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.

• Syed Muhammad Waqar Haider Naqvi vs The State2019 SHC 440 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-08
  post-arrest bailtrap proceedingsprohibitory clausedelay in challanspeedy trialillegal constructionanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Syed Muhammad Waqar Haider Naqvi in Crime No. 70/2019 registered under Sections 161 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal question involved whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail where the trap proceedings were conducted without a Magistrate, delay occurred in submitting the final challan, and the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the absence of a Magistrate during the trap, lack of explanation for delayed FIR registration, delay in submitting the final charge-sheet, and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause brought the case within the scope of further inquiry and made bail the rule. The key principles laid down include that speedy investigation is a fundamental right under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, and that bail should be granted as a rule when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC unless exceptional circumstances exist.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a Magistrate during anti-corruption trap proceedings creates further inquiry regarding the genuineness of the case for the purpose of bail?
  • Does failure to submit a final charge-sheet within the statutory period entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC entitle the accused to bail as a general rule?
  • Is speedy investigation considered an inalienable right under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal Kazmi vs Mayor of Karachi & others2019 SHC 316 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal & others vs Pakistan International Airline Corp. Ltd2019 SHC 448 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-19
  foreign postingseniority-cum-fitnessinterim injunctionmanagerial discretiontransfer vs promotionservice lawPIA
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns consolidated suits filed by Aircraft Maintenance Engineers against Pakistan International Airline Corporation (PIA), challenging a Board decision that denied them foreign postings in favor of junior colleagues. The core legal question was whether the court should interfere with the employer's selection process, which was governed by a Working Agreement stipulating "seniority-cum-fitness" as the criteria. The court held that foreign posting constitutes a transfer rather than a promotion, and thus does not create a vested right. Consequently, the court refused to grant an interim injunction, ruling that it cannot substitute its own judgment for the employer's subjective assessment of an employee's fitness, particularly regarding technical qualifications for specific aircraft. The court affirmed that while seniority is a factor, "seniority-cum-fitness" mandates a comparative assessment of competence, which remains the exclusive domain of the employer. The judgment establishes that judicial interference in managerial decisions regarding transfers is unwarranted absent clear illegality, and that interim relief cannot be granted if it effectively decides the main suit or alters the established status quo.

  Questions settled

  • Is foreign posting considered a promotion or a transfer for the purpose of seniority rights?
  • Can a court substitute its own judgment for an employer's subjective assessment of an employee's fitness for a specific post?
  • Does 'seniority-cum-fitness' entitle a senior employee to a position regardless of their technical qualifications?
  • Should an interim injunction be granted if it effectively grants the final relief sought in the main suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Maroof Shah alias Mehtab alias Baba TT and 3 others vs The State2019 YLR 1654 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-08
  murderextortionbhatadelayed FIRsolitary witnessappellants convictionpolitical terrorcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants for the murder of the complainant's husband under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the conviction could be sustained despite the initial registration of the FIR against unknown persons and the delayed nomination of the appellants, given the prevailing climate of fear and continuous threats from the politically affiliated accused. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, holding that the natural testimony of the complainant—a bereaved widow subjected to intimidation—alongside corroborative evidence from a private witness and police officials, was sufficient and reliable. The key legal principle laid down is that the testimony of a solitary, confidence-inspiring witness can form the basis of a conviction even on a capital charge, and that delayed nomination in an FIR is justifiable and does not vitiate the prosecution's case when explained by special circumstances such as grave threats and localized terror.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a solitary witness is sufficient to maintain a conviction on a capital charge if found to be reliable and confidence-inspiring?
  • Does a delay in nominating accused persons in the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution case when explained by fear of death and intimidation?
  • Can the conviction be sustained under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite hostile or turned-around private witnesses where the complainant fully supports the prosecution version?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Manzar Abbas vs National Accountability Bureau, through Director General2019 MLD 581 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Irtaza Raza Naqvi & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2019 SHC 306 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Iqbal Kazmi and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PLD Sindh 255 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-11
  access to justicefundamental rightstribunal of inquiryconstitutional petitionlaw and orderper incuriamjoint investigation teamjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two constitutional petitions regarding the violent events of May 12, 2007, in Karachi, which resulted in the denial of access to justice and widespread lawlessness during the visit of the then Chief Justice of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court could order an inquiry into these events, given a prior judgment by a five-member bench that had declined to act as an investigator. The Court held that while it could not set aside the prior five-member bench judgment, which had attained finality, it could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution to direct the Government of Sindh to establish a Tribunal of Inquiry. The Court reasoned that the prior judgment failed to address critical issues regarding command and control and the denial of fundamental rights. The key principle laid down is that the High Court possesses inherent powers and plenary jurisdiction under Article 199(1)(c) to issue mandatory directives to the executive to ensure the enforcement of fundamental rights, including the establishment of inquiry commissions in matters of significant public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court direct the provincial government to establish a Tribunal of Inquiry under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a two-member bench have the authority to set aside a judgment passed by a larger five-member bench of the same court?
  • Is the right to access to justice a fundamental right enforceable under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a High Court establish a commission of inquiry to investigate matters of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hassan Ali Shah vs State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 940 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausecivil disputefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant seeking confirmation of interim bail in Crime No. 09 of 2019 registered at Police Station Gharibabad District Mirpurkhas under Sections 489-F and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and when the underlying dispute possesses civil overtones alongside an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The court held that since the offence under Section 489-F does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and the dispute is primarily of a civil nature pending adjudication before a competent civil court, the case warrants further inquiry, making the grant of bail the rule and its refusal the exception. The court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that bail should not be withheld as a punishment where statutory prohibitory clauses do not apply and no exceptional risk of absconsion or evidence-tampering exists.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a business dispute pending before a civil court justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving a dishonoured cheque?
  • Can bail be refused as a punishment in cases not covered by the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2019 YLR 129 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Haider & Others vs Pakistan International Airline Corporation2021 PLC (C.S.) 221, 2019 SHC 582 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-23
  service matterpromotiondemotionnatural justiceunilateral withdrawalPIAaccrued rightsadministrative order
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a suit for declaration and injunction filed by employees of the Pakistan International Airline Corporation (PIA) belonging to the cabin crew category, challenging Administrative Order No. 17 of 2016 through which the earlier Administrative Order No. 13 of 2013—granting up-gradation and promotion from Pay Group IV to Pay Group V—was cancelled. The core legal questions involve whether the employer could unilaterally withdraw the promotion orders and whether such cancellation could be effected without affording the affected employees an opportunity of being heard. The Sindh High Court held that accrued rights and promotion orders cannot be arbitrarily or impliedly cancelled without adhering to due process, following the principles of natural justice, and issuing independent show-cause notices. The court laid down the principle that public-sector organizations controlled by the government cannot unilaterally overturn validly conferred benefits and promotions without a hearing, and that individual promotion orders remain operative unless independently and lawfully recalled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether promotion orders issued to employees pursuant to a policy can be deemed to be cancelled impliedly by the withdrawal of the parent administrative order without independent proceedings?
  • Can an organization controlled by the government demote or rescind benefits granted to its employees without affording them an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice?
  • Whether a subsequent Board of Directors can unilaterally overturn a conscious, implemented decision of an earlier Board granting benefits to employees without following due process?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Ammaar Jafrey & others vs Federation of Pakistan2019 SHC 120 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-02
  transferred employeesservice terms and conditionsstatutory protectionPerformance Management Systemcivil servantspension benefitsPTCLconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the imposition of a non-statutory Performance Management System (PMS) by the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. (PTCL) upon 'transferred employees' originally from the T&T Department. The core legal questions concerned whether the PMS adversely affected their protected terms and conditions, whether the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and its associated rules applied to them, and whether they were entitled to financial benefits granted to federal civil servants. The Court held that while these employees are not strictly 'civil servants,' their terms and conditions of service are statutory and protected under the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. The ratio established that the employer cannot unilaterally impose a non-statutory PMS that varies these protected terms to the employees' detriment. The Court affirmed that the employer must adhere to the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and relevant rules for service matters, disciplinary proceedings, and pension benefits, ensuring that transferred employees receive the same financial increases and emoluments as federal government employees, as mandated by their protected status.

  Questions settled

  • Are transferred employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. still considered civil servants?
  • Does the imposition of a non-statutory Performance Management System violate the protected terms and conditions of service for transferred employees?
  • Are transferred employees entitled to the same financial increases and pension benefits as federal government employees under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Abbas Rizvi vs The Addl. Controller of Rents Clifton & Another2020 MLD 130, 2019 SHC 236 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Aijaz Ali Shah vs Iftikhar Unar2019 YLR 2333 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-11
  criminal acquittal appealpresumption of double innocenceplea of alibimisappreciation of evidenceperverse judgmentbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge/Special Judge [S.T.A.], Shaheed Benazir Abad, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 324, 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a misappreciation of evidence or was otherwise perverse, warranting appellate interference. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned and based on a sound appreciation of the evidence, including the respondent's proven plea of alibi and the prosecution's failure to recover empty bullet shells from the scene despite allegations of firing. The Court reaffirmed the principle that an appeal against acquittal carries a presumption of double innocence, and appellate courts should not interfere unless the acquittal is capricious, perverse, or results in a gross miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that when there is doubt regarding the guilt of an accused, the benefit must be extended to the accused, and the court will not fill lacunae in the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Does the presumption of double innocence apply to an accused who has been acquitted by a trial court?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment if the prosecution fails to recover incriminating evidence like bullet shells from the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmed Danish vs Mst. Mariam Baig2019 YLR 2362 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-23Read full judgment →
• Sumair Saeed vs The Sect: Aviation & Ors2019 SHC 352 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-11Read full judgment →
• Sultanul Uloom vs Anis-ur-Rehman & Ors2020 CLC 60, 2019 SHC 238 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-26Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed through General Attorney vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Revenue, Karachi and 4 others2019 PTD 741 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-28Read full judgment →
• Sukkur Beverages (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2020 CLD 110, 2019 SHC 24 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Limited vs Karachi Electric Supply Company2020 PLD Sindh 385, 2019 SHC 406 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-07Read full judgment →
• State through Prosecutor-General Sindh vs Piyaro and 5 others2019 P Cr.LJ 793 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-28
  acquittal appealidentification paradepolice encounterdouble presumption of innocenceballistic expert reporthostile witnessocular testimonyanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Sukkur, which acquitted the respondents of charges arising from an FIR involving murder, attempt to commit murder, and police encounters. The core legal questions revolved around the reliability of the ocular account, the necessity of an identification parade where names were omitted from the FIR, the evidentiary value of unsealed and unverified weapon recoveries, and the stringent standards for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the absence of an identification parade, the failure to examine key independent witnesses, doubtful weapon recoveries lacking ballistic verification, and a hostile injured witness. The court affirmed that an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and appellate courts will not interfere unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a misreading of evidence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal judgment that carries a double presumption of innocence?
  • Is an identification parade necessary when the accused are not named in the FIR and the witnesses claim they can identify them upon seeing them again?
  • Can unsealed weapons recovered without being sent to a Ballistic Expert constitute reliable corroborative evidence?
  • Does medical evidence alone suffice to connect an accused person to the commission of a crime in the absence of reliable ocular testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Director vs Shakil Ur Rehman2019 YLR 1468 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-06
  cancellation of bailcustoms offenceliberty of subjectmisuse of bailperversity of ordercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by the State seeking the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondent, Shakil-ur-Rehman, by the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, in a customs-related criminal case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established sufficient grounds to justify the cancellation of the bail order. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the original bail order. The Court emphasized that the principles governing the grant of bail and the cancellation of bail are distinct. While bail is granted based on the merits of the case and the nature of the accusation, its cancellation is an extraordinary measure that requires strong and exceptional grounds, such as proof of misuse of the concession of bail or a patently erroneous order. The Court reiterated that the liberty of an individual should not be curtailed on flimsy grounds, and the power to cancel bail must be exercised with extreme care and circumspection, particularly when trial proceedings are already underway.

  Questions settled

  • What are the distinct legal considerations for the grant of bail versus the cancellation of bail?
  • Does the mere existence of prosecution witnesses justify the cancellation of bail once granted?
  • Under what circumstances should a court exercise its power to cancel bail already granted to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• State through Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan vs Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offence in Bank) and 20 others2019 MLD 1139, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 542 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-03
  supplementary challanreinvestigationcognizancewhite collar crimecriminal revisionCode of Criminal Procedureinterim challan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Special Court (Offences in Banks), which had declined to accept a supplementary challan submitted by the Investigating Officer, having previously taken cognizance based on an interim challan. The core legal question was whether the police are barred from conducting further investigation and submitting a supplementary challan once a trial court has already taken cognizance of a case based on an interim report. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court’s refusal to accept the supplementary challan was legally unsustainable. The Court ruled that there is no statutory bar preventing the police from conducting reinvestigation or submitting a supplementary challan even after the submission of a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that legal controversies should be resolved on their merits rather than on technicalities, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to accept the supplementary challan and proceed with the case in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a legal bar to the reinvestigation of a criminal case after the submission of a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the police submit a supplementary challan after a trial court has taken cognizance of a case based on an interim challan?
  • Does the submission of an interim challan preclude the investigating agency from conducting further investigation into the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Mohammad Naeem and others2019 CLD 828 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-30Read full judgment →
• Soofi Rice Mills through Proprietor and 2 others vs National Bank of Pakistan through Manager and 2 others2020 P C T L R 1180, 2019 CLD 395 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
• Sohail vs Kamran Siddiqui2019 CLC 2008, 2019 SHC 232 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-12Read full judgment →
• Sindh Petroleum & CNG Dealer Association & Others vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2019 SHC 334, 2020 CLC 851 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
• Sindh Employees Social Security Institution vs Mehran Sugar Mills2019 PLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-17
  social security contributionstatutory liabilityemployer defaultemployee registrationbeneficial legislationnotified establishmentmedical benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Social Security Court, which had relieved the respondent (a sugar mill) of its liability to pay social security contributions. The core legal question was whether a notified establishment could avoid statutory contribution obligations by claiming it provided alternative medical arrangements or that the Social Security Institution failed to provide facilities, despite the employer's failure to register its employees. The Court held that the obligation to pay contributions arises by operation of law upon notification of the establishment. It ruled that the employer cannot benefit from its own default, specifically its failure to register employees, which is a prerequisite for accessing benefits. The Court emphasized that the statutory duty to contribute is not contingent upon the actual provision of benefits or the existence of private medical contracts. The principle laid down is that once an establishment is notified under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, the employer’s liability to contribute is absolute and cannot be defeated by the employer's own non-compliance or alternative arrangements.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employer's failure to register employees with the Social Security Institution absolve the employer from the statutory liability to pay social security contributions?
  • Can an employer avoid paying social security contributions by claiming they provided alternative medical arrangements for their employees?
  • Is the liability to pay social security contributions contingent upon the actual provision of medical benefits by the Social Security Institution?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali vs The State2019 MLD 1152 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-11
  abductionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealrelevancy of evidencefreewill marriageacquittalQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for the offence of abduction under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether evidence recorded in subsequent judicial proceedings, specifically the testimony of the alleged abductee, could be utilized to challenge the conviction of the appellant in an earlier proceeding. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly as the alleged abductee, in subsequent proceedings, denied the abduction and testified to a freewill marriage. Invoking Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the Court determined that such evidence is relevant and admissible. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that the benefit of doubt is not a matter of grace but a right of the accused, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient to warrant acquittal, aligning with the maxim that it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than convict one innocent person.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence recorded in subsequent judicial proceedings be considered in an earlier criminal trial?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a matter of right for an accused?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali Shah and 18 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief2019 PLC (C.S.) 962 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-07
  Junior School Teacher recruitmentTeachers Recruitment Policy 2012Taluka poolvested rightconstitutional petitionservice mattermerit list
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by petitioners seeking a declaration that the non-issuance of offer letters for the post of Junior School Teacher (JST) by the respondents was illegal and contrary to the Teachers Recruitment Policy, 2012, and seeking a direction to shift and add vacant seats to the Taluka pool. The core legal question was whether candidates who qualified the written test acquired a vested right to appointment and whether vacant need-based seats from union councils lacking qualified candidates must be shifted to the Taluka pool. The Sindh High Court held that mere passing of the written test does not vest a candidate with a fundamental right to appointment, and that the petitioners failed to meet the merit criteria compared to selected candidates who obtained higher marks. The court dismissed the petition, reiterating the principle that courts should not interfere in policy matters of educational institutions and that passing a test alone does not warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

  Questions settled

  • Does passing a recruitment written test create a vested right to be appointed to a public post?
  • Whether unfulfilled need-based vacancies from union councils must be shifted to the Taluka pool under the Teachers Recruitment Policy, 2012?
  • Can the High Court interfere in the policy matters of educational institutions under constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali and 2 others vs Baddar-U-Din and 4 others2019 CLC 1046 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-14Read full judgment →
• Sidra Khan and another vs Province of Sindh & others2019 SHC 358 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-13Read full judgment →
• Shuhabuddin and another vs The Province of Sindh through Secretary2019 MLD 1192 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-27
  FIR registrationcognizable offencefake police encounterEx-Officio Justice of Peacestatutory dutyextrajudicial killingcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which refused to direct the registration of an FIR against police officials for the alleged extrajudicial killing of three individuals in a fake encounter. The core legal question was whether the police and the Justice of Peace were justified in refusing to register the FIR regarding a cognizable offense. The High Court held that the officer-in-charge of a police station has a mandatory statutory duty under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to register an FIR upon receiving information of a cognizable offense, and lacks the discretion to refuse it based on personal belief. The Court emphasized that the Justice of Peace must not act mechanically and must ensure the law is followed, especially in cases involving serious allegations of fake police encounters. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, directed the registration of the FIR, and ordered that the investigation be conducted by an officer not below the rank of ASP/DSP to ensure impartiality.

  Questions settled

  • Does an officer-in-charge of a police station have the discretion to refuse the registration of an FIR when information regarding a cognizable offense is provided?
  • Is the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace required to act mechanically when deciding an application under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a High Court direct the registration of an FIR against police officials if the lower court failed to exercise its jurisdiction correctly?
  Read full judgment →
• Shrimati Aashi vs Bhesham Lal and another2019 CLC 1159 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-02Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Hayat Awan vs Additional Inspector General Police Karachi Range2019 SHC 140 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-10
  double jeopardyservice tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceshow cause noticepolice misconductconstitutional petitiondepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a Sub-Inspector of the Sindh Police Department challenging a show cause notice and departmental inquiry proceedings initiated against him on allegations of misconduct and involvement in a criminal case. The core legal questions involved whether the initiation of fresh departmental proceedings and issuance of a second show cause notice after the initial dismissal order was set aside on technical grounds for want of proper authorization violated the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a service matter barred by Article 212 read with the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the bar under Article 212 ousted its constitutional jurisdiction regarding terms and conditions of civil servants, including disciplinary proceedings and show cause notices. Furthermore, the court held that departmental disciplinary proceedings following the setting aside of an order due to a lack of competency by the original authority did not constitute a fresh prosecution or double jeopardy, as appeal and continuation proceedings are a continuation of the original matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the issuance of a second show cause notice after a previous dismissal order is set aside for lack of departmental authorization amounts to double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 to entertain petitions relating to show cause notices and disciplinary proceedings against civil servants?
  • Whether the principles of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict under Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to departmental disciplinary proceedings in a uniformed force?
  • Does the mere issuance of a show cause notice or initiation of an inquiry constitute a punishment or adverse final order affecting a civil servant's terms and conditions?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheraz and another vs The State2019 YLR 1476 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-09
  post-arrest baildacoityfurther inquiryrecoverycriminal liabilitybail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications filed by the applicants, Sheraz, Shahmir, and Muhammad Muid Iqbal, in relation to FIR No. 123/2018 registered at Police Station Sahil, Karachi, for an alleged offence of dacoity under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the evidentiary material available at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, observing that no recovery of stolen property was effected from them, and the complainant's wife's statement implicated only two individuals, casting doubt on the applicants' involvement. Furthermore, the Court noted the applicants' status as teenagers/borderline adults and the contention that they were merely present at the scene without criminal intent. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on material requiring further probe, and where there is an absence of incriminating recovery or specific identification, the case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of recovery of stolen property from an accused justify the grant of post-arrest bail in a dacoity case?
  • Can a trial court cancel bail without reference to the High Court if the accused fails to appear?
  • Does a statement by a prosecution witness implicating only a limited number of persons entitle co-accused to bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Shamsuddin and others vs Atta Muhammad and others2019 YLR 513 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-04Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Zafar and 2 others vs Pakistan International Airlines2019 PLC (C.S.) 709 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-06
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantpassage policystatutory corporationservice rulesdiscriminatory policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), filed a constitutional petition seeking a declaration that Admin Order No. 07/2012, which enhanced passage and ticket facilities for specific management groups, is discriminatory and unlawful, and prayed that the same benefits be extended to them under the consolidated passage policy. The core legal questions were whether a constitutional writ under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against PIAC regarding service matters and passage policies, and whether the passage policy issued under Admin Order No. 07/2012 is a non-justiciable internal policy decision. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the passage rules of PIAC are non-statutory instructions for internal management and control, and therefore the relationship between PIAC and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant. The court laid down the principle that internal policy decisions and non-statutory service benefits of a statutory corporation do not create vested rights enforceable through constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of a statutory violation or breach of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against Pakistan International Airlines Corporation regarding service matters and passage policies?
  • Are the passage policies and internal administrative orders issued by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation statutory in nature?
  • Whether the modification of passage and ticket facilities for retired employees by a statutory corporation can be challenged as discriminatory through a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Riazuddin vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 622 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-12
  narcotics smugglingconscious possessionburden of proofchemical analysis reportpointationrepresentative samplesprocedural irregularityControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for smuggling a large quantity of narcotics. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution established the appellant's conscious possession of 1745 kg of Charas, and whether procedural lapses—specifically the non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the delay in submitting samples for chemical analysis—vitiate the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's direct involvement and knowledge through his pointation of the container and recovery of export documents. The Court affirmed that under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, once the prosecution proves physical custody or direct concern, the burden shifts to the accused to prove lack of knowledge. It further ruled that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded in narcotics cases, and procedural rules regarding sample submission are directory rather than mandatory. While limiting the conviction's basis to the 58 kg actually tested, the Court upheld the life imprisonment sentence, dismissing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a conviction in narcotics cases?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 once the prosecution establishes physical custody or direct concern?
  • Is a delay in sending narcotic samples to a chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution's case if no tampering is alleged?
  • Where representative samples are not taken from every packet of recovered narcotics, is the accused liable for the entire quantity or only the quantity tested?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rehan Ahmed vs Judicial Magistrate-II, South, Karachi and 22019 MLD 636 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-15
  dishonoured chequeSection 489-F PPCabuse of processquashment of FIRrecovery of moneycriminal proceedingsmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal miscellaneous applications seeking the quashment of FIRs registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a complainant can initiate successive criminal proceedings for dishonoured cheques when those cheques were already in their possession at the time of lodging earlier FIRs against the same accused for similar transactions. The Court held that the complainant’s practice of lodging FIRs sequentially, rather than simultaneously, constituted a misuse of the process of law intended to coerce the applicant into settlements. Consequently, the Court allowed the applications and quashed the impugned FIRs. The key principle laid down is that Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is not a tool for the recovery of business debts. Where a complainant possesses multiple dishonoured cheques but chooses to initiate criminal proceedings piecemeal to exert pressure, such conduct is an abuse of process. Judicial Magistrates are empowered to intervene under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to prevent such vexatious litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized as a tool for the recovery of business debts?
  • Is it an abuse of process for a complainant to lodge successive FIRs for dishonoured cheques that were already in their possession when earlier FIRs were filed?
  • What is the duty of a Judicial Magistrate when a complainant uses criminal proceedings to force a settlement in a civil dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Raees vs Mst. Rehana Batool and others2019 CLC 1757 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-18Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Adeel Imtiaz vs Faysal Bank Limited & Others2019 SHC 459 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Sheharyar Waqas Malik and another vs Province of Sindh through Home Secretary, Karachi and 15 others2019 YLR 2623 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-20Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Director Settlement Survey & Other2019 SHC 530 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-17Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Khatian vs Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st, South2019 SHC 174 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-13
  Ex-officio Justice of Peaceregistration of FIRcognizable offenceright of audienceinherent powersquashing of proceedingspolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged an order passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, acting as an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the Station House Officer was directed to register an FIR based on a complaint alleging cognizable offences. The core legal questions involved whether a proposed accused has a right of audience before an Ex-officio Justice of Peace orders the registration of an FIR, and whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash or restrain such a pre-FIR direction. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that a proposed accused has no right of audience at the stage of directing FIR registration, as the function of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace is quasi-judicial and complementary to police investigations. The Court laid down that an SHO is statutorily bound to record an FIR upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence, and no inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A can be invoked to obstruct the recording of an FIR or police investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a proposed accused has a right of audience before an Ex-officio Justice of Peace passes an order for the registration of an FIR under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restrain the registration of an FIR ordered by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace?
  • Does a Station House Officer have the authority to refuse to record an FIR when information disclosing a cognizable offence is conveyed?
  • Is the function performed by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 judicial, executive, or quasi-judicial in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharjeel Inam Memon and others vs National Accountability Bureau2019 YLR 1426 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-02Read full judgment →
• Shankar Lal vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Defence2019 PLC (C.S.) 1196 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-20
  sacked employeereinstatementwrit jurisdictionPakistan Steel Millsbeneficial legislationnon-discriminationcontractual employment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought reinstatement in service under the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, following the termination of his contract as an engineer at Pakistan Steel Mills. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner qualified as a sacked employee under the Act and whether Pakistan Steel Mills, a public sector entity, was subject to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court and the provisions of the Act. The Court held that Pakistan Steel Mills, being under the dominative control of the State, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner met the criteria of a sacked employee under Section 2(f) of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, as his employment fell within the specified timeframe and his contract was not renewed. The Court emphasized the principle of consistency and non-discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution, noting that a similarly situated colleague had been reinstated, and consequently ordered the petitioner's reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Is a public sector company funded and controlled by the State subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the non-renewal of a contract for an employee appointed between 1993 and 1996 constitute termination within the meaning of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010?
  • Can an employer deny reinstatement to an employee under the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, if a similarly situated colleague has already been granted such relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin Dal vs The Director General NAB Sindh2019 MLD 419 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-01Read full judgment →
• Shamim Begum vs Azizul Hasan Khan2019 CLC 1557, 2019 SHC 50 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-08Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar vs Govt of Sindh & Ors2019 SHC 356 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-12
  contractual employeeregularization of servicewrit jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicestatutory resolutioncivil servant statusreasonable classification
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Sindh Social Welfare Council, challenged his demotion from BPS-15 to BPS-14 and sought regularization of his service, claiming entitlement to benefits under the Council's 1971 Resolution. The respondent argued that the petitioner was a contract employee, not a civil servant, and thus ineligible for regularization or the financial benefits claimed. The Court held that while the Sindh Social Welfare Council is a 'person' performing functions in connection with the affairs of the province under Article 199 of the Constitution, the petitioner is not a civil servant as defined under the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973, and his service matters fall outside the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court further determined that the petitioner failed to establish a vested right to regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act 2013. However, noting the petitioner's long service, the Court directed the competent authority to reconsider his entitlement to benefits under Clause 19 of the 1971 Resolution, ensuring a non-discriminatory decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee of the Sindh Social Welfare Council a 'civil servant' under the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere in the internal service matters of the Sindh Social Welfare Council?
  • Can a contract employee claim a vested right to regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act 2013 without meeting the statutory criteria?
  • Does the 1971 Resolution governing the Sindh Social Welfare Council create a statutory entitlement for employees to receive benefits comparable to government servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamas-ur-Rehman vs State2020 MLD 916, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 524, 2019 PHC 360 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-08
  revision petitionadverse remarksexpunctionsurety verificationaudi alteram partemtransit bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, who acted as a verifier of sureties for transit bail granted to accused persons, filed a revision petition challenging adverse remarks recorded against him in an order passed by the Sessions Judge under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a court can record unverified adverse remarks and direct disciplinary action against a surety's verifier without providing an opportunity of being heard or any evidentiary basis. The court held that the role of a surety verifier is limited to confirming local residence, while determining surety fitness remains the sole judicial prerogative of the court, and that recording adverse remarks without affording the person an opportunity to be heard violates the principle of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the adverse remarks against the petitioner were expunged. The key principle laid down is that adverse remarks against a non-party or collateral participant cannot be recorded without evidence and without affording an opportunity of defense.

  Questions settled

  • Whether adverse remarks can be recorded against a surety verifier without providing an opportunity of being heard?
  • What is the extent of the role and responsibility of a surety verifier in bail proceedings?
  • Is it the prerogative of the court to determine the solvency and fitness of a surety?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel and another vs The State2019 MLD 1554 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-10
  extortionillegal firearmadverse presumptionreasonable doubtmaterial witnessanti-terrorismcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, which convicted the appellants for extortion and illegal possession of a firearm. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the recovery process. The High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with fatal contradictions, including the failure to produce material witnesses, conflicting accounts regarding the arrest and recovery of the weapon, and unexplained discrepancies in the forensic evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that where material witnesses are withheld, the court may draw an adverse presumption under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Furthermore, the judgment reaffirms that significant contradictions in prosecution evidence regarding the time, place, and manner of recovery, coupled with unexplained delays and discrepancies in handling case property, create reasonable doubt, necessitating the acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court extend the benefit of a judgment to a non-appealing co-accused in a criminal trial?
  • Does the failure to produce material witnesses warrant an adverse presumption against the prosecution under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Are contradictions between prosecution witnesses regarding the time and place of recovery of a weapon sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed Khan vs Khursheed Alam and another2019 PLD Sindh 619 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-16
  local inspectioncriminal trialappreciation of evidencediscretionary powerCode of Criminal Procedurejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged the dismissal of a request for local inspection under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a trial court is duty-bound to conduct a local inspection at the initial stage of a trial to determine the veracity of allegations, and whether such inspection is a mandatory requirement. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the power to conduct a local inspection is discretionary, not mandatory. The court affirmed that such inspections are intended to assist the judge in properly appreciating evidence already on record, rather than acting as a substitute for evidence or a means to gather new facts. A key principle laid down is that a judge must not become a witness by collecting new material during an inspection. Consequently, local inspections should be conducted sparingly, preferably after the examination of witnesses, to avoid the risk of the court unconsciously assuming the role of a witness. The court cannot be compelled to conduct an inspection where no necessity is demonstrated at the trial's initial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court legally obligated to conduct a local inspection at the initial stage of a criminal trial?
  • Can a local inspection conducted by a judge or magistrate serve as a substitute for evidence in a criminal trial?
  • At what stage of a criminal trial is it most appropriate for a judge to exercise the power of local inspection?
  • Does the power of local inspection under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow a judge to collect new material during the inspection?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Noor Muhammad vs The State2019 MLD 1692 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-09
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeforgeryprohibitory clausefurther inquiryfraudcheatingbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, who was charged under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of fraud, forgery, and the issuance of a dishonoured cheque. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the statutory provisions involved. The Court held that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that the essential ingredient of Section 489-F—the issuance of a cheque with dishonest intent—requires evidence to be proven at trial, the Court determined that the case necessitated further inquiry. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, noting that the observations made were tentative and would not prejudice the merits of the case at trial. The principle established is that where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the element of dishonest intent is contested, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offence of issuing a dishonoured cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the determination of dishonest intent in a case involving a dishonoured cheque a matter that requires further inquiry at trial?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Dawood and 7 others vs Appellate Bench (SECP) and another2019 CLD 508 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-01Read full judgment →
• Shahzad vs The State2019 YLR 1718 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-19
  post-arrest baildacoityidentification paradeprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court arising out of Crime No. 379/2017 registered under Sections 392, 395, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shah Latif Town, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given his identification in an identification parade and prima facie connection to the alleged dacoity, notwithstanding arguments regarding delayed identification and false implication due to land disputes. The court dismissed the bail application, holding that sufficient tentative evidence, including successful identification by witnesses before a magistrate and recoveries on the accused's pointation, connected the applicant to the heinous offence, and bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right in such circumstances. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is prima facie connected to an offence through credible identification and investigation material, and unsubstantiated pleas of enmity are raised without documentary proof, post-arrest bail will be denied.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused has been successfully identified by witnesses during an identification parade conducted by a magistrate?
  • Does an unsubstantiated plea of old enmity regarding property disputes constitute a sufficient ground for further inquiry to warrant the grant of bail?
  • Whether bail can be claimed as an absolute right in offences that fall outside or within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh Jatoi vs The State2019 SHC 132 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Shahnaz Parveen through Attorney vs The Additional District Judge-III, Karachi East and 3 others2019 MLD 1008 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-11Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz son of Ghulam Hussain vs The State2019 SHC 423 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-25
  benefit of doubtchain of custodyforensic evidenceanti-terrorismillegal weaponsexplosive substancescriminal appealrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal appeals against convictions and sentences handed down by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses involving explosive substances and illegal arms. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given the evidence presented. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing significant evidentiary gaps: the unexplained two-day delay in sending recovered items to the forensic laboratory, discrepancies regarding the chain of custody of the seized weapons, the failure to associate private witnesses in a thickly populated area despite the opportunity to do so, and contradictions in the testimony regarding who handled the investigation. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of doubt is a fundamental right of an accused; even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient to warrant acquittal, as the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses in a populated area during a recovery operation create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the unexplained delay in sending recovered items to a forensic laboratory a ground for acquittal?
  • Does a contradiction in the chain of custody regarding who handled the investigation and evidence entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Can an accused be acquitted if there is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Jalil vs Rani & Company and Others2019 CLD 1338, 2019 SHC 68 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-13
  trademark infringementinterim injunctionregistered trademarkTrade Marks Ordinancepassing offbalance of convenienceRegistrar of Trademarks
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court in a trademark dispute, whereby the appellant was restrained from using its registered trademark and from continuing proceedings before the Registrar of Trademarks. The core legal question was whether a registered trademark holder could be restrained from using its registered mark through an interim injunction while opposition proceedings regarding the same remained pending adjudication before the Registrar. The Sindh High Court held that granting final relief at an interim stage, which effectively decides the main suit and bypasses the statutory forum, is unsustainable. The court established that a registered trademark constitutes property conferring statutory rights under the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, and a party cannot be deprived of the benefits of such property without due process of law. Consequently, the impugned interim order was set aside, and the interlocutory application was remanded for a de novo determination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a registered trademark holder can be restrained from using its registered mark by way of an interim injunction while proceedings before the Registrar of Trademarks are pending?
  • Can final relief be granted at an interim stage under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the scope and purpose of an interim order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether a party can be deprived of the benefits of a registered trademark without due process of law and prior adjudication by the competent forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Parveen & Another vs Sardar Atif Ali Sanjrani & Others2020 PLC (C.S) 1553, 2019 SHC 256 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-06
  second appealburden of proofsale-cum-exchange agreementconcurrent findingsadditional evidencepower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a second appeal filed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which dismissed the appellants' suit for declaration, cancellation, and injunction regarding a property dispute stemming from an alleged Sale-cum-Exchange Agreement. The core legal question involves whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit due to the appellants' failure to prove the agreement, lack of proper authority of the attorney, and failure to produce attesting witnesses and the original agreement. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence, noting that the appellants failed to establish their claim or produce the agreement as additional evidence in the appellate court. The key principle laid down is that the burden of proof in a civil suit rests heavily on the plaintiff to substantiate claims and produce essential documents, and concurrent factual findings of lower courts will not be disturbed in second appeal without showing any illegality or jurisdictional defect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be interfered with in a second appeal without showing any illegality or infirmity?
  • Does a plaintiff bear the burden of proving a claim and producing the primary document upon which the suit is based?
  • Can a witness acting as an attorney execute an agreement without a valid power-of-attorney at the relevant time?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid vs THe State2019 SHC 304 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-26
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtpolice encounterunlawful assemblyevidentiary valuefalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for offences under Sections 324 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and fired at a police party to deter them from discharging their duties. The appellants denied the charges, claiming false implication and lack of independent evidence. Upon review, the Court noted that the police failed to associate any independent witnesses despite having prior information, and no injuries were sustained by the police personnel nor damage caused to the police vehicle. Furthermore, the Court observed that co-accused persons involved in the same incident had already been acquitted. Citing the principle established in Tariq Pervaiz vs the State (1995 SCMR 1345), the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants, and cancelled their bail bonds, affirming that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is the absence of independent witnesses in a police encounter case sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons in the same incident provide grounds for the acquittal of remaining appellants?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a right of the accused in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Umar vs Chairman NAB and 2 others2019 P Cr. L J 370 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-12
  post-arrest bailhardship bailNAB referencerule of consistencyexpeditious trialcorruptionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused facing corruption charges under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the grounds of "hardship" due to prolonged incarceration and trial delay, despite previous bail rejections on merits. The Court held that while statutory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is inapplicable to NAB cases, the judiciary retains discretionary power to grant bail on hardship grounds where the trial is inordinately delayed without fault of the accused. Emphasizing Article 10(A) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, regarding the right to a fair and expeditious trial, the Court determined that the "rule of consistency" applies where co-accused with similar roles have been granted relief. The principle laid down is that courts must balance the heinous nature of corruption against the constitutional right to liberty, assessing whether the trial can realistically conclude in the near future, thereby preventing indefinite detention of an under-trial prisoner.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused in a NAB case be granted bail on the grounds of hardship despite the absence of statutory provisions for bail due to delay?
  • Does the non-compliance of a court direction to conclude a trial within a specific timeframe constitute an independent ground for bail?
  • Is the rule of consistency applicable when determining bail for co-accused in a corruption reference?
  • Does Article 10(A) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 provide a basis for granting bail in cases of prolonged pre-trial detention?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Freight Services & Others vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2021 CLC 323, 2019 SHC 466 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Shahab-U-Din vs The State2019 YLR 1277 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-08
  reasonable doubtchain of custodyforensic analysis delayunlicensed armsexplosive substancesacquittalindependent witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for offenses related to the possession of explosive substances and unlicensed arms. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of incriminating materials beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly considering the lack of independent witnesses and procedural lapses in the chain of custody. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing significant infirmities: the failure to associate independent witnesses despite the availability of nearby residences, the lack of evidence regarding the safe custody of recovered items at the police station, and an unexplained two-month delay in sending the explosive substances to the forensic expert. Furthermore, the court noted that the police official responsible for transporting the weapons for ballistic analysis was not examined, breaking the chain of custody. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending recovered explosive substances to a forensic expert create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is the failure of the prosecution to examine the official responsible for transporting weapons for ballistic analysis fatal to the chain of custody?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to associate independent witnesses despite their availability at the time of recovery?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Kutrio vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2019 PLC (C.S.) 1209 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-13
  proforma promotionsuperannuationdepartmental promotion committeecivil servantdisciplinary proceedingsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by a civil servant seeking directions for the issuance of a promotion notification to the post of Deputy Director Admin (BPS-18) after being recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee and approved by the competent authority. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant who superannuates after the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee before the issuance of the notification is entitled to proforma promotion, and whether an approved promotion notification can be withheld merely due to the pendency of enquiry proceedings. The Court held that once a civil servant's promotion is approved by the competent authority and they subsequently superannuate, they are entitled to proforma promotion and exemption from assuming charge under Rule 7-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. Furthermore, disciplinary proceedings abate upon retirement as the individual ceases to be a civil servant. The petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether any civil servant who superannuates after the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee before issuing the notification of promotion is entitled for proforma promotion?
  • Whether, after recommendation of promotion of the petitioner in BS-18 by the Departmental Promotion Committee and approved by the competent authority, his promotion notification can be withheld merely on the pendency of enquiry proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs SHO/Incharge Investigating Officer and 10 others2019 P Cr. L J 648 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-01
  quashing of orderpolice reportB classcognizance of offenceMagistrate jurisdictioninvestigationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate accepting a police report for disposal of an FIR under "B" class. The core legal question revolved around whether the Magistrate properly exercised jurisdiction under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in evaluating the police report and relying on inadmissible material such as newspaper clippings instead of focusing on prima facie commission of the offense. The Sindh High Court held that the Magistrate erred by conducting a deep analysis of evidence and relying on unverified newspaper reports, reiterating that the determination of guilt or innocence is the exclusive domain of the trial court, whereas the Magistrate's role at the cognizance stage is limited to a summary assessment of available material. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate can conduct a deep analysis of facts and evidence while exercising jurisdiction under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a newspaper clipping be given weight and relied upon as direct evidence without examining its author in court?
  • What is the precise legal scope and function of an Investigating Officer during a criminal investigation?
  • Whether an order accepting a police report for disposal of a case under B-class based on flawed evaluation is sustainable at law?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Fahad and another vs Pir Ghulam Kareem and others2019 YLR 2187 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-21Read full judgment →
• Shafique vs The State2019 SHC 272 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-19Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed vs THe state2019 SHC 518 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-13
  criminal appealunlicensed weaponrecovery proceedingsbenefit of doubtacquittalmashirnamaprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, who was found guilty by the trial court for the possession of an unlicensed weapon, allegedly recovered while he was in custody for a separate theft case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, given the inconsistencies in the evidence. The High Court observed that the recovery proceedings were highly suspicious: no independent witnesses from the locality were cited as mashirs, the mashirnama's authorship was disputed by the prosecution's own witnesses, and the person responsible for transporting the weapon to the forensic expert was not examined. Furthermore, the appellant had already been acquitted in the main theft case. Relying on the principle established in Tariq Pervaiz vs the State (1995 SCMR 1345), the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, affirming that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure to examine the person who transported the weapon to the forensic expert fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the lack of independent witnesses in recovery proceedings create a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when prosecution evidence is inconsistent?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed and another vs The State2019 SHC 170 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-08Read full judgment →
• SESSI United Staff Union Sindh (Cba) through General Secretary and another vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Labour and 6 others2019 PLC 158 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-06
  interim injunctioncollective bargaining agentreferendumdisputed questions of factconstitutional jurisdictionworkmen statusprime facie caseirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an injunction application filed by the SESSI United Staff Union Sindh seeking to suspend a voter list and stay a scheduled referendum for a Collective Bargaining Agent, arguing that objections regarding the inclusion of certain hospital workers and disputed members remained undecided. The core legal questions concern whether disputed questions of fact regarding the status of workers can be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction, and whether the plaintiffs established the necessary ingredients for the grant of an interim injunction. The court dismissed the injunction application, holding that the determination of whether specific employees qualify as workmen involves disputed questions of fact that cannot be resolved under extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The court reaffirmed the principle that an interim injunction requires the co-existence of a strong prima facie case, balance of inconvenience, and irreparable loss, none of which were satisfied given that the petitioners' legal term had long expired and the maintainability of their petition itself was questionable.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the status of employees as workmen be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • What are the mandatory ingredients required for the grant of an interim injunction?
  • Whether an interim injunction can be granted when the maintainability of the main petition itself is questionable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sesons Edible Oil Limited (Formerly Wali Oil Mills Limited) through Authorized Attorney vs The Federal Board of Revenue through Chairman, FBR, Islamabad and 3 others2019 PTD 1619 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Selat Marine Services Co. LLC through Authorized Attorney vs M.T. Bofors2019 PLD Sindh 533 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-29Read full judgment →
• Sartaj Khan vs The State2019 YLR 2287 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-10
  narcotics possessioncriminal appealcontrol of narcotic substances actburden of proofrecovery of narcoticsevidence of excise officialssection 103 crpc
  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 transporting 35 kilograms of Charas in a truck trailer. The core legal questions concerned the liability of a driver for narcotics concealed within a vehicle, the impact of non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding independent witnesses, and the competence of excise officials as witnesses and investigators. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the driver of a vehicle is legally responsible for its contents, including concealed narcotics. The Court affirmed that the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, are excluded in narcotics cases, and that excise officials are competent witnesses whose testimony cannot be discarded absent proof of enmity. Furthermore, the Court held that once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case of recovery, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, to prove innocence. The conviction was upheld as the evidence was deemed confidence-inspiring.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle legally responsible for narcotics found concealed within that vehicle?
  • Does the exclusion of independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, vitiate a conviction in narcotics cases?
  • Can a complainant in a narcotics case also act as the investigating officer?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once the prosecution establishes a prima facie recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Bux Mahar vs Mst. Saman Muhammad Mahar and another2020 P Cr. L J 1079, 2019 SHC 268 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-16
  child custodyguardian and wardshabeas corpuswelfare of minorsnatural guardians
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a constitutional petition challenging an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to produce minor children in a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for habeas corpus. The core legal question concerned the appropriate legal remedy and forum for a custody dispute between natural parents, noting that both parties had initiated misconceived proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Sections 5 and 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 instead of invoking Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890. The court held that custody disputes between parents must be adjudicated under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 rather than through habeas corpus or general guardianship appointment provisions. The court laid down that where parties approach incorrect forums for child custody, the High Court may convert and transfer such proceedings to the competent Family Court to be tried as an application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 in the interest of the welfare of the minors.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is the appropriate remedy for a parent seeking custody of a minor from the other natural parent?
  • Can a court convert a misconceived petition filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 into an application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890?
  • Do natural parents require an order of the court to support their right to act as guardians of their minor children under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Kalay Khan vs The State2020 YLR 1719, 2019 SHC 428 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-01
  explosive substancesillicit weaponspolice encounterrecovery witnesscredibility of police officialsanti-terrorismcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Section 23(i)A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 6(2)(ee) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution case stemmed from a police patrol where the appellants were allegedly found in possession of Owan bombs and pistols. The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated, that private witnesses were not associated in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the police testimonies were unreliable. The Sindh High Court held that the testimonies of police officials were trustworthy and corroborated by expert bomb disposal and forensic reports, and the absence of private witnesses at odd night hours was satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials can be relied upon for conviction in the absence of private mashirs under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the recovery of explosive devices and unlicensed weapons at odd night hours justify the non-association of private public witnesses?
  • Whether minor contradictions in the ocular testimony of police witnesses are fatal to the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Samuel Parvaiz vs Province of Sindh and others2019 SHC 600 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-27Read full judgment →
• Samsonite Ip Holdings S.a.r.1. through Attorney and another vs Famous2020 P C T L R 1419, 2019 CLD 1060 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-24Read full judgment →
• Samad Ali vs The State2019 MLD 670 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-30
  benefit of doubtexplosive substancesunexplained delaychain of custodysafe transitindependent witnessesfoisting of weaponacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and fourteen-year sentence under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 6(2)(cc)/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and Section 23(i)-A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, rendered by the Anti-Terrorism Court No. XII, Karachi. The prosecution alleged that police recovered an un-numbered TT pistol and a live hand grenade from the appellant's possession. Upon reviewing the evidence, the High Court identified critical flaws: an unexplained three-day delay in sending the pistol for ballistic examination, unaccounted chain of custody for the hand grenade before defusal, absence of independent private witnesses in a populated area, overwriting on the Bomb Disposal clearance certificate, and unaddressed defence pleas of prior enmity with local police. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish safe custody, safe transit, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Extending the benefit of doubt, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending a recovered firearm for ballistic testing render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Whether failure to establish safe custody and safe transit of seized arms and explosives entitles the accused to acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based solely on police witnesses' testimony when recovery occurred in a populated area without independent witnesses?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to grant acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Salim Ahmed and another vs Nasim Imtiaz and 7 others2019 CLC 1266 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-18Read full judgment →
• Saleem Shehzada vs Province of Sindh & Others2019 CLC 2077, 2020 CLD 894, 2019 SHC 102 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar Qureshi vs The State and another2019 YLR 1104 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-07
  registration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peacecognizable offencedishonoured chequequashing of orderstatutory duty of SHO
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed to challenge an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace declining the applicant's request to direct the Station House Officer to register an FIR against the proposed accused regarding a dishonoured cheque and associated allegations. The core legal question was whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and the police were justified in refusing to record a statement and register an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that civil litigation was pending and the dispute was civil in nature. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as deeper appreciation of evidence and merits is not required at the stage of registering an FIR, and the police are statutorily bound to record information disclosing a cognizable offence. The court set aside the order and directed the SHO to record the statement and proceed in accordance with law, while providing protective directives regarding arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace can refuse to direct the registration of an FIR by delving into the merits of a dispute?
  • Is the Station House Officer legally bound to record information under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it discloses a cognizable offence?
  • Does the existence of prior civil litigation between the parties bar the registration of a criminal case if a cognizable offence is made out?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjan and another vs The State2019 YLR 2442 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-18
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirymatrimonial disputedelayed FIRcriminal procedureprima facie casetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by two applicants, Sajjan and Amjad, who were accused of offenses under sections 376, 511, and 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the evidentiary material available. The High Court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim order. The court reasoned that the prosecution's narrative—that an elderly father-in-law attempted to commit zina with his daughter-in-law while her parents were present in the same house—was inherently improbable and lacked credibility. Furthermore, the court noted a significant twenty-two-day delay in lodging the FIR without a plausible explanation and observed that the parties were involved in strained matrimonial disputes. Consequently, the court determined that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prosecution's story did not inspire confidence, and the applicants successfully established a prima facie case for the grant of relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can a court grant pre-arrest bail when the prosecution's narrative appears inherently improbable and lacks credibility?
  • Is a case eligible for bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution story does not inspire confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajidullah Memon vs Secretary Irrigation & others2019 SHC 558 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali vs Federation of Pakistan & others2019 SHC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-15Read full judgment →
• Saifal Mugheri vs Abdul Ghani and 3 others2019 P Cr. L J 1598 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peacejurisdictiondemarcation of landrevenue authoritiespolice powersSection 22-A Cr.P.C.criminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. The core legal question was whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace possesses the jurisdiction to issue directives to revenue authorities, specifically regarding the demarcation of land, under the powers conferred by Section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful jurisdiction and set it aside. The ratio of the decision is that the jurisdiction of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is strictly confined to issuing directions to police authorities concerning the non-registration of criminal cases, the transfer of investigations, or neglect, failure, or excess committed by police officials. The key principle laid down is that the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6)(iii) do not extend to revenue officials or the determination of civil rights, as jurisdiction is a power vested solely by law, and acts performed outside this statutory scope are void.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have the jurisdiction to issue directions to revenue authorities regarding land demarcation?
  • Is the scope of Section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited solely to the oversight of police authorities?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace intervene in the determination of civil rights between parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Shujaat and Ors vs Govt. of Sindh & Others2019 SHC 324 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-30
  seniorityregularization of servicescontract employeescivil servantretrospective seniorityad-hoc appointmentservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, formerly employed on a contract basis, filed a petition seeking a direction to the respondent department to count their seniority from the date of their initial appointments rather than from the date of their regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013. The core legal question was whether the period of contractual service could be counted towards seniority for civil servants who were subsequently regularized. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners’ claim for retrospective seniority was legally misconceived. The court determined that during their contractual tenure, the petitioners were not civil servants as they worked on project-based posts rather than sanctioned budgetary posts. The court affirmed the principle that, pursuant to the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation & Seniority) Rules, 1975, the seniority of a civil servant must be reckoned strictly from the date of regular appointment. Consequently, the court held that no appointment made on an ad-hoc or contract basis can be regularized retrospectively, and such service periods cannot be counted towards the seniority of a civil servant.

  Questions settled

  • Can the period of contractual service be counted towards the seniority of a civil servant?
  • Does the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 allow for the retrospective counting of seniority?
  • Can an appointment made on an ad-hoc or contract basis be regularized retrospectively?
  • Are persons employed on a contract basis considered civil servants under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Saga Shipping & Trading Corporation Ltd., & Mr. Naveed Ahmed vs Walia2020 CLC 275, 2019 SHC 112 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-07Read full judgment →
• Safar son of Basar Lund vs The State2019 SHC 550 · Sindh High Court
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRdeath referencemurder trialweapon recoverywitness credibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dadu, for offences under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant was accused of murdering the deceased and injuring a prosecution witness. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the impact of unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and recording witness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the evidentiary value of a disputed weapon recovery. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that unexplained delays in reporting the crime and recording witness statements create inherent presumptions of deliberation and consultation, significantly weakening the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the failure to examine a key injured witness and the lack of forensic correlation between the recovered weapon and crime scene empties entitled the appellant to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming that a single reasonable doubt necessitates acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a presumption of deliberation and consultation?
  • What is the legal consequence of a significant delay in recording prosecution witness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • Does the failure to examine a key injured witness negatively impact the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Khan vs VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and 22019 CLC 643 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• Sadaruddin and 3 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home2019 YLR 951 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain and another vs The State2019 YLR 1795 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-30
  narcotic traffickingpossession of narcoticscriminal appealpolice witnessinvestigating officerrecovery proceedingschemical examiner reportburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns criminal appeals filed against a conviction under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, for the possession and transportation of a large quantity of Charas. The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds including the absence of independent witnesses, the complainant acting as the investigating officer, and alleged delays in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner. The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It affirmed that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded in narcotic cases, and that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony cannot be discarded solely due to their employment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a complainant is not legally barred from acting as the investigating officer, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. As the appellants failed to rebut the prosecution's evidence or establish mala fides, the Court maintained the conviction and sentence, emphasizing that the initial burden of proof was discharged by the state.

  Questions settled

  • Is the provision of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to cases involving the recovery of narcotics?
  • Can a complainant also act as the investigating officer in a criminal case?
  • Does the testimony of police officials require corroboration by independent witnesses to be admissible in narcotic cases?
  • Does a delay of two days in sending recovered narcotics to the Chemical Examiner invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadullah vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 127 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-16Read full judgment →
• S. M. Inam-Ul-Haq vs Mirza Amjad Baig and another2019 MLD 1914 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-28Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali vs The State2019 MLD 1542 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-18
  jail appealmurdercapital punishmentocular evidencemedical evidencerelated witnessescircumstantial evidencerecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the murder of two women. The prosecution case was that the appellant entered the complainant's house and brutally inflicted injuries using a sharp-edged wooden piece, resulting in the instantaneous death of both victims. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eye-witnesses, the consistency between ocular and medical evidence, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence including prompt FIR lodging and prompt arrest with weapon recovery. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the ocular account of natural witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, prompt FIR, and recovery of blood-stained articles, proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt. The ratio laid down is that minor contradictions do not discredit otherwise consistent and reliable eye-witness testimony of related witnesses when corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, and that relationship alone is insufficient to discard a natural witness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a murder trial?
  • Does inconsistency between the motive stated in the FIR and evidence affect the core prosecution case when ocular evidence is otherwise trustworthy?
  • Can minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses be a ground for outright acquittal?
  • Whether prompt lodging of the FIR and immediate arrest of the accused with weapon recovery serve as strong corroborative circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Lakhani vs Saeed Ullah Shah and 51 others2019 MLD 2042 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-11Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Akbar Arain vs The Chairman National Highways Authority & others2019 SHC 372 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs Federation of Pakistan2019 SHC 474 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-06Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali and Ghulam Hyder Joyo vs Governor Sindh/Chancellor & others2019 SHC 482, 2020 PLC (C. S. ) 764, 2019 SHC 494 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-09
  quo warrantovice chancellor extensionprovincial cabinetexecutive authorityconstitutional interpretationsindh agriculture university act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought a writ of quo warranto against the extension of the tenure of respondent no. 5 as Vice Chancellor of Sindh Agriculture University for a further term of four years under a notification dated 10-04-2018. The core legal questions involved whether the extension required the appointee to be an agriculturist, whether it violated an ECP recruitment ban, and whether the extension made on the advice of the Chief Minister alone complied with Section 27(1) of the Sindh Agriculture University Act, 1977 as amended in 2014, which required the action to be taken by the "Government". The court held that the extension notification was issued without lawful authority and set it aside because, following the precedent in Mustafa Impex, the term "Government" under the constitutional framework of Article 129 means the Provincial Cabinet as a collective entity, and executive powers vested in the Government cannot be exercised by the Chief Minister in isolation. The key principle laid down is that statutory powers vested in the Provincial Government must be exercised by the Provincial Cabinet and cannot be bypassed or solely executed by the Chief Minister.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term "Government" in a provincial statute refer to the Provincial Cabinet rather than the Chief Minister alone?
  • Can the Chief Minister exercise statutory executive powers of the Provincial Government independently without the approval of the Provincial Cabinet?
  • Whether the extension of tenure of a Vice Chancellor under Section 27(1) of the Sindh Agriculture University Act, 1977 requires a decision by the Provincial Cabinet?
  • Does the rule in Mustafa Impex regarding the Federal Government's collective decision-making apply equally to the Provincial Government under Article 129 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Fed: of Pakisatan & others2019 SHC 496 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-10Read full judgment →