chain of circumstances is complete and points towards guilt?
  • Does the absence of a proven motive by the prosecution constitute a mitigating circumstance sufficient to convert a murder conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is police testimony considered as worthy of reliance as that of an independent witness in the absence of any proven enmity or animosity?
  • What is the legal effect of a positive forensic expert report matching crime empties with the official weapon recovered from the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir Kaloi vs Province Of Sindh & others2020 SHC 486 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Shah vs The State2020 YLR 2127 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-15
  narcotics controlsafe custody of case propertybenefit of doubtcriminal appealchain of custodyrecovery of narcoticsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals against the conviction of appellants for transporting 90 kilograms of hashish, sentenced under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly concerning the integrity of the recovery and the chain of custody of the narcotics. The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with fatal discrepancies, including contradictions between the FIR and police diary entries regarding the composition of the raiding party, and the failure to associate independent witnesses despite the raid occurring in a populated area. Crucially, the Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the narcotics, as the malkhana records were not produced and the chemical examiner’s report showed a discrepancy in the number of seals. Furthermore, the failure to produce the vehicle used for transport as case property created insurmountable doubt. The Court reaffirmed that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the FIR and police diary entries regarding the composition of a raiding party create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the failure to produce the vehicle used for transporting narcotics as case property fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to prove the safe custody of recovered narcotics in a drug-related case?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a narcotics raid in a populated area undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Ali Nawaz and 2 others2020 MLD 1260 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-17
  appeal against acquittalmurderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRjoint pointationcircumstantial evidenceeyewitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the assessment of evidence in an appeal against acquittal, the evidentiary value of delayed eyewitness accounts, and the admissibility of joint pointations and recoveries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting unexplained delay in the FIR, suspicious and delayed disclosure by eyewitnesses who were set-up witnesses, and inadmissible joint recoveries. The court emphasized that the parameters for interfering with an acquittal are exceptionally narrow, requiring the trial court's findings to be perverse, arbitrary, or shocking. Finding the trial court's judgment to be based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of evidence, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal maintained.

  Questions settled

  • What are the parameters for interfering with an acquittal judgment in criminal appeals?
  • Is a joint pointation and recovery made on the pointing of more than one accused admissible in evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary impact of a highly delayed disclosure by alleged eyewitnesses who fail to report the crime promptly?
  • When can an appellate court substitute its own findings for those of a trial court in an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza Daudpoto vs Province of Sindh & 03 others2020 SHC 212 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State2020 SHC 592 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home2020 P Cr. L J 1015 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-10
  constitutional petitionmala fide investigationinterference in investigationcriminal proceduretrial court jurisdictionquashing of FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition was filed by the petitioner, an accused in FIR Crime No. 111/2019, seeking a court-directed inquiry into the investigation of the case and departmental action against the investigating officer for allegedly registering a false FIR due to mala fide intentions. The core legal question was whether the High Court should interfere with an ongoing police investigation or direct a departmental inquiry when the matter is already pending before a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that as the case was already pending before the trial court, the petitioner must seek relief through that forum rather than invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court further noted that while the petitioner alleged mala fide, he failed to substantiate these claims with specific evidence on the record. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will only interfere in an investigation if the petitioner proves specific instances of mala fide, such as personal motives, colourable exercise of power, or fraud of law, and that generally, the trial court is the appropriate forum for seeking relief in pending criminal matters.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with an ongoing police investigation?
  • Is a constitutional petition the appropriate remedy when a criminal case is already pending before a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • What criteria must be satisfied to establish mala fide in the context of a police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs A.D.J & Ex Officio Justice of Peace Matli & others2020 SHC 894 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder vs The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (P) Hyderabad and 52020 MLD 634 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-23
  criminal revisiondirect complaintabuse of processcivil disputeprima facie caseanti-corruptioncontractual dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Hyderabad, which dismissed a direct complaint filed by a contractor seeking recovery of alleged outstanding payments for road construction works. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint after an enquiry report indicated that the work was incomplete, the scheme was removed from the Annual Development Programme (ADP), and no funds were outstanding. The High Court held that the trial court's dismissal was legally sound, noting that the complainant failed to disclose material facts and attempted to abuse the process of law. The court emphasized that a criminal complaint must establish both actus reus and mens rea. It further held that civil disputes regarding contractual payments cannot be converted into criminal proceedings through allegations of corruption. The court affirmed that the trial court is obligated to satisfy itself regarding the existence of a prima facie case before issuing process, and that the instant complaint was rightly dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil dispute regarding non-payment of contractual dues be converted into a criminal complaint?
  • Is a trial court obligated to verify the existence of a prima facie case before issuing process on a direct complaint?
  • Does the failure to disclose material facts in a complaint constitute an abuse of the process of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder through Superintendent, Central Prison vs The State2020 YLR 2411 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-05
  criminal appealdeath sentencereasonable doubtadverse inferencelove marriagefalse implicationacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Matiari, for an offence under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the defense's plea of false implication by the complainant party due to a love marriage dispute. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with significant doubts, including unexplained contradictions in ocular testimony, discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence, and the failure to examine crucial witnesses, specifically the deceased's mother who accompanied her to the hospital. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to explain the complainant's sudden, uninvited visit or the delay in lodging the FIR. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, answering the reference for confirmation of the death sentence in the negative. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to present unimpeachable evidence, and where the defense version, when placed in juxtaposition with the prosecution's story, creates reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine material witnesses, such as the person who accompanied the deceased to the hospital, warrant an adverse inference under the law of evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's ocular evidence is contradicted by medical reports and the testimony of the investigating officer?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the defense version, suggesting false implication due to a family dispute over a love marriage, creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's narrative?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder Phul vs Province Of Sindh and Others2020 SHC 460 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 608 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Shaikh vs Project Director, SMBB Towns and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 665 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-13
  project allowancedeputation allowanceconstitutional petitionrepatriation of deputationistscivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Divisional Accounts Officer, filed a constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court seeking directions for the respondents to pay Project Allowance and Deputation Allowance for the period he served on deputation in development authorities, pursuant to certain Office Memorandums. The core legal question was whether a civil servant whose deputation was declared illegal and a nullity by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is entitled to claim Project Allowance and Deputation Allowance under government policy. The High Court held that the petitioner's case does not fall within the ambit of the relevant Office Memorandums for the grant of Project Allowance, and further held that since his deputation was declared illegal by the Supreme Court, he cannot claim the benefit of Deputation Allowance. The court laid down the principle that the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked to claim financial allowances where the underlying deputation has been declared a nullity by the apex court, resulting in the dismissal of the petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee whose deputation has been declared a nullity by the Supreme Court is entitled to claim Deputation Allowance?
  • Does a government employee working in a development project fall within the ambit of the Office Memorandum dated 05.08.2011 for the grant of Project Allowance?
  • Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 be invoked for the payment of disputed allowances arising from an illegal deputation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Iqbalani (Deceased) through Legal Heirs and 2 others vs The Federation Of Pakistan and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 948 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-29
  constitutional petitionjurisdiction of high courtservice tribunaldepartmental proceedingscriminal acquittalmisconductlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought pensionary benefits and reinstatement in service following their acquittal in a criminal case regarding financial fraud at SUPARCO, after having been previously dismissed from service through departmental proceedings and having their service appeals dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation. The Sindh High Court addressed the maintainability of the constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution in light of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and the bar under Article 212(3), as well as the effect of an acquittal in criminal proceedings on independent departmental proceedings. The court held that the constitutional petition was not maintainable due to the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the finality of the Service Tribunal's decision, and further ruled that an acquittal in a criminal trial does not automatically nullify the outcome of independent departmental disciplinary proceedings. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal when the service appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation?
  • Does an acquittal in a criminal trial automatically nullify the outcome of independent departmental disciplinary proceedings for misconduct?
  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to terms and conditions of service in view of the ouster under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and 11 others vs SHO P.S. Naseerabad and 5 others2020 CLC 1920 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain alias Guloo vs The State2020 MLD 1736 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-19
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancesunproved motivequantum of sentencecriminal appealocular evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a trial court judgment convicting the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death. The core legal question concerned the appropriateness of the death sentence given that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive for the crime. Upon review, the High Court found the ocular evidence credible and corroborated by medical evidence, thus upholding the conviction. However, the Court held that because the prosecution failed to prove the motive, the death sentence was not warranted. The Court established the principle that when the prosecution asserts a motive but fails to prove it, such failure acts as a mitigating circumstance, justifying the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction but allowed it regarding the sentence, reducing the death penalty to life imprisonment while also ordering the payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under the relevant procedural law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive for a murder justify the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a death sentence be reduced to life imprisonment when the conviction is based on credible ocular evidence but the motive remains unproved?
  • Is the payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased mandatory upon conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs Mst. Waheeda and 3 others2020 YLR 2180 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs Province Of Sindh through Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh and 12 others2020 PLD Sindh 284 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-01
  Tenancy TribunalSeparation of powersForced labourConstitutional jurisdictionAgrarian reformFundamental rightsJudicial independenceSindh Tenancy Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a tenant (Hari) seeking restoration of possession of agricultural land and protection from harassment by landlords. The core legal questions concerned whether the Tenancy Tribunal, presided over by executive officers like the Assistant Commissioner, could exercise judicial powers consistent with the constitutional mandate for the separation of the judiciary from the executive, and whether the 2013 amendment to the Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, permitting 'begar' (forced labour), was valid. The Court held that the Tenancy Tribunal performs judicial functions and, therefore, its presiding officers must be judicial officers, not executive ones. Consequently, the Court declared Section 27 of the Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, ultra vires Articles 175, 202, and 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Furthermore, the Court struck down the 2013 amendment to Section 24(c) of the Act, declaring it unconstitutional and void as it violated fundamental rights against forced labour. The judgment mandated that tenancy disputes be transferred to civil courts and directed the government to enact comprehensive legislation protecting peasant rights and regulating agro-labour in line with constitutional guarantees.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive officer, such as an Assistant Commissioner, preside over a Tenancy Tribunal exercising judicial powers?
  • Is the 2013 amendment to the Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, allowing forced labour, constitutional?
  • Does the Tenancy Tribunal under the Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, fall within the definition of a 'Court' for the purposes of Article 175 of the Constitution?
  • Are the provisions of the Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950, regarding the constitution of Tribunals ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali P. Allana vs State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and another2020 CLD 198 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali Bhatia & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2020 SHC 784, 2020 PTD 2038 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar vs The State2020 SHC 1248 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  post-arrest bailQatl-i-amdfurther inquiryinstigationcommon intentionSection 497 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application was filed before the High Court of Sindh under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, after the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad, refused to grant bail to the applicant. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused in furtherance of common intention, committed Qatl-i-amd of two individuals and attempted to murder a third person by causing firearm injuries. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to prior enmity over landed property and that the only role attributed to him in the commission of the offence was that of instigation. The court considered the arguments and perused the record, noting that the only role attributed to the applicant was instigation, which brought his involvement within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing a surety bond and personal bond.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who is attributed only the role of instigation in a murder case is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • Whether false implication based on prior enmity over landed property coupled with a secondary role of instigation justifies the grant of bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulab alias Jamaluddin vs Ghulam Muhammad and 5 others2020 YLR 2286 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-05
  acquittal appealpresumption of innocencemurdercontradictory ocular and medical evidencedelayed FIRballistic expert reportbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 302, 324, 435, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons, motivated by a land dispute, attacked the complainant party, resulting in the murder of one person and injuries to another. The core legal question was whether the trial court's appreciation of evidence and acquittal of the accused suffered from perversity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence warranting interference by the appellate court. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's view was a possible view based on the record, highlighting major contradictions in ocular testimony, medical evidence discrepancies, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and sending weapons to the forensic expert, and lack of safe custody proof. The court reaffirmed the principle that an order of acquittal carries a presumption of double innocence and will not be interfered with lightly unless the view taken by the trial court is artificial, shocking, or on the fringes of impossibility. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal when the view taken by the trial court is a possible view based on the evidence on record?
  • Does a delay in sending crime weapons and empty cartridges to the ballistic expert render the expert report doubtful?
  • What is the legal effect of major contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence in a criminal trial?
  • When does the presumption of double innocence apply to an accused person in an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazala Rehman vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 702 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-20Read full judgment →
• Ghaus Bux son of Sufar Khan vs The State2020 SHC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-16
  interim custodysuperdaricase propertyhazardous materialcriminal revisiondisposal of propertySection 516-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Malir, which dismissed an application for the interim custody of an oil tanker seized in a criminal case. The applicant, claiming ownership, sought the release of the vehicle, which was loaded with 30,000 liters of diesel and parked at a police station. The core legal question concerned the court's power under Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to manage property pending trial, particularly regarding hazardous materials. The Court held that while the vehicle could be released to the applicant upon furnishing solvent surety, the diesel posed a significant safety risk. Exercising its discretion under Section 516-A, the Court ordered the sampling of the diesel to represent the whole property, the sale of the remaining fuel, and the deposit of proceeds with the Nazir of the trial court. The key principle laid down is that courts must exercise their discretion under Section 516-A to balance the preservation of case property with public safety, especially when dealing with hazardous or volatile substances.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order the sale of seized property pending trial under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the court have the authority to order the sampling of seized hazardous substances to represent the whole property for trial purposes?
  • Under what conditions can a vehicle seized in a criminal case be released to the applicant on interim custody?
  • Is a court empowered to order the sale of seized diesel fuel if its storage at a police station poses a public safety risk?
  Read full judgment →
• Gas & Oil Ltd. Pakistan vs Collector, Model Customs Collectorate of Preventive & others2021 PTD 104, 2020 SHC 808 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-29Read full judgment →
• Ganwhar vs The State2020 SHC 58 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-20Read full judgment →
• Gallup Business Research Services (Pvt.) Limited vs Registrar Of Trade2020 CLD 1404 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-11Read full judgment →
• Fouji Imam Ali son of Ali Akber Jamali vs The State2020 SHC 1158 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-02
  Qatl-e-Amddefective chargefair trialremandde novo trialfailure of justicecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal and death reference arising from the conviction of the appellant for the offence of Qatl-e-Amd. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether a defective charge, which omitted the name of one of the two deceased victims, vitiated the trial proceedings and prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair trial. Upon review, the Court found that the omission in the charge was material and could not be cured under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it occasioned a failure of justice and seriously prejudiced the appellant in his defence. This defect was held to be contrary to the constitutional mandate of a fair trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, directing the trial court to frame a fresh charge against the appellant and proceed with the case de novo in accordance with the law. The decision underscores the principle that a defective charge causing prejudice to the accused cannot be sustained and necessitates a retrial to ensure the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of a victim's name in a criminal charge constitute a defect that cannot be cured under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court be directed to proceed de novo when a charge is found to be materially defective and prejudicial to the accused?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the charge framed against the accused fails to include all victims of the alleged offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayoub and others vs The State2020 SHC 1110 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27Read full judgment →
• First Pakistan Security Limited and others vs Bank Alfalah Limited2020 CLD 269 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-28Read full judgment →
• First Dawood Investment Bank Limited vs Bank Islami Pakistan Limited2020 CLD 49 · Sindh High Court · 2013-10-31Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain vs The State2020 SHC 1154 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-02
  narcoticsdefective chargede novo trialfailure of justicecriminal appealremandpossession of charas
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the possession and transportation of narcotics, specifically charas, following a remand order in a previous round of litigation. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether a defective charge, which failed to specify the material allegations regarding the recovery of two kilograms of charas from the appellant's personal search and the transportation of two additional sacks containing 36 and 37 kilograms respectively, vitiated the trial. The Court held that the omission in the charge was a fundamental defect that could not be cured under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it resulted in a failure of justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the trial court to frame a fresh charge incorporating all material allegations and to conduct a de novo trial. The key principle laid down is that a charge must explicitly contain all material allegations to ensure a fair trial, and failure to do so, where it prejudices the accused, necessitates a retrial rather than being curable under procedural saving clauses.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to include material allegations in a charge constitute a curable defect under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the charge fails to specify the details of the alleged recovery of narcotics?
  • Is a de novo trial required when a defective charge results in a failure of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Feroze Sajan and 3 others vs Farzana Sajan2021 PLD Sindh 88, 2020 SHC 300 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-20Read full judgment →
• Feroz Ali Gaba vs Karachi Fisheries Harbour Authority and 2 others2020 YLR 1993 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-08Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain alias Faqeera and others vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 311 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-07
  criminal appealbenefit of doubteye-witness testimonyretracted confessionanti-terrorismmurder convictionidentification paradereasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by an Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and terrorism-related offences. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance on a chance witness, retracted judicial confessions, and extra-judicial confessions. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The court found the eye-witness testimony unreliable due to the witness's relationship with the deceased, unexplained delays in recording statements, and lack of independent corroboration. Furthermore, the court determined that the judicial confession was not voluntary or truthful, and the extra-judicial confessions were inconsequential. Emphasizing the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence, the court ruled that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted, with the court noting the absence of independent witnesses and the failure to recover the murder weapon.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of a single eye-witness who is a police officer related to the deceased without independent corroboration?
  • Is a retracted judicial confession sufficient for conviction if the context suggests it was not made voluntarily or truthfully?
  • Does the failure to recover the alleged murder weapon and the discrepancy in ballistic reports entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Can a conviction be based on extra-judicial confessions when the police already had knowledge of the crime scene and the accused were in custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Ltd vs Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1414 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Limited and another vs Banking Mohtasib and others2020 CLD 548 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-26Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Ali Lakhair and others vs The State2020 SHC 1230 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencyprohibitory clausedelay in FIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through a bail application filed by the applicants seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of unexplained delay in the First Information Report, application of the rule of consistency vis-a-vis co-accused who were already granted bail, and whether the alleged offences fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the inordinate delay, admitted enmity, and the principle of consistency entitled the applicants to pre-arrest bail, particularly since the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497. The key principles laid down include the application of the rule of consistency in granting bail when co-accused with identical roles have been granted relief, and that bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule while refusal is an exception.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report constitutes a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused facing identical allegations have already been granted pre-arrest bail?
  • Is bail to be granted as a rule and refused as an exception in offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Sports Wear Ltd & Ors vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd2020 SHC 814 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07Read full judgment →
• Farzana Shafique vs Federation of Pakistan and 02 others2020 SHC 986 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-17Read full judgment →
• Faruqi House Building Coporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs M. Sohail Shakil2020 YLR 2166 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-04Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Tufail vs The State2020 SHC 1276 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-09Read full judgment →
• Farooq vs Musavir Ahmed and 3 others2020 P Cr. L J 328 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-01
  criminal acquittal appealpresumption of double innocenceidentification paradeforensic evidencebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencemurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt to warrant setting aside the acquittal. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable case. The Court emphasized that an appeal against acquittal carries a presumption of double innocence, requiring clear proof that the trial court's decision was perverse or arbitrary to justify interference. The judgment highlighted several fatal flaws in the prosecution's case: an inordinate delay in holding the identification parade, failure to properly document the identification process (omitting details of dummies), unexplained delay in sending crime weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and significant improvements and contradictions in the testimonies of eye-witnesses. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that failure to send blood-stained earth and victim's clothing alongside crime weapons for serological analysis renders forensic reports inconclusive as corroboratory evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory destroy the evidential value of the recovery?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to record the particulars of dummies used during an identification parade?
  • Can an acquittal be set aside if the prosecution fails to send blood-stained earth and victim's clothing alongside crime weapons for serological analysis?
  • What is the standard of interference required by an appellate court when reviewing an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Farnaz Ahmed vs Faysal Bank Limited2020 SHC 1204 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-23Read full judgment →
• Faraz Memon vs The State2020 SHC 738, 2022 MLD 657 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-31Read full judgment →
• Faraz Ahmed Baloch and another vs The State2020 YLR 2388 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-21
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtbank fraudhandwriting expertembezzlementforgeryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of two bank employees, Faraz Ahmed Baloch and Shafiq Ahmed Abro, for offences under sections 409, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, related to the fraudulent withdrawal of funds from a customer's account. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the systemic failure of bank security protocols, the sharing of passwords/IDs among staff, and the failure of the investigation to verify the signature of the Operations Manager on the disputed cheque. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the appellants and the alleged fraud. It noted that the Operations Manager, who supervised the transaction, had admitted to sharing his ID and was later terminated, and the investigation failed to send the disputed signature to a handwriting expert. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, ruling that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. The key principle reaffirmed is that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to send a disputed signature to a handwriting expert create reasonable doubt in a criminal trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish a direct link between the accused and the commission of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs Federation of Pakistan & another2020 SHC 1306 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmed vs Mst. Soni and 2 others2020 CLC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-30
  maintenanceunmarried daughterconstitutional petitionpleadingsfamily lawconcurrent findingswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition challenging concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts whereby a family suit for maintenance filed by the respondent wife against the petitioner was partly decreed, granting past maintenance to the wife and past and future maintenance to the unmarried daughter, alongside an annual increase. The core legal question was whether the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts regarding maintenance and the rejection of an unpleaded plea of divorce warranted interference under constitutional jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence by two courts below cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction, reiterating that parties are strictly bound by their pleadings and cannot adduce evidence or raise contentions beyond them. The High Court established the principle that a husband and father is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife and his unmarried daughter until her marriage, and that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate forum to re-agitate disputed questions of fact, particularly when the petitioner's conduct is mala fide and contumacious.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by family courts regarding maintenance can be disturbed in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Is a party allowed to adduce evidence or raise a contention regarding a plea not specifically taken in the pleadings?
  • What is the extent of a father's legal obligation to provide maintenance to his daughter under the law?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be converted into an appellate forum to re-agitate disputed questions of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal vs The State2020 SHC 1376 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
• Fair Sea International FZC vs MV "Miski" and others2020 CLC 515, 2020 CLD 139 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-23
  admiralty jurisdictionsupply of necessariesmaritime lienpriority of claimsstranded vesselport duescommercial operator
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an admiralty suit filed by a corporate entity from the United Arab Emirates against a foreign-flagged vessel and its owner for the recovery of outstanding dues, supply of necessaries, and expenses incurred while the vessel remained stranded at Karachi Port. The core legal questions relate to the existence of a business relationship, the liability of the defendants for supplies and necessaries, the jurisdiction over claims arising prior to the vessel's arrival in Pakistani waters, and the priority of maritime claims against the sale proceeds of the vessel. The court held that the plaintiff established a valid business relationship and is entitled to recover expenses and costs for necessaries provided from the date the vessel entered Pakistani territorial waters. The court laid down principles regarding the order of priority of maritime claims, affirming that port authority dues rank first, followed by crew wages as maritime liens, mortgagees, and claims for necessaries respectively.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a business relationship exists between a commercial operator and the ship owner for the supply of necessaries?
  • Can a plaintiff claim expenses and costs incurred prior to the vessel entering the territorial waters of Pakistan in an admiralty action?
  • What is the order of priority for the settlement of maritime claims and liens against the sale proceeds of a vessel?
  • Are port authority charges entitled to the highest priority over other maritime claims including mortgages and crew wages?
  Read full judgment →
• Faique Ali Jagirani & Another vs The Government of Sindh & Others2021 PLD Sindh 139, 2020 SHC 244 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• Fahim Ali vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 963, 2021 YLR 159 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-18
  criminal appealreduction of sentenceexplosive substancesanti-terrorismmitigating circumstancesquantum of punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 353, 324, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question revolved around the propriety of the conviction and the quantum of sentence given the mitigating circumstances. The Sindh High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone, considering factors such as his young age, status as a first offender, being the sole breadwinner for his family, and the time already spent in incarceration. The court laid down the principle that while evaluating sentences and charges under anti-terrorism legislation, courts must carefully examine the object, design, or purpose of the act, and consider mitigating circumstances such as youth and family dependency when determining the quantum of punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of an accused convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and the Explosive Substances Act 1908 can be reduced to the period already undergone based on mitigating circumstances?
  • Is it obligatory for the prosecution to establish the object, design, or purpose of an act to sustain a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can the trial court award maximum sentence without appreciating attending circumstances such as the appellant being a first offender and sole bread earner?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem vs The State2020 SHC 624 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Faheem Arshadullah s/o Muhammad Arshadullah vs The State2020 SHC 376, 2022 PCr. LJ 353 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-21
  bank fraudmisappropriationcriminal breach of trustSection 342 statementappellate jurisdictionevidence appreciationbank embezzlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by bank employees convicted of misappropriation and fraud regarding a cash shortfall of approximately 38.9 million rupees at a bank branch. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given the appellants' claims of innocence and mutual finger-pointing. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution's evidence—comprising ocular testimony, documentary records, and the appellants' own admissions during their statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—was reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the appellants failed to rebut the evidence or provide a credible defense. The key principle laid down is that where an accused person admits to the prosecution's allegations or facts during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, such admissions can be legally utilized to support a conviction, provided the overall evidence remains consistent and credible.

  Questions settled

  • Can admissions made by an accused during their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to support a conviction?
  • Does the prosecution's failure to examine handwriting experts invalidate a conviction for bank fraud if other evidence is sufficient?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the accused persons merely shift blame to one another without providing exculpatory evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem Ahmed vs The State2020 YLR 1354 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-30
  post-arrest bailGutka and Panparagfurther inquirycriminal jurisprudencebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant Faheem Ahmed, who was charged with possessing 40 packets of Gutka and Panparag weighing 9000 grams under Section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the basic ingredients of the charged offence were made out and whether the applicant made a case for post-arrest bail. The court held that since no public complainant, purchaser, or victim was present or identified at the scene to whom the alleged substance was administered or sold, the essential ingredients of Section 337-J were lacking at this stage. Consequently, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the bail application was allowed. The key principle laid down is that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground for withholding bail, and the prosecution cannot be granted undue latitude at the bail stage when foundational ingredients of the penal provision are absent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a purchaser or victim at the scene makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in offences under Section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can bail be withheld merely on the ground that the alleged offence is heinous in nature?
  • Does the prosecution get the benefit of stretched interpretation of law at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem Ahmed Farooqi vs Govt Of Sindh & Other2020 SHC 1094 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
• Fahad Ahmed vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1036 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-20Read full judgment →
• Engro Foods Ltd vs Pakistan & others2020 SHC 1002 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Efu General Insurance Ltd vs M/s. Emirates Airline /Emirates Sky Cargo and2021 CLC 824, 2020 SHC 340 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-06Read full judgment →
• East West Insurance Co. Limited vs Federal Insurance Ombudsman and others2020 P C T L R 1023, 2019 PLD Sindh 557, 2019 CLD 993 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-08Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zaib Siddique vs Muhammad Arshad Zaidi and 5 others2020 YLR 1476 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-21
  criminal acquittal appealcommon intentionpolice high-handednessappreciation of evidenceperverse judgmentSection 337-D PPCSection 34 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the trial court's judgment acquitting police personnel of charges under Sections 324, 337-D, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, following an incident where the complainant and his sister-in-law were assaulted by police officials, resulting in permanent disability to the victim. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of evidence and whether the respondents acted with common intention. The High Court held that the trial court’s acquittal was perverse, as it ignored consistent, credible eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical reports and official police records. The Court ruled that the respondents’ actions, including the chase and subsequent assault, demonstrated a common intention under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. It established that common intention does not require direct evidence of a prearranged plan but can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the parties. Consequently, the acquittal was set aside, and the respondents were convicted and sentenced for their criminal acts.

  Questions settled

  • Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be inferred from the conduct of the parties without direct evidence of a prearranged plan?
  • Does the close relationship of eyewitnesses to the complainant automatically invalidate their testimony in a criminal trial?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with an acquittal judgment passed by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zafar Ul Haq & Others vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 SHC 900 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Waqar Saeed and others vs The State and others2020 P Cr. L J 902 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-21
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictionabuse of processcivil disputeprivate complaintSection 561-A Cr.P.C.Section 200 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two Criminal Miscellaneous Applications filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of proceedings in a Special Case initiated by a private complaint. The core legal questions were whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when the underlying dispute is essentially civil in nature, and whether the trial court erred in ordering the registration of a case without examining the complainant on oath as required by Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of law, as the trial court failed to apply its judicial mind to determine if any cognizable offence existed, and the matter was clearly a civil property dispute. The Court affirmed that while Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides an alternative remedy, the High Court’s inherent power under Section 561-A remains available to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice when proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction or mala fide.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings even if an alternative remedy under Section 249-A exists?
  • Is a trial court required to record the statement of a complainant on oath under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before taking cognizance of a private complaint?
  • Does the initiation of criminal proceedings for a dispute that is essentially civil in nature constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sheeraz-Ur-Rehman and others vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary2020 CLC 2037 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-17Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sarfaraz Ameer vs Nooruddin & Others2020 SHC 208 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-04
  criminal acquittal appealkidnapping for ransombenefit of doubtidentification paradeappreciation of evidencedelayed FIRanti-terrorism court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court, which acquitted the respondents of charges related to kidnapping for ransom and firing upon police. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of evidence or if it warranted interference. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the three-day delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of the accused's names in the FIR, the failure to conduct an identification parade, and the lack of Call Detail Record (CDR) data created significant gaps in the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of interested witnesses rendered the evidence unreliable. The court affirmed that where the prosecution fails to provide a plausible explanation for such deficiencies, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the appellate court found no illegality in the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Is an identification parade mandatory when the accused are not named in the FIR?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment if the trial court has provided sound reasoning based on the evidence?
  • What is the effect of failing to produce Call Detail Record (CDR) data in a case involving ransom demands?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Salman Gul Silawat vs Chancellor Of University Of Sindh and 7 others2020 MLD 714 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-19Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nazia Khuwaja vs The State2020 SHC 1244 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Khan Shar & others vs President Pakistan Medical2020 SHC 606, 2022 MLD 626 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Hassan and others vs Additional Controller Of Rent, Clifton2020 CLC 1720 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-06Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mir Nusrat Ali Panhwar vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 1426 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mashhood-uz-Zafar Farooq vs Province of Sindh and 03 others2020 SHC 944 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Maryam Shafiqu vs Chancellor, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science2020 SHC 252 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-17
  constitutional petitiontermination of servicereinstatementintervening periodservice benefitsFundamental Rule 54
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioner challenging her termination from service as an Assistant Professor by the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology. During the proceedings, the respondent university withdrew the impugned termination letter and restored the petitioner's service, but treated the intervening period of absence as non-duty. The core legal question was whether an employee, upon the unconditional withdrawal and setting aside of an illegal termination order, is entitled to reinstatement from the original date of termination along with service benefits for the intervening period under Fundamental Rule 54. The Court held that the withdrawal of the unjustified termination order entitles the employee to reinstatement from the date of termination and that treating the intervening period as non-duty violates Fundamental Rule 54. The Court laid down the principle that the statutory consequences of setting aside a removal or termination on merits include the right to have the intervening period treated as duty and to receive consequential service benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee whose termination order is withdrawn on merits is entitled to reinstatement from the original date of termination?
  • Does the withdrawal of an illegal termination order attract the application of Fundamental Rule 54 regarding the treatment of the intervening period?
  • Is an employer justified in treating the period of absence resulting from an illegal termination as non-duty after the termination order has been rescinded?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. M.H. Mughal vs Province of Sindh & another2020 SHC 646 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-13Read full judgment →