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.

• Anjum Rehmat and another vs Squadron Leader (R) Shaikh Ghulam Sadiq2020 CLC 1555 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
• Anjum Badar vs Province of Sindh and Others2020 SHC 238 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-12Read full judgment →
• Anjleena vs SSP District Umerkot & others2020 SHC 780 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-05Read full judgment →
• Anees-Ur-Rehman vs Messrs Faysal Bank Limited through Manager2020 CLD 473 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
• Anees-ur-Rehman vs Faysal Bank Limited through Manager2020 P C T L R 1382 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Anas Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 SHC 1310 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-11Read full judgment →
• Anant kumar Parshotam vs Mem. of Managing Comt. Narayan Temple2020 SHC 247 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Amjad and another vs The State2020 YLR 1856 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clauserecovery proceedingsnon-compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C.hazardous materialGutkha
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns two applicants charged with the possession of hazardous Gutkha under Sections 269, 270, and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the alleged procedural irregularities in the police investigation and the nature of the offense. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution failed to associate any private witnesses during the recovery proceedings, thereby violating the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court observed a suspicious five-hour delay in reporting the incident and determined that the ingredients of Section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required determination through trial evidence, rendering the case one of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to comply with mandatory procedural requirements regarding recovery and the ingredients of the offense remain to be established at trial, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses during a recovery violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a charge under Section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a case be considered one of further inquiry when the ingredients of the charged offense require evidence to be determined at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Hassan vs The State2020 SHC 650 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-17
  post-arrest bailGutka and Manpuri Actprohibitory clausepolice witnessesfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Amir Hassan, who was charged under sections 4, 5, and 8 of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storing, Sale and Using of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019, following the recovery of alleged Gutka sachets. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail pending trial, given the nature of the offences and the evidentiary circumstances. The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution's case relied entirely on police witnesses without independent corroboration or mashirs of recovery. The court emphasized that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that continued incarceration pending trial, where the accused is no longer required for investigation, serves no useful purpose. The key principle laid down is that where evidence is solely based on police officials and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the scale of justice tilts in favor of granting bail to avoid unjustified incarceration pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses or mashirs of recovery entitle an accused to bail when the prosecution case rests solely on police officials?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should an accused be kept in custody pending trial when they are no longer required for further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Shah vs The State2020 SHC 538 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07
  criminal appealhurtocular evidencemedical corroborationdelay in FIRacquittal of co-accusedinterested witnessesappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing permanent visual impairment to the injured by a crystal glass blow to the eye. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, the explanation of delay in lodging the FIR through a Justice of Peace order under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the acquittal of co-accused vitiates the conviction of the main appellant on the same evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony and supporting medical evidence, and that the delay in the FIR was satisfactorily explained. The court affirmed the conviction, establishing that the mere relationship of witnesses does not discredit their testimony and that differential treatment of co-accused based on distinct roles is legally sound.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony of injured and related witnesses can sustain a conviction when supported by medical evidence?
  • Does a delay in lodging the FIR vitiate the prosecution case when the delay is explained by resort to Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the acquittal of co-accused persons automatically result in the acquittal of the main appellant tried on the same set of evidence?
  • Does the mere relationship of private witnesses to the victim render their testimony unreliable without proof of bias or enmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameer Khan & Others vs Province Of Sindh & Others2020 SHC 1368 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-18Read full judgment →
• Ameer Bux vs P.O Sindh & Others2020 SHC 694 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• Ameer Ali vs The State2020 SHC 568 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Ameer Alam vs The State2020 MLD 847 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-31
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrecovery of hazardous materialGutkhanon-compliance with section 103 CrPCbailable offencespresumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from the arrest of the applicant for the alleged possession of Gutkha and Mawa, registered under sections 269, 270, and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the nature of the alleged offences. The High Court observed that the prosecution failed to associate independent witnesses despite the public location of the incident, violating section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies in the timing of the police report and the distance traveled. The court held that sections 269 and 270 are bailable, and regarding section 337-J, the essential ingredients required for conviction remained to be determined at trial, rendering the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted bail, reiterating the principle that the law cannot be stretched in favor of the prosecution at the bail stage and that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses in a recovery case constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are offences under sections 269 and 270 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable?
  • Does the mere possession of Gutkha and Mawa satisfy the ingredients of section 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs The State2020 SHC 348 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-08
  post-arrest bailarmed robberystatutory delaytentative assessmentfurther inquiryCovid-19 pandemic
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged with armed robbery under Sections 392 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The accused was apprehended at the scene with stolen items and weapons, and the F.I.R. was registered promptly. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on claims of a fabricated case and statutory delay, particularly in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Court held that the application for bail must be dismissed. It determined that the prosecution presented sufficient tangible evidence linking the applicant to the offence, and the arguments raised did not warrant further inquiry. Regarding the claim of statutory delay, the Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate the requisite period of detention under the Third Proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that bail cannot be granted on the ground of statutory delay without meeting the specific temporal requirements of the law, and that pandemic-related concerns do not automatically override the legal standards for custody regulation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a pandemic justify the relaxation of statutory requirements for bail based on delay?
  • What is the minimum period of detention required to invoke the ground of statutory delay under the Third Proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused claim entitlement to bail on the ground of statutory delay within four months of the alleged offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan vs Ahtisham Khan and 3 others2020 P Cr. L J 152 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-19
  acquittal appealdishonoured chequecriminal breach of trustdouble presumption of innocencemisreading of evidencedelay in FIRcommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment dated 12.07.2017 passed by the Xth Judicial Magistrate, Malir Karachi, whereby respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted under section 245(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case arising from FIR No. 229 of 2014 registered under sections 489-F, 406, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused of charges relating to the issuance of a dishonoured cheque and criminal breach of trust, despite the prosecution's evidence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the scope of interference against an acquittal is narrow, as the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence. The Court found that material contradictions existed in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, an unexplained delay of ten months occurred in lodging the FIR, and a civil suit for the cancellation of the cheque was pending, rendering the prosecution case doubtful. Consequently, the trial court's judgment of acquittal was maintained, reaffirming the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with an acquittal unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from gross misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does the issuance of a dishonoured cheque under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 stand established when material contradictions exist regarding its delivery and a civil dispute is pending?
  • What effect does an unexplained delay of ten months in lodging an FIR have on a criminal prosecution?
  • When should the benefit of doubt arising from contradictions in prosecution witness statements be extended to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah & 03 others vs Province of Sindh and 04 others2020 SHC 884 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-26Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali Mangi vs S.H.O P.S Hassan Wahan And Others2020 SHC 686 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-18Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ahmed S/O Gul Hassan Shaikh vs The State2020 MLD 1676, 2020 SHC 272 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-06
  accountability appealcorruption and corrupt practicesmisappropriation of fundsghost shopvoluntary returnimpersonation pleabogus vouchers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal accountability appeal was filed against the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellant under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, read with serial numbers 4 and 5 of the schedule, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and fine for corruption and corrupt practices. The prosecution case alleged that the appellant, working as an electrician in TMA Sehwan Sharif, fraudulently acted as a contractor, received illegal payments through bogus vouchers and ghost shops, and deposited misappropriated funds into personal bank accounts. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the charges of corruption, fraudulent misappropriation, and operation of fake bank accounts beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established its case through trustworthy oral and documentary evidence, including bank account opening documents containing the appellant's genuine photographs and CNICs, while rejecting the appellant's unproven plea of impersonation and fake signatures. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Can an accused sustain a plea of impersonation and forged signatures without taking legal steps during trial such as moving an application for signature verification?
  • Whether bank account documents containing the accused's actual CNIC and photograph are sufficient to disprove a claim that the account was opened by others without the accused's knowledge?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Warrayo vs Mst. Ladan and 3 others2020 MLD 334 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-13
  criminal acquittal appealjudicial confessiondelayed FIROaths Actpolice custodyappellate interferencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tharparkar, which acquitted the respondents of murder charges under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of a judicial confession recorded in violation of procedural safeguards and the validity of an acquittal based on delayed FIR reporting and lack of corroborative evidence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's acquittal was based on a plausible view of the evidence. The Court found the judicial confession inadmissible because it was recorded on oath in violation of Section 5 of the Oaths Act 1873, the accused was returned to police custody post-confession, and the Magistrate failed to ensure the accused understood the proceedings. Furthermore, the 14-day delay in lodging the FIR without explanation rendered the prosecution's case doubtful. The Court reaffirmed the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s reasoning is perverse or wholly unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judicial confession recorded on oath admissible in evidence?
  • Does returning an accused to police custody after a judicial confession invalidate the confession?
  • Should an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment if the trial court's view is plausible?
  • What is the legal effect of a significant unexplained delay in lodging an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakhio vs Muhammad Usman and 2 others2020 CLC 1331 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-11
  malicious prosecutionplaint rejectionOrder VII Rule 11 CPCbenefit of doubtdamages suitcivil revisionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Application challenged the dismissal of an appeal, which had upheld the rejection of a plaint for damages arising from malicious prosecution under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The applicant had been acquitted in a criminal case, but the acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, not on a finding that the case was false. The High Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that for a suit of malicious prosecution, it is crucial to establish that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause and with malice, and that the criminal proceedings were found to be false, not merely resulted in an acquittal on benefit of doubt. The court also noted the absence of particulars of damages in the plaint. Finding no illegality or jurisdictional defect, the Revision Application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for damages for malicious prosecution be maintained where the criminal acquittal was based on benefit of doubt?
  • What are the essential ingredients for establishing a suit for damages on account of malicious prosecution?
  • Is it necessary to show that the criminal case was false to succeed in a malicious prosecution claim?
  • Can a plaint for malicious prosecution be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if key ingredients are missing?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakhio son of Gul Muhammad Jamali vs Ali Asghar son of Kamal2020 SHC 1194 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Allah Jurio vs Commandant/Principal Cadet College Sanghar2020 SHC 480 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-05Read full judgment →
• Allah Jurio & Others vs The State2020 SHC 1104 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryFIR delayabductionmatrimonial disputecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicants, who were accused of trespassing into the complainant's house, abducting two women, and causing injuries to a prosecution witness. The applicants sought post-arrest bail after being refused by the Sessions Court, arguing their innocence, the existence of a prior matrimonial dispute, the delayed registration of the FIR, and the minor nature of the injuries sustained. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry and mala fides. The High Court held that the five-hour delay in lodging the FIR, the fact that the alleged abductees returned to their parents on the same day, the minor nature of the injuries, and the existing matrimonial dispute between the parties collectively established a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicants, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds, emphasizing that unexplained delays and surrounding circumstances warrant relief pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can the existence of a prior matrimonial dispute between parties be considered a factor in granting post-arrest bail?
  • Is the return of alleged abductees to their parents on the same day of the incident a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux Khan Unar vs Sohail Anwar Siyal & Others2021 MLD 49, 2020 SHC 242 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs The State2020 SHC 1256 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealSindh Arms Actshort sentenceappellate relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the suspension of sentence and release on bail pending the hearing of an appeal against a conviction under the Sindh Arms Act. The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the possession of an unlicensed 12-bore country-made pistol and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the sentence should be suspended and the appellant released on bail during the pendency of the appeal, given the relatively short duration of the sentence and the likelihood of delay in the appellate proceedings. The Court held that because the sentence was short and the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future, it was appropriate to suspend the operation of the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Court granted the application, ordering the appellant's release on bail subject to the furnishing of surety and a personal recognizance bond. The judgment reaffirms the principle that suspension of sentence is generally appropriate where the sentence is short and the appellate hearing is not imminent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended pending the disposal of an appeal if the sentence is of a short duration?
  • Is the consent of the State a relevant factor in granting bail pending appeal?
  • Does the likelihood of delay in the appellate hearing justify the suspension of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher Rahu vs The State2020 SHC 120 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-03
  dishonoured chequecriminal revisionbenefit of doubtfraudulent issuance of chequeacquittalmaterial contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application arises from concurrent judgments of the trial court and appellate court convicting and sentencing the applicant under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution successfully established all ingredients of the offence under Section 489-F, particularly the issuance of a cheque with dishonest intention for the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, beyond reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court allowed the revision application and set aside the lower courts' judgments, holding that the prosecution's case was fraught with material contradictions, an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and a lack of proof regarding the existence of a legally enforceable obligation or loan at the time of issuing the cheque. The court laid down the principle that mere issuance of a dishonoured cheque does not constitute an offence under Section 489-F unless it is conclusively established that it was issued with a dishonest intention for the repayment of a loan or the discharge of an obligation, and that any reasonable doubt arising in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients that must be proved by the prosecution to sustain a conviction under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the mere issuance of a cheque that is subsequently dishonoured automatically constitute an offence under Section 489-F PPC without proof of dishonest intention or obligation?
  • To what extent does an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR affect the credibility of a prosecution case involving a dishonoured cheque?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when material contradictions and discrepancies exist in the prosecution's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz and 4 others vs The State2020 YLR 1843 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-20
  kidnapping for ransomcriminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtanti-terrorismacquittalrecovery on pointationFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Hyderabad, which convicted the appellants for kidnapping for ransom under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the alleged evidentiary irregularities. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing significant gaps in the evidence. Specifically, the court noted that the delay in registering the FIR was fatal, the recovery of the abductees on the appellants' pointation was suspicious, and the identification parade was conducted improperly, failing to adhere to established judicial precedents. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, reaffirming that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and that procedural lapses in identification and investigation undermine the reliability of the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR in kidnapping cases automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • What are the legal requirements for conducting a valid identification parade in criminal cases?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the recovery of abductees on the pointation of the accused is found to be suspicious?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Murtaza and Others vs Province Of Sindh and Others2020 SHC 1184 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-16Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad Sipio vs Employees' Old Age Benefits Institution and 03 others2020 SHC 964 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-27
  service lawpromotioneligibility criteriaconstitutional jurisdictionadministrative policyvested rightEOBI
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI), filed a constitutional petition challenging the withholding of his promotion to the post of Deputy Director. The core legal question was whether the EOBI could lawfully mandate capacity-building training as a prerequisite for promotion and whether the petitioner’s failure to pass such training justified withholding his promotion. The petitioner argued that the training requirement was illegal, discriminatory, and violated his constitutional rights. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that promotion is not a vested right and that the determination of eligibility criteria, including training requirements, falls within the exclusive administrative and policy-making domain of the employer. The Court distinguished between eligibility and fitness, noting that the former relates to service conditions while the latter is a subjective evaluation. Consequently, the Court ruled that it would not interfere in the administrative policy of the EOBI, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any discrimination or violation of law regarding the training requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee have a vested right to promotion that precludes an employer from setting mandatory training requirements?
  • Is the determination of promotion eligibility criteria an administrative matter beyond the scope of judicial interference under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can a court interfere with an employer's policy requiring capacity-building training for promotion if the policy is applied uniformly?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Learned Addl Session JUdge2020 SHC 138 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and 4 others vs Learned Additional District Judge-III, Dadu and 14 others2020 CLC 365 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-05Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan son of Ghulam Nabi Mahessar vs The State2020 SHC 1090 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-26
  murderrelated witnessesocular evidencemedical corroborationabscondencemotivecriminal appealdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased following allegations of "Karo", resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involve whether the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration, whether delay in lodging the FIR vitiates the prosecution case, and whether the prosecution successfully established the motive and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not render them "interested witnesses" in the legal sense if their presence at the scene is natural and their testimony is consistent and trustworthy. The Court affirmed the conviction, finding the ocular account corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of crime empties, while slightly modifying the default sentence for non-payment of compensation. The key principle laid down is that related witnesses are natural witnesses whose testimony cannot be discarded solely on the ground of kinship unless a strong motive for false substitution is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an eye-witness can be discarded solely on the ground of a close familial relationship with the deceased?
  • Does a delay of a few hours in lodging the First Information Report, when satisfactorily explained by taking the injured to the hospital, damage the prosecution case?
  • Whether the uncorroborated ocular account of natural witnesses, supported by medical evidence, is sufficient to maintain a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the abscondence of an accused person be considered as an incriminating circumstance supporting the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali J. Siddiqui through Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and others2020 PLD Sindh 9 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-22
  territorial jurisdictionNAB inquirycall-up noticeprotective bailNational Accountability Ordinance 1999Securities and Exchange Commission Act 1997criminal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court to challenge an inquiry and call-up notice issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Lahore against the petitioner, a director of M/s Azgard Nine Limited and M/s Agritech Limited, regarding alleged siphoning of corporate funds and fraudulent sale of company shares. The petitioner argued that the inquiry was barred under Section 41B of the Securities and Exchange Commission Act, 1997, and Section 31D of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and that the Sindh High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction because the petitioner resided in Karachi, the transactions occurred through the Karachi Stock Exchange, and relevant approvals were granted in Karachi. The core legal questions involved whether the Sindh High Court had territorial jurisdiction to quash an inquiry conducted by NAB Lahore, and whether the inquiry was barred by special regulatory laws. The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge because the place of occurrence, corporate head office, and prospective trial court were located in Lahore, and the petitioner's residence or service of notices in Karachi did not confer territorial jurisdiction in criminal and accountability matters. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as to quashment, but converted into a petition for protective bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction to quash an inquiry or call-up notice issued by a regional bureau of the National Accountability Bureau located in another province merely because the petitioner resides within its territorial limits?
  • What is the determinative factor for establishing territorial jurisdiction in criminal inquiries and proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Whether the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Act, 1997 bar the National Accountability Bureau from initiating inquiries into regulated corporate activities without a prior reference from the Commission?
  • Can a constitutional petition challenging a criminal inquiry conducted by a regional accountability bureau in another province be maintained under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan vs The State2020 SHC 656 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-17
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseGutka and Mainpuri Actrecovery without private mashirbail not jail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant Ali Hassan seeking post-arrest bail after being unsuccessful before the trial court in Crime No. 56 of 2020 registered under Section 8 of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation Manufacturing Storage Sale & Use of Gutka, Mainpuri Act, 2019. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail for an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly where no private mashir was associated with the recovery from a busy area and the accused had no previous criminal record. The Sindh High Court allowed the application and admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, holding that since the offence carried a maximum punishment of three years and did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the case fell under the rule of 'bail not jail', especially as further investigation was complete and the trial would take time. The key principle laid down is that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. generally warrant the grant of bail, particularly in the absence of a previous criminal record and when the accused is no longer required for investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged under Section 8 of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation Manufacturing Storage Sale & Use of Gutka, Mainpuri Act, 2019 is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  • Does the failure to associate private independent witnesses from a locality during a daytime recovery from a busy area justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is bail to be granted as a general rule when an offence is punishable for three years and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul vs The State2020 MLD 952 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-24
  criminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRdefective investigationinterested witnessesocular evidencecapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of his cousin. The prosecution alleged that the appellant intercepted the victim's vehicle, engaged in a verbal altercation over a refused lift, and shot the deceased. The defense argued that the appellant was falsely implicated due to a property dispute, noting that the FIR was lodged with a 20-hour delay and initially named unknown assailants. The Sindh High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies, including the failure to name the accused in the initial police report, the lack of credible motive, and the absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime scene. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation was defective and that the eyewitness testimony was unreliable due to improvements made during trial. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the death sentence was not confirmed, with the benefit of the doubt extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, especially when initial reports name unknown persons, create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution's eyewitnesses are closely related and have significantly improved their testimony from their initial statements?
  • Is it legally permissible to rely on eyewitness testimony when the motive alleged is inherently implausible and contradicts natural human conduct?
  • What is the legal consequence of a defective police investigation where the chain of custody for evidence is broken and key witnesses are withheld?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul vs The State and others2020 SHC 988 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar and another vs Abdullah Mallah & others2021 CLC 1102, 2020 SHC 684 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs Province of Sindh and Others2020 SHC 320 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar Dawood Bhoy through Attorney vs Ibrahim2020 CLC 1503 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Akber vs The State2020 YLR 503 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-13
  narcotics possessionsafe custodychemical examinerbenefit of doubtinvestigation by complainantcriminal appealreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of eight kilograms of charas. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the safe custody of the recovered narcotics and the integrity of the investigation. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court identified critical flaws: the prosecution did not establish the safe custody or secure transmission of the narcotic samples to the chemical examiner, as the transporting official was not examined. Furthermore, the court noted material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the arrest proceedings and the failure to associate independent witnesses at a busy public location. Additionally, the court emphasized that the complainant investigating his own case compromises fairness. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the police official responsible for transporting narcotic samples to the chemical examiner create a fatal gap in the prosecution's case?
  • Can a complainant legally investigate the case in which they are the complainant?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a public place during a recovery operation render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Afzal Shaikh and another vs The State and another2020 PTD 791 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-21
  premature acquittalcustoms duty evasiondefective chargeparticulars of time and placeinvestigative flawsadjudication and prosecutioncriminal liability of directors
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal revision and miscellaneous applications filed against the dismissal of applications under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C. seeking premature acquittal in a case registered under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question concerned whether the applicants could be subjected to a full trial despite grave investigative flaws, omission of essential particulars regarding the time and place of the alleged tax evasion, and the full recovery of duties, taxes, and penalties during prior adjudication proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from incurable ambiguities, selective nomination of accused persons, and failure to establish foundational ingredients of the offence, rendering any future conviction impossible. The court laid down the principle that the absence of specific particulars as to the time, duration, and place of an alleged offence in the charge and challan is fatal to the prosecution, and that continuing a trial where deficiencies in investigation guarantee failure amounts to an abuse of the process of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of specific particulars regarding the time and place of an alleged offence in the FIR and challan is fatal to the prosecution?
  • Can an accused be subjected to a full trial when investigative deficiencies and selective prosecution render any possibility of conviction non-existent?
  • Whether the payment of duties, taxes, and penalties during adjudication proceedings bars criminal proceedings against corporate directors?
  • At what stage can an application for premature acquittal be entertained under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Aleemuddin vs The State (NAB)2021 YLR 1464, 2020 SHC 752 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-17
  corruption and corrupt practicesillegal sale of government landfake Gothabad sanadsburden of proofbenefit of the doubthandwriting expertproof of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellants for corruption and corrupt practices relating to the illegal sale of government land and issuance of fake Gothabad scheme sanads. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the evidentiary value of unverified sale agreements and forensic reports. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to produce trustworthy, confidence-inspiring evidence, noting critical flaws in the proof of documents under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order and identifying coercion in the testimony of key witnesses. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key legal principles laid down are that the initial burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and never shifts unless the guilt is established, that an unverified and unattested sale agreement lacks evidentiary value, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unverified sale agreement lacking attesting witnesses is admissible and holds evidentiary value under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 before the prosecution discharges its initial burden?
  • Whether the opinion of a forensic expert regarding signatures can be relied upon when the disputed signatures were never submitted for expert verification during investigation?
  • Is the benefit of reasonable doubt to be extended to an accused person as a matter of right when the prosecution evidence is contradictory and untrustworthy?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamzaib vs Province of Sindh through Secretary and 3 others2020 CLC 384 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-11Read full judgment →
• Al-Rukaya Traders/Sole Proprietorship through Attorney vs Central Board2020 CLC 1767 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-16Read full judgment →
• Al-Hassan Tech E Eng SVC (Pvt) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2021 CLC 666, 2020 SHC 184 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
• Al-Haj Sheikh Abdul Hafeez and another vs Suhail Zaman and 6 others2020 PLD Sindh 208 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-18Read full judgment →
• Al-Habib Coop. Housing Society Ltd vs Shamim Barlas2021 YLR 141, 2020 SHC 338 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-05Read full judgment →
• Al Ghazi Traders Ltd vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2020 SHC 1122 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zareen vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 229 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-29
  plea of guiltadmission of accusedretrialcriminal administration of justicemiscarriage of justiceomission to frame judgment on chargesection 342 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine under sections 353, 324, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising out of a trial where he was originally charged under section 302 among other provisions. The core legal question was whether a trial court can validly record a conviction solely on the basis of a subsequent admission or plea of guilt made during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without following mandatory procedural requirements, and omit to dispose of the primary capital charge of murder. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's judgment was plagued with grave procedural illegalities, including the failure to determine the murder charge, the improper use of an unverified admission without a show-cause notice, and the unwarranted closure of the prosecution case despite available witnesses. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanded the matter for retrial from the stage of 5 March 2018 to be concluded within six months, and directed departmental proceedings against the trial judge and the prosecutor.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court record a criminal conviction solely on the basis of an admission made during an examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without complying with mandatory procedural safeguards?
  • Whether a trial court is legally required to pronounce a specific finding of conviction or acquittal for every single charge framed against an accused under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused person's admission of allegations during trial equivalent to a formal, legally recorded confession capable of serving as the sole basis for a conviction on a capital charge?
  • Does a prosecutor have the authority to close the prosecution side under section 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely upon a written application of admission filed by the accused when prosecution witnesses are in attendance?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zareen vs StatePLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 140 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-29
  criminal administration of justiceplea of guiltadmissionillegal convictionremand for retrialjudicial negligencemurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine passed by the trial court in a case arising out of an FIR under Sections 302, 353, 324, 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a trial court can validly convict an accused on a capital charge solely on the basis of a subsequent admission or plea of guilt during Section 342 proceedings, while completely omitting any determination regarding the primary murder charge under Section 302. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's judgment suffered from grave procedural illegalities, including the failure to determine each charged offense separately under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the improper reliance on a half-way admission as a substitute for a voluntary confession, and a mechanical exercise of judicial power. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanded the matter for retrial from the stage of evidence, and directed departmental proceedings against the trial judge and the prosecutor.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court record a conviction on a capital charge solely on the basis of an admission made during Section 342 proceedings without a full trial and proper evaluation of evidence?
  • Is a trial court legally bound to deliver a distinct finding of acquittal or conviction for every single offense for which a formal charge has been framed?
  • Whether an admission of guilt made subsequent to claiming trial can be treated as a valid statutory confession for the purpose of awarding conviction?
  • What are the legal consequences when a trial court completely omits adjudicating upon the primary charge of murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs D.J Hyd. & Others2020 SHC 728 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-24Read full judgment →
• Akd Investment Management Limited and others vs JS Investment Limited2020 CLD 596 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05
  Constitutional petitionshare buybackminority shareholderswrit jurisdictionCompanies Act 2017treasury sharesstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by minority shareholders seeking to restrain a public listed company from purchasing its own shares for cancellation. The core legal questions were whether the company’s buyback for cancellation was permissible under the Companies Act 2017 and whether the High Court’s writ jurisdiction could be invoked to resolve a private commercial dispute aimed at profit maximization. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it was not maintainable. The Court ruled that Section 88 of the Companies Act 2017 explicitly allows a company to purchase its own shares either for cancellation or to be held as treasury shares, treating these options as disjunctive. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 cannot be invoked against a private entity for private disputes, particularly when the petitioners' sole motivation is to maximize investment returns. The Court emphasized that it cannot legislate or read words into statutes, adhering to the plain meaning of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public listed company purchase its own shares for the purpose of cancellation under the Companies Act 2017?
  • Is the writ jurisdiction of the High Court maintainable against a private entity in a dispute concerning private commercial interests?
  • Does the word 'or' in Section 88 of the Companies Act 2017 create a disjunctive relationship between purchasing shares for cancellation and holding them as treasury shares?
  Read full judgment →
• Aizaz Ali vs Javed Ahmed alias Javed and 2 others2020 MLD 1971 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRattempt to commit murderpresumption of innocenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under Sections 324 and 337F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by extending the benefit of the doubt. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court's appreciation of evidence was perverse or arbitrary so as to warrant interference in an acquittal judgment. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the first information report, coupled with material contradictions, lack of recovery of blood-stained earth, clothes, or weapon shells, and the failure to establish an intention to commit murder under Section 324, rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The court laid down the principle that a double presumption of innocence is attached to an acquittal judgment, which will not be interfered with unless found to be arbitrary, perverse, or against the record, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to recover blood-stained earth, clothes, or weapon empties from the crime scene make the prosecution case doubtful?
  • When can a superior court interfere with a judgment of acquittal passed by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does a failure to repeat fire when an injured is at the mercy of the accused negate the intention to commit murder under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Airport Hotel, Hotel Skyrooms (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Authorized Officer vs Khawaja Ahsan Mehmood and others2020 YLR 561 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-28Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani vs Muhammad Mian Soomro and 2 others2020 MLD 551 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-26Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali vs The State2020 SHC 732 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-27Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali son of Muhammad Fazal Mughal vs The State2020 SHC 914 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-02
  criminal appealchain of custodychemical examiner reportreasonable doubtacquittalsafe custodyMainpuri/Gutka
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Tando Muhammad Khan, against the appellant for possession of substances intended for the preparation of Mainpuri/Gutka. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the chain of custody of the recovered substance and the applicability of the charged penal sections. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, noting the absence of independent witnesses, an unexplained five-day delay in chemical examination, and the failure to examine the Malkhana in-charge or the person responsible for transmitting the samples to the Chemical Examiner. Furthermore, the Court observed that the chemical report did not support the charges under the applied sections. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the safe custody and untampered transmission of recovered evidence to the Chemical Examiner, and that any single infirmity creating reasonable doubt regarding the truth of the charge entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending recovered substances to the Chemical Examiner, without plausible explanation, create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the prosecution required to examine the person responsible for transmitting recovered evidence to the Chemical Examiner to prove safe custody?
  • Does a single infirmity in the prosecution's evidence regarding the truth of the charge entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Aijaz & others vs Province of Sindh & others2020 SHC 816 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-27Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Dilpazir Khan vs Messrs BST Services through CEO Karachi2020 MLD 38 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ahsan alias Keso vs The State2020 SHC 510 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06
  narcotics controlsafe custody of samplechemical examiner reportindependent mashirpolice complainant as investigating officerbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment with a fine, though he was initially released on probation due to his youth. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved the recovery of narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt, the legal effect of failing to associate independent witnesses at a busy public location, the consequence of unexplained delay and lack of safe custody regarding the transmission of samples to the chemical examiner, and the propriety of the complainant investigating his own case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish safe custody of the contraband, that non-association of available independent mashirs rendered the police testimony uncorroborated, and that investigation by the complainant himself introduced bias. The court laid down the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending a narcotic sample to the chemical examiner, coupled with a failure to prove safe custody and malkhana deposit, vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Whether the non-association of independent private witnesses from a busy public place where they are readily available casts serious doubt on a recovery made solely by police officials?
  • Is it legally proper for the complainant of a criminal case to act as its investigating officer?
  • Does a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Ali Chohan vs Province of Sindh and Others2020 SHC 330 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmed vs The State2020 SHC 1250 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  post-arrest bailqatl-i-amdfurther inquirydelayed FIRtentative assessmentcriminal bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an accused charged with qatl-i-amd (intentional murder) and causing injuries to a prosecution witness. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry, given allegations of false implication, delayed FIR, and the relationship between prosecution witnesses. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, finding reasonable grounds to believe he was guilty of the charged offense. The court specifically noted that the FIR contained a specific allegation of the applicant causing a head injury to the deceased with a weapon, which contradicted the defense's claim that no specific injury was attributed. The court further held that the delay in lodging the FIR was plausibly explained and that the relationship between prosecution witnesses did not warrant disbelieving them at the bail stage. The court emphasized that observations made during bail proceedings are tentative and should not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship between prosecution witnesses automatically render their testimony unreliable at the bail stage?
  • Can a delay in lodging an FIR be considered a sufficient ground for the grant of bail when the delay is explained within the FIR?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when there is a specific allegation of causing a fatal injury, despite claims of false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Saeed alias Bharam alias Nagori vs Inspector General of Police2020 P Cr. L J 395, 2022 PLJ Karachi 70 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-20
  constitutional petitionretracted confessionwrit of mandamuscriminal investigationevidentiary valueNo Objection Certificatepolice powersAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking to restrain law enforcement agencies from implicating him in multiple criminal cases based on a retracted judicial confession and to declare a "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) issued by the Rangers as illegal. The core legal questions were whether a High Court, under writ jurisdiction, can adjudicate the evidentiary value of a confession and whether it can restrain the police from investigating a suspect. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the evidentiary value of a confession is a matter strictly for the trial court, not for writ proceedings. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the investigative process is a statutory duty that should not be hampered by judicial interference. The Court ruled that the NOC was legally redundant, as investigating agencies possess the inherent authority to investigate suspects without requiring permission from other entities. Relying on the principles in Sughran Bibi, the Court emphasized that an investigating officer’s duty is to discover the truth, and they are not restricted by the initial allegations in an FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court, under writ jurisdiction, adjudicate the legality or evidentiary value of a judicial confession?
  • Does the investigative process of the police require a "No Objection Certificate" from other law enforcement agencies to proceed against a suspect?
  • Is a court permitted to restrain the police from investigating a suspect in multiple criminal cases based on a retracted confession?
  • Are investigating officers restricted to the version of events narrated in the initial FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Nawaz vs The State2020 SHC 918 · Sindh High Court
  customs fraudsentencing discretionappellate powerscriminal appealundervaluation of goodsrevenue recoveryprocedural delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three criminal appeals against a 2009 conviction for customs fraud, specifically the undervaluation of imported machinery. The appellants, who did not contest the conviction on its merits, sought leniency regarding their sentences, citing the twenty-five-year duration of the proceedings and their personal circumstances. The core legal question was whether the appellate court possessed the authority to modify the sentence of imprisonment to a fine, given the specific provisions of the Customs Act, 1969. The court maintained the conviction but held that the 11-month imprisonment sentence should be converted into an additional fine of Rs. 500,000 for each appellant. The ratio established is that the Customs Act, 1969 grants courts wide sentencing discretion, prioritizing revenue recovery over incarceration. Considering the prosecution's failure to take disciplinary action against the appellants during the long pendency of the case and the absence of prior criminal records, the court exercised its powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to substitute imprisonment with a fine as a compensatory measure for the revenue loss.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court convert a sentence of imprisonment into a fine in a customs fraud case?
  • Does the Customs Act, 1969 grant courts discretion to impose only a fine instead of imprisonment for customs offences?
  • Can the conduct of the prosecution in failing to take disciplinary action against accused employees be considered when determining the appropriate sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Asif Siddiqui and others vs IIIrd Adj East Karachi and others2020 CLC 179 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali Sahran and others vs Province Of Sindh through Additional2020 PLC (C.S.) 417 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16
  Police Act 1861recruitment policyInspector General of Policestanding ordersprovincial government approvalson quotaservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two constitutional petitions filed by individuals seeking employment in the Sindh Police department under a 'son quota' based on Standing Order No. 279/2014, issued by the Inspector General of Police (IGP). The core legal question was whether the IGP possessed the authority to issue standing orders prescribing recruitment rules, specifically for quotas for children of retired or serving police officers, without the explicit approval of the provincial government. The petitioners argued that the mere submission of the standing order to the Home Department implied government approval. The Court held that the petitions were meritless, affirming that standing orders issued by the IGP without the explicit approval of the provincial government are illegal and void, as established by Supreme Court precedents. The Court clarified that Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861, does not grant the IGP the power to frame recruitment rules independently. The principle laid down is that recruitment policy is the prerogative of the provincial government, and silence or inaction by the government upon receiving a copy of an IGP's standing order does not constitute valid legal approval.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 12 of the Police Act 1861 empower the Inspector General of Police to independently frame recruitment rules?
  • Can the silence or inaction of the provincial government upon receiving a copy of a standing order be construed as implied approval?
  • Are standing orders issued by the Inspector General of Police without the approval of the provincial government legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahm Enterprises vs Pakistan & Ors2020 SHC 1292 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-10Read full judgment →
• Agha Syed Muhammad vs Muhammad Anwar and 2 others2020 MLD 313 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-24Read full judgment →
• Agha Qurban Ali and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan2020 CLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-16
  election disqualificationoffice of profitservice of Pakistanlocal governmentbye-electionconstitutional petitionnomination paperselection tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the eligibility of candidates contesting a National Assembly bye-election, specifically questioning whether the office of Chairman of a local government council constitutes an 'office of profit in the service of Pakistan' under Article 63(1)(d) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, thereby disqualifying the holders. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that local government Chairmen are elected representatives rather than employees appointed by the government. Consequently, their positions do not fall within the definition of 'Service of Pakistan' under Article 260 of the Constitution. The Court established that for an office to be considered an 'office of profit in the service of Pakistan,' it must be controlled by the government, which must possess the authority to appoint and remove the holder. Since local government Chairmen are elected and removable only via no-confidence motions, they are not disqualified. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that High Court interference in election processes under Article 199 is restricted to instances of patent illegality or jurisdictional defects, which were not demonstrated in this matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does the office of Chairman of a local government council constitute an 'office of profit in the service of Pakistan' under Article 63(1)(d) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Are elected local government representatives considered to be in the 'Service of Pakistan' as defined by Article 260 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can the High Court invoke its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to interfere in an ongoing election process?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Massihuddin Khan Durrani and others vs Chairman, National2020 PLD Sindh 365 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
• Agha Ali Haider vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 SHC 354 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-13Read full judgment →
• Afzal Ali vs The State2020 SHC 576 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10
  pre-arrest baildismissal for non-prosecutionbail recallcriminal bail applicationabsence of applicant
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was brought before the Sindh High Court for the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail, which had been previously granted to the applicant on April 27, 2020. Upon the date fixed for the hearing, neither the applicant nor any legal representative appeared on their behalf, and no intimation regarding their absence was provided to the Court. Observing the lack of attendance and the failure to pursue the matter, the Court inferred that the applicant had lost interest in the proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the criminal bail application for non-prosecution. As a direct result of this dismissal, the interim pre-arrest bail previously extended to the applicant was recalled. The Court further directed the office to transmit a copy of the order to the Station House Officer of the concerned police station and the trial court for immediate information and compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal bail application be dismissed for non-prosecution if the applicant fails to appear?
  • What is the effect of dismissing a pre-arrest bail application for non-prosecution on the interim relief previously granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed Khan vs The State2020 YLR 1331 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-08
  post-arrest bailanti-terrorismineffective firingfurther inquirypolice witnessescriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant, Aftab Ahmed Khan, seeking bail in Crime No. 423 of 2018 registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 324, 34, 186, 427, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question involved whether the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delayed arrest, lack of recovery, misidentification in the FIR, and ineffective firing where no injuries were sustained. The court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail as investigation was complete, no incriminating recovery was made, the witnesses were police officials with no risk of evidence tampering, and the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that liberty cannot be curtailed without lawful justification, and where statutory conditions and evidentiary gaps point towards further inquiry, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the case involves ineffective firing and no injuries are sustained by any party?
  • Does the absence of independent mashirs and non-recovery of incriminating material entitle an accused to further inquiry under criminal law?
  • Can an accused be kept in further detention when investigation is complete and all prosecution witnesses are police officials?
  Read full judgment →
• Afaq Ahmed vs The State2020 YLR 676 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-15
  criminal appealbenefit of the doubteyewitness testimonyidentification parademurderanti-terrorismhearsay evidenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of a police constable. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on a sole eyewitness whose testimony was inconsistent and contradicted by medical evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt, finding the eyewitness testimony unreliable, the identification parade procedurally defective, and the ballistic evidence inconclusive due to unexplained delays. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, and if any single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right, not grace. Furthermore, it emphasizes that hearsay evidence cannot substitute for sworn testimony, and that identification parades must strictly comply with legal procedures to possess evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness whose conduct and statements are inconsistent with the medical evidence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered empties for ballistic examination render the forensic report unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • What are the consequences of procedural defects in an identification parade on the admissibility of the identification evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Serwar alias Muhammad Adil vs The State2020 PLD Sindh 32 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-06
  appellate jurisdictionremand of caseexamination of witnessesprosecution lacunacriminal revisioncourt witnessestrial procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an appellate court's order that remanded a case to the trial court with directions to examine additional witnesses after the prosecution had already closed its side. The core legal question was whether an appellate court possesses the jurisdiction to suo motu order the examination of specific witnesses to fill lacunas in the prosecution's case, absent any application from the parties. The High Court held that while Section 423(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allows for retrials, the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the examination of witnesses when neither the prosecution nor the defense had requested such evidence. The Court emphasized that Section 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants parties the prerogative to manage their own evidence, and while Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allows for court-witnesses, this power is generally reserved for the trial stage to ensure a just decision. Consequently, the appellate court's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision based on the existing record.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the jurisdiction to suo motu order the examination of additional witnesses to fill gaps in the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case to the trial court for the examination of specific witnesses without an application from the parties?
  • Is the power to summon court-witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 available to an appellate court in the same manner as a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Rashid vs Federation Of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Ports2020 PLC (C.S.) 717 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31
  service terminationillegal appointmentPort Qasim Authorityconstitutional petitionre-employment of ex-servicemenprobationary periodstatutory regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner’s services as Director (Environment and Safety) BPS-20 at the Port Qasim Authority (PQA). The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner’s appointment, made during a period when the Supreme Court had prohibited such recruitment, was valid, and whether the subsequent termination was lawful. The court held that the petition was meritless, finding that the petitioner’s appointment was illegal as it violated explicit Supreme Court directives and failed to meet the mandatory qualification and experience criteria stipulated in the advertisement. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the appointment lacked the requisite approval from the Federal Government as mandated by the Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations, 2011. The court affirmed that as the initial appointment was fundamentally flawed and void ab initio, the petitioner possessed no vested right to reinstatement. The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory bodies must strictly adhere to service regulations and judicial directives, and that appointments made in contravention of such legal mandates are liable to be set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointment made in violation of a Supreme Court directive prohibiting recruitment be considered valid?
  • Does a probationer have a vested right to reinstatement if the initial appointment was found to be illegal?
  • Are appointments to BPS-20 posts in the Port Qasim Authority subject to Federal Government approval under the Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations 2011?
  • Is an appointment void if the appointee fails to possess the mandatory educational and experience qualifications specified in the advertisement?
  Read full judgment →
• Adeel-u-ddin vs Syed akram shah and others2020 SHC 26 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →
• Additional Director, Directorate of Intelligence vs Inam Khan, Taj Ali and Rizwan Khan2020 SHC 932 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-09Read full judgment →
• Abid Gaddi vs The State2020 SHC 548 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Shoukat vs Federation of Pakistan & another2020 SHC 264 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-31Read full judgment →
• Abdullah @ Shah Wali s/o Shulam Nabi vs The State2020 SHC 446 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrobberydiscrepancy in investigationcriminal procedurebail as rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from a criminal case where the applicant sought post-arrest bail for an alleged robbery under Section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged the applicant was apprehended at the scene with weapons and stolen property following a robbery. The applicant contended that the case was fabricated due to a dispute over unpaid wages for cleaning services, resulting in him being beaten by the complainant and his associates. The core legal question was whether, given the discrepancies in the prosecution's documentation—specifically regarding the identity of the complainant in the FIR versus the challan and the witnesses to the recovery memo—the applicant was entitled to bail. The Court held that the case required further inquiry due to these material contradictions in the investigation record. Emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment and that unjustified incarceration cannot be adequately compensated, the Court granted bail, noting that the applicant had no prior criminal record and the prosecution's case lacked sufficient consistency at this stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material discrepancy between the complainant named in the FIR and the complainant named in the challan constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is the grant of bail permissible when the investigation record contains significant inconsistencies regarding the recovery memo and witness statements?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment prior to the conclusion of a trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs M/s. Mediterranean Shipping Company S.a, & another2020 SHC 140 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs M/s. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.a and another2020 SHC 1142 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and another vs The State2020 SHC 422 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab and another vs The State2020 P Cr. L J 556 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-06
  National Accountability Ordinancetransfer of casecognizance of offenceAccountability Court jurisdictionlegislative intentper incuriamspeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the jurisdictional validity of an Accountability Court's judgment in a case transferred under Section 16(A) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO). The core legal question was whether cases transferred to an Accountability Court under Section 16(A) required the Chairman, NAB to re-file the case as a formal reference under Section 18(g) for the court to take cognizance under Section 18(a), particularly for cases transferred prior to the 2002 amendment. The court held that the Accountability Court possessed jurisdiction to try such transferred cases without the necessity of a fresh reference. The bench reasoned that the legislative intent, even before the 2002 amendment, was to allow transferred cases to proceed without re-recording evidence or recalling witnesses, as the original court had already taken cognizance. The key principle laid down is that Section 16(A) of the NAO operates as a distinct mechanism for transfer, and the subsequent amendment deeming such cases as references was merely clarificatory of the original legislative intent to ensure speedy trials and avoid procedural absurdity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case transferred under Section 16(A) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 require the Chairman, NAB to file a new reference under Section 18(g) before an Accountability Court can take cognizance?
  • Was the amendment to Section 16(A) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which deemed transferred cases as references, a retrospective change or a clarification of existing legislative intent?
  • Can an Accountability Court proceed with a transferred case without re-recording evidence or recalling witnesses?
  • What constitutes a judgment passed per incuriam in the context of binding statutory interpretation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Abbasi & Others vs P.O.Sindh & Others2020 SHC 562 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Subhan Solangi vs National Bank of Pakistan2020 SHC 74 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar through Legal Heirs and another vs Muhammad Azeem and 22020 MLD 1718 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Shaikh vs Adeel Zahoor Malik and others2020 CLC 984 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam Khatri vs DG ML&C and another2020 SHC 10 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman & Others vs The State2020 SHC 518 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-07
  pre-arrest bailsurety papersacquittalbail bondcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the return of surety papers following the acquittal of the accused in a criminal case. The applicants had previously been granted pre-arrest bail by the Sindh High Court in connection with Crime No. 29 of 2019 registered at Police Station Chalgari, Hyderabad. The core legal question before the Court was whether the surety papers, furnished as security for the applicants' pre-arrest bail, should be returned to the surety upon the final disposal of the case and the subsequent acquittal of the accused by the learned Trial Court. The Court, noting that the trial had concluded with a judgment of acquittal dated 18.02.2020, and observing that the Assistant Prosecutor General had no objection to the request, allowed the application. The Court held that once the criminal proceedings have terminated in an acquittal, the purpose of the bail bond is fulfilled, and the surety is entitled to the return of the surety papers. The Court directed the office to return the documents to the surety after proper verification and identification, ensuring a copy of the surety's C.N.I.C. is retained on the record.

  Questions settled

  • Is a surety entitled to the return of surety papers after the accused has been acquitted by the trial court?
  • What procedure must be followed by the court office before returning surety papers to a surety?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaque vs The State2020 SHC 110 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-31
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausedelayed FIRcriminal breach of trustbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Razzaque, who was accused of issuing a dishonoured cheque in violation of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delayed registration of the FIR and the nature of the offence. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the investigation was complete, the case had been challaned, and the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that in such circumstances, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Furthermore, the Court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within 45 working days, noting that the observations made were tentative and should not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 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 the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the investigation is complete?
  • Can a trial court cancel bail without reference to the High Court if the accused misuses the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaque @ Papoo vs The State2020 SHC 1132 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Election Commission of Pakistan and Others2020 CLC 2063, 2020 SHC 218 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Shaikh vs M/s. National Refinery Ltd. & another2020 KLR Civil Cases 341 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem and 2 others vs The State2020 PLD Sindh 473 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-18
  retracted confessionjudicial confessionanti-terrorismextortionbenefit of doubtforensic evidencechain of custodycorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the convictions of three appellants for murder and extortion under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of a retracted judicial confession, the sufficiency of evidence for co-accused persons, and the reliability of forensic evidence regarding weapon recovery. The Court held that a retracted judicial confession is admissible if it is voluntary, truthful, and fits the prosecution's case, even if minor procedural irregularities occurred during recording. Regarding the appellants, the Court upheld the conviction of the primary accused, Abdul Raheem, based on his confession and CCTV identification. However, the Court acquitted the co-accused, Anwar Baloch, due to a lack of independent corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the Court acquitted Ahmed Hassan of the murder and extortion charges, ruling that a seven-month delay in sending recovered empties for forensic analysis without proof of safe custody rendered the forensic report unreliable, though his conviction for illegal weapon possession was maintained. The judgment reaffirms that while confessions can ground convictions, corroboration remains essential for co-accused, and forensic evidence requires strict chain-of-custody compliance to be admissible.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for a criminal conviction?
  • Does a delay in the safe custody of recovered crime scene evidence invalidate a forensic report?
  • Is independent corroborative evidence required to convict a co-accused based solely on a confession of a principal offender?
  • Do procedural irregularities in recording a judicial confession automatically render it inadmissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudus Alvi vs The Ned University of Engineering and Technology through Registrar and 2 others2020 CLC 377 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos vs P.O Sindh & others2020 SHC 254 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos Shaikh vs Province of Sindh and 10 others2020 SHC 228 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-10Read full judgment →