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.

• Rehmatullah Rehan vs Muhammad Zia-ud-Din2019 SHC 94 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-26
  criminal appealdefamationburden of proofreopening of trialcourt witnessfinequashment of conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, West Karachi, under Section 500/499 of the Pakistan Penal Code for alleged defamation. The core legal questions involved whether the complainant successfully proved the charge of defamation beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court acted lawfully by reopening the trial after the close of evidence to examine a court witness. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to produce or prove the existence of the foundational defamatory documents or pamphlets, and that the trial judge improperly assumed the role of a prosecutor by reopening the case and improperly awarding the fine directly to the complainant. The court laid down the principle that in criminal cases, the burden of proof rests squarely on the complainant to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and a trial judge cannot arbitrarily cure prosecution lacunae or manipulate procedure after the conclusion of the trial. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for defamation can be sustained when the complainant fails to produce or prove the original defamatory document or pamphlet?
  • Can a trial court reopen a criminal trial after the conclusion of evidence and the recording of the accused's statement to summon a court witness without legal justification?
  • Whether a fine imposed as a criminal punishment can be ordered to be paid directly to the complainant instead of being deposited in the government treasury?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused in a criminal trial before the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Nawaz Khan vs Mst. Syeda Khurshid Begum through Legal Heirs2019 CLC 52 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-05Read full judgment →
• Rehan Ahmed Baig vs Mst. Sabeen Naz2019 SHC 128 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Raza Muhammad Gorar and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chairman and others2019 PLJ Karachi 110, 2018 SHC 790, 2018 CLC 1777 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-05Read full judgment →
• Rashid vs Mst. Farah Naz2019 CLC 1384 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-27Read full judgment →
• Rashid Hussain and others vs PTCL and others2019 PLC 249 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-18
  Voluntary Separation Schemeeviction proceedingsemployer-employee relationshipsummary evictionconstitutional petitionPTCLresidential accommodation
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged orders passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and the Judicial Magistrate, which directed the petitioners to vacate residential accommodations provided by the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL). The petitioners, former employees who opted for a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS), contended they were entitled to retain the housing and that Standing Order 16 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was inapplicable to them. The core legal question was whether the summary eviction procedure under Standing Order 16 applies to employees who voluntarily separated from service. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the VSS constituted a complete cessation of the employer-employee relationship, rendering the petitioners liable to vacate the premises upon the expiry of the agreed grace period. The Court affirmed that Standing Order 16 provides a valid summary mechanism for employers to recover possession of residential units from former employees. It was held that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is discretionary and cannot be invoked to perpetuate the unauthorized retention of company property.

  Questions settled

  • Does Standing Order 16 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to employees who have opted for a Voluntary Separation Scheme?
  • Can a former employee retain company-provided residential accommodation after the cessation of their employment under a Voluntary Separation Scheme?
  • Is the summary procedure for eviction under Standing Order 16 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applicable to employees who have voluntarily separated from service?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to interfere with eviction orders where no jurisdictional error is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Nadeem Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2019 PTD 1264 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-03Read full judgment →
• Rajib Ali Naich and others vs The State2019 MLD 306 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-21
  fair trialabsconding accusedrecording of evidencecross-examinationremandprocedural illegalitySection 512 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction and death sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, where the trial court relied on evidence recorded during the trial of co-accused persons to convict the appellants, including one who was arrested later. The core legal question is whether evidence recorded in the absence of an accused can be used against them upon their subsequent appearance without recalling the witnesses for cross-examination. The Court held that the trial court committed a procedural illegality by adopting previously recorded evidence without providing the appellants a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, thereby violating the principles of a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The Court established that while Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides a limited exception for recording evidence against absconders, the general rule remains that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial with a mandate to recall prosecution witnesses for examination and cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence recorded in the trial of co-accused persons be used against an accused who subsequently joins the trial without recalling the witnesses?
  • Is it mandatory for prosecution witnesses to be examined in the presence of the accused to satisfy the requirements of a fair trial?
  • Under what specific circumstances can evidence recorded in the absence of an accused be admitted against them?
  • Does the failure to recall witnesses for cross-examination after an absconding accused is arrested constitute a fatal procedural error?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajee (Pvt) Limited vs The Registrar of Designs & Another2019 CLD 458, 2019 SHC 8 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• Raja Khan vs Shah Nawaz and 10 others2019 CLC 2061 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Ali vs Muhammad Ali and 5 others2019 YLR 404 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-22
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencedelay in FIRabsence of medical evidenceinterested witnessesinterference in acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This acquittal appeal was filed by the complainant against the judgment of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Golarchi at Badin, which acquitted respondents Nos. 1 to 5 of charges under Sections 504 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the respondents destroyed a water course, issued threats, and physically assaulted the complainant. Upon reviewing the evidence, the High Court observed that there was an unexplained 11-day delay in lodging the FIR, a complete absence of medical evidence or injury reports, and material contradictions among the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who were close relatives of the complainant. Furthermore, no independent locality witnesses were examined, and no recovery was made to connect the accused to the crime. Upholding the trial court's judgment, the High Court held that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and cannot be interfered with unless it is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or based on a misreading of evidence causing gross miscarriage of justice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required for an appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does an order of acquittal create a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused?
  • Can an acquittal based on an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and lack of medical evidence be set aside in appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bux Soomro vs The State through Director General (NAB)2019 MLD 358 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-16
  suspension of sentenceaccountability courtshort sentenceNAB referencewrit jurisdictionbail pending appealNational Accountability Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition seeking the suspension of a four-year sentence awarded to the petitioner by an Accountability Court following a conviction under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to suspend a sentence in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) case, given the statutory framework and the petitioner's request for relief pending the disposal of his appeal. The Court held that it has the jurisdiction to suspend the sentence, relying on the principle established in Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 607), which clarifies that the jurisdiction of superior courts cannot be ousted by sub-constitutional legislation. Furthermore, the Court determined that a four-year sentence constitutes a short sentence, and given the heavy backlog of cases, the likelihood of an early hearing of the appeal is minimal. Consequently, the Court granted the suspension of the sentence, ordering the petitioner's release on bail subject to the furnishing of solvent surety and the deposit of his passport.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to suspend a sentence in a case prosecuted under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can a sentence of four years be considered a short sentence for the purpose of granting suspension of sentence pending appeal?
  • Does the omission of the words 'High Court' from Section 9(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, divest the High Court of its power to grant bail or suspend a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Dino vs P.O Sindh & Other2020 CLC 1233, 2019 SHC 124 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-02Read full judgment →
• Qasim vs State2019 SHC 284 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-19
  criminal appealrapeabductionbenefit of doubthostile witnessDNA evidenceacquittalcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Badin, which convicted the appellant under Sections 457, 364-A, and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for house trespass, abduction, and rape. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the unreliable testimony of witnesses and compromised forensic evidence. The High Court observed that the complainant and mashirs did not support the prosecution's case, and the victim's identification of the appellant was doubtful. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to explain the delay in recording the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the delay in dispatching DNA samples. The Court held that since the co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence, the appellant was entitled to the same benefit of doubt. The Court reiterated the principle that if prosecution witnesses are disbelieved regarding one accused, they cannot be relied upon for another without independent corroboration, and that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can prosecution witnesses be relied upon to convict an accused if they have been disbelieved regarding a co-accused attributed a similar role?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution evidence is contradictory or unreliable?
  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in dispatching DNA samples to a chemical examiner undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim vs Ghulam Mustafa alias Gulo and 5 others2019 P Cr. LJ 1249 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-08
  criminal revisionrecording of evidenceattorney representationIllegal Dispossession Actcomplainant's evidencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the trial court, which dismissed the applicant's request to record his evidence through an attorney in a direct complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The applicant, citing old age and infirmity, argued he was incapable of understanding court proceedings and thus required representation. The core legal question was whether a complainant in a criminal case is legally permitted to record their evidence through an attorney. The High Court held that there is no provision in general or special law authorizing the recording of a witness or complainant's evidence through an attorney in criminal proceedings. The Court observed that the applicant's ability to file the complaint and the revision application in person contradicted his claim of incapacity. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision application, affirming that acts not permitted by law cannot be allowed under any pretext. The principle laid down is that the personal examination of a complainant or witness is mandatory in criminal trials, and no legal mechanism exists to delegate this evidentiary function to an attorney.

  Questions settled

  • Is a complainant in a criminal case permitted to record their evidence through an attorney?
  • Does the law allow for the delegation of evidence recording to an attorney in criminal proceedings?
  • Can a trial court allow a complainant to testify through an attorney on the grounds of old age and infirmity?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamar-Ul-Islam vs Xith Additional District and Sessions2019 P Cr. L J 841 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-07
  contempt of courtsummary trialright to fair trialintentional insultconviction in absentiapublic justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a practicing advocate, challenged his conviction under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was recorded by the trial court under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether a trial court could convict an accused for contempt and intentional insult during judicial proceedings without conducting the mandated summary trial and in the absence of the accused. The Sindh High Court held that while a court has the absolute discretion to take cognizance under either Section 476 or Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, choosing Section 476 obligates the court to strictly follow the procedure prescribed for summary trials under Chapter XXII, which cannot be conducted at the back of the accused or on mere assumptions. The court laid down the principle that deviation from substantial statutory procedures infringes upon the guaranteed right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and abscondence or leaving the courtroom cannot replace legal proof or dispense with the requirement of a proper trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court taking cognizance under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is bound to follow the procedure prescribed for summary trials?
  • Can a valid conviction and sentence for contempt under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be recorded against an accused in his absence without completing a regular or summary trial?
  • Does the mere departure or abscondence of an accused from the courtroom dispense with the statutory requirement of conducting a trial and providing a fair hearing?
  • What is the distinction between the powers and procedures under Section 476 and Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Abbas Khan vs The State2019 YLR 1490 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-07
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseillegal de-sealingtampering with evidencenon-bailable offencesjudicial discretionheinous offences
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns the applicant's request for post-arrest bail in a case involving the illegal de-sealing of a previously sealed travel agency office, where incriminating documents and passports were recovered. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to bail, particularly when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail, reasoning that the offence is of a serious and heinous nature, involving the applicant taking the law into his own hands and tampering with evidence, which affects the public at large. The Court emphasized that even if an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail is not a right but a matter of judicial discretion, and the circumstances of the case—specifically the recovery of documents and the nature of the fraud—warrant the refusal of bail. The principle laid down is that bail in non-bailable offences is not a right, regardless of whether the offence falls within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Is bail a matter of right in non-bailable offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused claim bail as a matter of right simply because the offence charged is not punishable by death, life imprisonment, or ten years imprisonment?
  • Does the illegal de-sealing of a government-sealed premises and the recovery of incriminating documents constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaim Muhammad son of Muhammad Hingorjo vs The State2019 SHC 538 · Sindh High Court
  Qatl-e-AmdLife imprisonmentSentence enhancementJudicial confessionMotiveCriminal appealMitigating circumstance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and accompanying criminal revision application arise from the conviction of the appellant for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment. The appellant challenged the conviction, citing unreliable evidence and a coerced confession, while the complainant sought an enhancement of the sentence. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence for conviction and whether the failure to prove the alleged motive warranted an enhancement of the sentence. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution witnesses credible and the appellant’s judicial confession voluntary and incriminating. However, the Court rejected the complainant's plea for sentence enhancement. The ratio established is that while a conviction may be sustained based on credible ocular evidence and a valid confession, the prosecution's failure to establish the motive serves as a significant mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Court held that in the absence of a proven motive, the sentence of life imprisonment remains appropriate, and judicial caution must be exercised to avoid harsher penalties when the underlying cause of the occurrence remains unproven.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive for a murder constitute a mitigating circumstance against the enhancement of a sentence?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of related witnesses if they remain consistent under cross-examination?
  • Is a judicial confession, when corroborated by other evidence, sufficient to uphold a conviction for Qatl-e-Amd?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Khan Mandokhail vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 429 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-08
  direct complaintcriminal revisionlocus standifrivolous litigationcognizable offencevictimizationpreliminary inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application challenged an order by the Special Court (Central-I), Karachi, which dismissed a direct complaint filed under Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The complainant alleged that the respondent, a government employee, engaged in unauthorized private business, tax evasion, and document forgery. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failing to disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding and whether the complaint constituted an attempt to harass the respondent. The High Court upheld the dismissal, affirming that while a complainant need not have a direct nexus to a crime, the trial court is obligated to scrutinize complaints to prevent frivolous litigation and victimization. The Court held that the allegations were vague, general, and lacked the necessary evidential basis to justify summoning the accused. Furthermore, given the history of extensive civil and criminal litigation between the parties, the Court concluded the complaint was intended to pressurize the respondent rather than pursue a legitimate criminal grievance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the authority to dismiss a direct complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it lacks sufficient grounds for proceeding?
  • Is a complainant required to have a direct nexus to a crime to file a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What factors must a trial court consider when determining whether to issue process on a direct complaint to prevent the victimization of an accused?
  • Does the existence of prior civil and criminal litigation between parties justify the dismissal of a subsequent private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux alias Ghulam Shabbir vs Federation of Pakistan through Seceratory Misistry of Petroleum and Gas Government of Pakistan and 2 others2019 YLR 1844 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux alias Baboo vs The State2019 MLD 481 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-31
  absconderAnti-Terrorism Courtconviction in absentiaviolation of Section 367 Cr.P.C.forfeiture of propertydue process
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Jacobabad, whereby he was convicted and sentenced under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for abscondance, along with the forfeiture of his properties. The core legal question was whether a conviction for abscondance under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 could be sustained when no charge was framed, no evidence was recorded, no point for determination was formulated in violation of Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the trial in absentia violated fundamental rights under the Constitution. The High Court held that the conviction and sentence were illegal, violative of mandatory procedural requirements and constitutional safeguards, and could not be sustained. The court laid down the principle that a conviction under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 requires strict adherence to trial procedures, framing of charges, recording of evidence, formulation of points for determination under Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and respect for constitutional protections against trial in absentia without due process.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 without a formal charge being framed and evidence being recorded?
  • Whether the forfeiture of moveable and immoveable property is permissible under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in the absence of a fine?
  • Does a judgment convicting an absconder without framing points for determination and providing reasons violate Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a trial and conviction conducted in absentia sustainable if it violates Articles 9 and 10(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and Section 10(11-A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Pyramid Logistics (Private) Limited vs Azia-12 LLC & others2019 MLD 856, 2019 SHC 5 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-04Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh & Another vs Abdul Raheem Khan & Others2020 YLR 1799, 2019 SHC 332 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
• Premier Battery Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Karachi Water and Sewerage2019 CLC 583 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-12Read full judgment →
• Port Grand Limited vs K-Electric Limited through Chief Executive Officer2019 [M] C.L.R. 1624, 2019 CLC 133 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-12Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux Samoon and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and others2019 P Cr. LJ 1107 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-15
  post-arrest bailcorruptionembezzlementNational Accountability Ordinance 1999prohibitory clauseaccountability courtmisuse of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitution petitions filed by several petitioners seeking post-arrest bail in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference pending before an Accountability Court. The petitioners were accused of corruption and corrupt practices, specifically the embezzlement of government funds amounting to Rs. 678.946 million through the issuance of fake and bogus PLA cheques, the use of dummy contractors, and the misuse of official authority. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the evidence of their involvement and the nature of the charges. The court held that the petitioners were prima facie connected to the commission of the offence, which falls under the prohibitory clause of the relevant accountability laws. Furthermore, the petitioners failed to provide a tentative accounting for the significant assets unearthed during the investigation. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petitions, emphasizing that courts must apply accountability laws rigidly at the bail stage due to the severe threat corruption poses to the state economy and public welfare. The trial court was directed to conclude proceedings within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an accused to account for assets unearthed during a NAB investigation constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Should accountability laws be applied with greater rigidity at the bail stage when the accused is charged with large-scale embezzlement of public funds?
  • Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage in cases involving corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Pfizer Pakistan Private Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2019 MLD 1849, 2019 SHC 100 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-16
  drug pricingconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory appellate remedyinterim reliefancillary powersDrug Regulatory Authority of Pakistanadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged a notice and SRO issued by the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) enforcing drug price reductions. The petitioners contended that the impugned instruments violated the Drugs Pricing Policy 2018 and prior Supreme Court directions. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court should exercise constitutional jurisdiction in pricing disputes and whether a statutory appellate forum, lacking express provisions for interim relief, could grant such relief pending appeal. The Court held that, pursuant to Supreme Court directives, the statutory appellate mechanism must be exhausted, and thus declined to exercise constitutional jurisdiction. Regarding interim relief, the Court established the principle that a forum empowered to grant final relief inherently possesses the ancillary or incidental power to grant interim relief, even in the absence of express statutory provisions, to ensure the effective exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioners to pursue their appeals before the appellate board, which was mandated to hear and determine applications for interim relief expeditiously in accordance with these established legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statutory appellate forum have the power to grant interim relief if the governing statute does not expressly provide for it?
  • Should a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction when an alternative statutory appellate remedy is available?
  • Is the power to grant interim relief an ancillary power to the main appellate jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Khan vs Federation Of Pakistan & Others2019 SHC 594 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24
  reinstatementRemoval from Service Ordinanceregular inquiryde novo inquiryaudi alteram partemback benefitsunreasoned order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an employee of Jamshoro Power Company Limited seeking reinstatement in service following his termination under Section 3(i) of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000. The legal questions before the High Court were whether a major penalty of removal from service could be lawfully imposed without conducting a regular inquiry and whether an unreasoned order rejecting a departmental appeal was legally sustainable. The Sindh High Court held that dispensing with a regular inquiry prior to imposing a major penalty and failing to assign reasons in an appellate order violated the principles of natural justice and Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the High Court directed the competent authority to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. However, the respondents were granted liberty to initiate de novo inquiry proceedings against him in accordance with law, with the entitlement to back benefits made conditional upon the outcome of such inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can a major penalty of removal from service be lawfully imposed on an employee without conducting a regular inquiry?
  • Is an unreasoned order passed in a departmental appeal legally sustainable under Article 10-A of the Constitution?
  • Does the dispensation of a regular inquiry in disciplinary proceedings imposing a major penalty violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Hussain and another vs Mian Khurram Rasool2019 CLC 2027, 2019 SHC 240 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-19Read full judgment →
• Pehliwan Ahmed Gopang vs The State and others2019 P Cr. L J 567 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-09
  registration of FIRtortuous actionsuit for damagesefficacious remedycriminal miscellaneous applicationcompensation for loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shikarpur, which dismissed the applicant's petition filed under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant sought the registration of an FIR against a car driver and a Station House Officer (SHO) following an incident where a car fell into a pond, causing the death and injury of the applicant's buffaloes. The core legal question was whether the court should direct the registration of an FIR or if alternative remedies were more appropriate given the nature of the grievance. The High Court held that the applicant's primary grievance regarding the loss of his cattle and the desire for financial compensation is essentially a civil matter. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that lodging an FIR would not provide the compensation sought. The key principle laid down is that where a grievance is primarily based on a claim for damages or compensation for loss, the appropriate and efficacious remedy is a civil suit for damages (tortuous action) rather than criminal proceedings, especially when the incident does not clearly attract penal provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Is the registration of an FIR the appropriate remedy when the primary grievance is a claim for financial compensation for property loss?
  • Can a court dismiss a petition under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the grounds that an alternative civil remedy is available?
  • Does a claim for damages arising from an accident constitute a valid ground for directing the registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Paramount Spinning Mills Limited vs Bank of Punjab2019 SHC 420 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-25Read full judgment →
• Pakistan National Shipping Corporation & others vs M/s. Coniston Limited2020 CLC 454, 2019 SHC 56 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-25Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs Province of Sindh and others2020 PLD Sindh 99, 2019 SHC 160 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-22Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mercantile Exchange Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue -PTCL 2019 CL. 298, 2019 PTD 1463, 2019 SHC 46 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Airline Pilots' Association vs Pakistan International Airlines2019 SHC 398 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-27Read full judgment →
• P.M. Packages & Others vs Silk Bank Limited2019 CLD 713, 2019 SHC 37 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Orient Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd vs Government of Sindh Pakistan & others2019 SHC 166, 2022 PTD 1342 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Hussain Shah vs The Chairman, National Accountability2019 MLD 680 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-23Read full judgment →
• Noorullah vs Inspector General of Police Sindh Karachi and 3 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 688 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-22
  deceased quotacivil servantappointmentSindh Civil Servants Ruleswrit petitionpolice recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by the son of a deceased police employee seeking appointment under the deceased quota, as provided by the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The petitioner, having been rejected for the post of Police Constable due to a height deficiency, sought appointment as a Naib Qasid or in another suitable capacity. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be denied appointment based on height deficiency for a specific post and an alleged lack of vacancies. The High Court held that the deficiency in height for the post of Police Constable did not disqualify the petitioner from appointment to other posts, such as Naib Qasid or Junior Clerk, under the deceased quota. The Court emphasized that the intent of Rule 11-A is to provide relief to the families of deceased civil servants, and the department is obligated to accommodate the legal heir. Consequently, the respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner to an existing vacancy, fulfilling the statutory mandate of the Rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does a height deficiency for the post of Police Constable disqualify a candidate from appointment to other posts under the deceased quota?
  • Is the department legally obligated to accommodate a legal heir of a deceased civil servant under the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974?
  • Can the state deny appointment under the deceased quota indefinitely citing a lack of vacancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Noman Butt vs Mst. Aqsa and 3 others2019 CLC 1436 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-06Read full judgment →
• Noman Ali Bhatti vs National Accountability Bureau and others2019 PLJ Karachi 106, 2019 YLR 668 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-03Read full judgment →
• Nizar Noor Ali vs Ameer Ali2020 CLC 254, 2019 SHC 230 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-08Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin Mansoori vs Riffat Shahnaz and 10 others2019 PLJ Karachi 100 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-19Read full judgment →
• Nizamu-din-Din vs The Province of Sindh Et others2019 SHC 292 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-22
  constitutional petitionservice tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceshow cause noticedisciplinary proceedingsmisconductbar of jurisdictioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a police officer, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, specifically a show cause notice for misconduct and the deletion of his name from an Upper School Course. The court evaluated whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable against a show cause notice and disciplinary actions involving terms and conditions of service in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212(2).

  The High Court held that disciplinary proceedings fall within the expression 'terms and conditions of service' of a civil servant. Under Article 212(2) of the Constitution read with Section 3(2) of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973, the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over such service matters, completely ousting the jurisdiction of High Courts and Civil Courts. Furthermore, the court ruled that a show cause notice is merely an intimation to explain allegations and does not constitute a final adverse order or punishment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 199 regarding disciplinary proceedings of civil servants?
  • Can a civil servant challenge a show cause notice in a constitutional petition before the High Court?
  • Do disciplinary proceedings and eligibility for promotion courses fall under the terms and conditions of service within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain alias Jagoo vs State2019 SHC 340 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-04
  death sentencelife imprisonmentmitigating circumstancesQatl-e-amdappellate reviewsentencing discretionjudicial caution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal and a death reference arising from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his sister and the attempted murder of the complainant. The core legal question was whether the death sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate given the evidentiary circumstances. The Sindh High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the injured eyewitness, which was supported by ancillary evidence. However, the Court modified the sentence of death to life imprisonment. The ratio of the decision is that where mitigating circumstances exist—such as the absence of prior enmity, the lack of recovery of the crime weapon, and reliance on a single eyewitness—judicial caution dictates imposing the alternative sentence of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. The Court emphasized the principle that even a single mitigating circumstance is sufficient to warrant life imprisonment over capital punishment, as it is better to respect human life than to risk executing an innocent person when doubts regarding the severity of the sentence exist.

  Questions settled

  • Is the existence of a single mitigating circumstance sufficient to justify awarding life imprisonment instead of the death penalty in a murder case?
  • Can a death sentence be modified to life imprisonment on appeal even if the conviction for murder is upheld?
  • Does the absence of enmity between parties and the lack of recovery of a crime weapon constitute sufficient grounds to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain Abro and others vs Province of Sindh and 02 others2019 SHC 394 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-26Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain Abro & 02 others vs Province of Sindh & others2019 SHC 346 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-06
  quo warrantowrit jurisdictioncivil service appointmentsdepartmental examinationlocus standilachesquota violationexemption from rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions seeking a writ of quo warranto against private respondents holding positions as Assistant Commissioners/Assistant Collectors (BPS-17) and subsequent grades, on the grounds that their appointments and promotions were illegal due to lack of qualifications, specifically the failure to pass mandatory Departmental Examinations and alleged violations of recruitment quotas. The core legal questions were whether the High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto against these office holders, whether the Chief Minister had the authority to grant exemptions from departmental examinations, and whether the appointments violated established Supreme Court precedents regarding quota and merit. The Court held that petitions for quo warranto are maintainable against holders of public office regardless of the petitioner's status as an 'aggrieved person,' and that laches does not apply to such recurring wrongs. The Court directed the Chief Secretary of Sindh to scrutinize the service records of respondents who have not qualified the mandatory examinations and to ensure compliance with Supreme Court directives regarding appointments and promotions, mandating that those who have not passed the required examinations must do so within six months or face appropriate legal action.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petitioner required to be an 'aggrieved person' to maintain a constitutional petition for a writ of quo warranto?
  • Does the doctrine of laches apply to a writ of quo warranto challenging the illegal occupation of a public office?
  • Does the Chief Minister have the authority under the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 to grant exemptions from mandatory departmental examinations for civil servants?
  • Can a court waive the qualification and experience requirements for a public post in the absence of a candidate passing the prescribed departmental examinations?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazli Hilal Rizvi vs Bank Alfalah Limited & Others2019 SHC 86 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-13Read full judgment →
• Nazli Hilal Rizvi through Constituted Attorney vs Bank Alflah Limited2020 P C T L R 1079, 2019 CLD 808 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-18Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2019 SHC 360 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-13Read full judgment →
• Nazim Hussain S/O Hadi Hussain vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 1759, 2019 SHC 52 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12
  post-arrest baildishonour of chequeprohibitory clausehabitual offendercriminal breach of trustnegotiable instrumenttentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application in a case involving the dishonour of a cheque under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite the offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the applicant's prior conviction for a similar offence and the prima facie evidence of dishonest intention. The Court held that the mere fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. The Court emphasized that Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is designed to punish those who exploit the implied guarantee of encashment associated with negotiable instruments. Finding that the applicant was a habitual offender with a prior conviction for a similar offence, the Court dismissed the bail application, establishing that bail is not a universal right and must be decided based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a prior conviction for a similar offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be a relevant factor in denying bail?
  • Is the burden of proof on the accused to establish that a cheque was issued as security rather than for the repayment of a loan or obligation at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed vs The State2019 SHC 212 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-28
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryidentification paraderobberyFIR delaycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant, who was accused of robbery and wrongful restraint. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the basis of 'further inquiry' given the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, reasoning that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of 18 hours, the applicant was not named in the FIR, the identification parade was doubtful, and the alleged recovery of a weapon was suspicious with no recovery of the robbed property. The court established the principle that where the prosecution's case suffers from significant procedural and evidentiary infirmities—specifically regarding the identity of the accused and the timing of the FIR—the guilt of the accused becomes a matter requiring further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of post-arrest bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the FIR, combined with a delayed registration, constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can the recovery of a weapon be considered doubtful if it occurs days after the arrest without any recovery of the alleged robbed property?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the identification parade is deemed doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and another vs The State2015 NLR Civil 580, 2015 PLJ Islamabad 133, 2019 YLR 1260 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-10
  anti-terrorism courttransfer of caseterrorismrobbery and murderdesign and intentfear and insecuritycriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the applicants' application for the transfer of a criminal case from the Anti-Terrorism Court to an ordinary court. The core legal question was whether a robbery coupled with murders committed in a busy bazaar in broad daylight, accompanied by indiscriminate aerial firing and terrorizing the public and minority community, falls within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Sindh High Court dismissed the revision application, holding that the incident was designed to create a sense of fear, panic, and insecurity in society, thereby attracting the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The key principle laid down is that the design, object, and surrounding circumstances of an offense—including the venue, time, and public impact—determine whether an act constitutes terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, rather than solely the initial motive of the culprits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a robbery resulting in murders committed in a busy bazaar during daylight fall within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • What is the relevance of the term 'design' under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 regarding the intent and motive of the accused?
  • Whether the venue, time, and public impact of a crime are determining factors for invoking the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Gul vs Maymar Housing Service (Pvt.) Ltd. and 4 others2019 MLD 212 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-17Read full judgment →
• Nawaz vs The State2019 SHC 276 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-19Read full judgment →
• Nawab Siraj Ali and others vs The StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 944 · Sindh High Court
  anti-terrorism actqatl-i-amdjuvenile age determinationcompromise in criminal casesfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusjurisdiction of anti-terrorism courtconstructive liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against convictions and sentences awarded by an Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and terrorism-related offences. The primary legal questions addressed were whether the incident fell within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court, the determination of the appellant's age for juvenile status, and the legal effect of a compromise between the parties on sentences under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that the incident, which created widespread public insecurity, was correctly tried by the Anti-Terrorism Court. Regarding age, the Court upheld the medical board's finding that the appellant was not a juvenile. While the Court accepted the compromise regarding the murder conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code, it ruled that the offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act is not compoundable. Consequently, the death sentences were reduced to life imprisonment, while the life sentences under the Anti-Terrorism Act were maintained. The judgment establishes that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is an integral part of Pakistani criminal jurisprudence and that compromise does not absolve liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does a compromise between parties in a murder case absolve the accused of liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is the rule 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' applicable to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Does an act of violence that creates public insecurity fall within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Should a medical board's report regarding age determination be preferred over the report of a single radiologist?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Ahmed and Others vs Province Of Sindh and Others2021 PLC (C.S.) 718, 2019 SHC 298 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-21
  constitutional petitionregularization of servicescontractual employeesabandoned projectdaily wagesservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by laboratory technicians and vaccinators seeking regularization of their services and payment of salaries and fringe benefits. The petitioners were initially appointed on a contract or daily wage basis under the Sindh Devolved Social Services Program in 2008. Following the termination of the program and the subsequent cessation of their services, the petitioners sought judicial intervention to compel the Health Department to regularize their employment. The core legal question was whether employees appointed to a specific, time-bound project that has since been abandoned possess a vested right to regularization and reinstatement. The Court held that because the underlying project had been abandoned and the Finance Department had formally rejected the summary for regularization—a decision which remained unchallenged—the petitioners could not be granted the relief sought. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents where employees were appointed against regular posts, noting that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were replaced by others or that regular posts existed for their absorption. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to revive employment in an abandoned project.

  Questions settled

  • Can employees appointed to a time-bound project claim a right to regularization after the project is abandoned?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under constitutional jurisdiction to order reinstatement in an abandoned government project?
  • Is a challenge to a rejection order by the Finance Department a prerequisite for seeking regularization of services?
  Read full judgment →
• National Database and Registration Authority, (NADRA) through DG_Director vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh and another2020 PLJ Karachi 1, 2019 PLC 167 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-15
  NADRAtrade union registrationindustrial relationsstatutory exclusiontrans-provincial establishmentCBA certificateGeneral Clauses Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the registration of a trade union and the issuance of a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) certificate to the NADRA Employees Union by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh. The core legal question was whether the Industrial Relations Act, 2013, and its predecessors, apply to the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) and its employees, given the specific exclusionary provisions in the NADRA Ordinance, 2000. The Sindh High Court held that the registration and CBA certificate were issued without lawful authority and were consequently set aside. The court established the principle that Section 43 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, creates an absolute statutory bar, excluding the application of industrial relations laws to the Authority and its personnel. This specific exclusion overrides general industrial relations legislation. Furthermore, the court noted that as a trans-provincial entity, NADRA falls outside the jurisdiction of provincial registrars, rendering the registration of the union void ab initio regardless of any pending cancellation applications in labour courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial Relations Act apply to the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) and its employees?
  • Can a provincial Registrar of Trade Unions register a trade union for a trans-provincial establishment like NADRA?
  • Does Section 43 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, override the provisions of provincial industrial relations laws regarding the formation of trade unions?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Tuwairqi Steel Mills Limited and another2019 CLD 1140 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Nasir Rajpoot vs The State2019 MLD 1021 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-23
  narcotic substancessafe custodychain of custodybenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 250 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and transit of the recovered contraband to the Chemical Examiner. The Sindh High Court found the prosecution's case highly doubtful due to several material infirmities: the failure to produce independent witnesses despite having prior spy information, the lack of evidence regarding the safe custody of the contraband in the police Malkhana, and the failure to examine the police official responsible for transporting the samples to the Chemical Examiner. Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies regarding the number of seals affixed to the parcel. Applying the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the Court set aside the conviction, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that positive chemical reports cannot cure fundamental failures in establishing the chain of custody.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce the police official who transported samples to the Chemical Examiner create a fatal gap in the chain of custody?
  • Is a positive chemical examiner's report sufficient to sustain a conviction if the prosecution fails to establish the safe custody of the recovered substance?
  • Does the failure to call independent witnesses in a narcotics recovery case based on prior spy information render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Mahmood vs The State2021 P Cr. L J 443, 2019 SHC 416 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-21
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsfurther inquirypolice witnessesindependent witnesseschemical report delaycriminal record
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from a criminal case where the applicant was charged with the possession of 2040 grams of charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the nature of the prosecution's evidence. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, reasoning that the prosecution failed to associate independent witnesses despite having prior information, there was an unexplained delay in the chemical examination of the narcotics, and the entire case rested on the testimony of police officials, which required further scrutiny at trial. Furthermore, the Court noted the applicant's lack of prior criminal record and his continuous detention for two months without the necessity for further investigation. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case relies solely on police witnesses and lacks independent corroboration in a narcotics case, and where the accused has no criminal history, the court may grant bail under the principle of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics recovery case entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution's case rests entirely on the testimony of police officials?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending samples for chemical examination constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs Mst. Kausar Parveen through General Attorney and 8 others2019 MLD 159 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-08Read full judgment →
• Naeem alias Gunda vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 305 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-23
  criminal appealmurderocular testimonyhostile witnessbenefit of doubtmedical evidenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, despite the primary eye-witnesses turning hostile or providing contradictory testimony. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that the complainant and key witnesses contradicted each other, and their testimony lacked credibility, rendering the ocular account unreliable. Furthermore, the court emphasized that medical evidence, while useful for establishing the cause of death and nature of injuries, cannot identify the perpetrator or substitute for primary evidence when the ocular testimony is discredited. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reiterating the principle that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Can medical evidence alone sustain a conviction when the ocular testimony is found to be unreliable?
  • Does the failure of direct evidence to identify the accused entitle the defendant to an acquittal?
  • Is a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 valid if the witness denies having been produced before a Magistrate?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Mumtaz Raja vs Sindh Food Authority2021 MLD 478, 2019 SHC 402 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-04Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan & 04 others2019 SHC 162 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-21
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantnon-statutory rulesdisciplinary proceedingsmisconductdismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner against the Pakistan State Oil Company Limited seeking to set aside disciplinary proceedings and his subsequent dismissal from service on the ground of misconduct. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against a non-statutory corporate entity and whether non-statutory service rules governed by the master and servant principle are enforceable through writ jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that while the respondent-company is a 'person' amenable to constitutional jurisdiction, the petitioner's service matters and disciplinary proceedings are governed by non-statutory rules of service and the principle of master and servant, rendering the terms and conditions of contractual employment non-enforceable through a constitutional petition. The court laid down the principle that internal service rules and disciplinary actions of a non-statutory company lacking statutory backing cannot be challenged via writ jurisdiction, and aggrieved employees must seek alternative remedies before a civil court rather than invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against a non-statutory public sector company for the enforcement of non-statutory service rules?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to the employees of Pakistan State Oil Company Limited governed by non-statutory service rules?
  • Can disciplinary proceedings and dismissal resulting from internal service rules of a non-statutory corporate body be challenged through a writ petition?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for an employee of a non-statutory company aggrieved by termination or dismissal from service?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmad vs Jawwad Zaki alias Ali and others2019 P Cr. LJ 1736 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-19
  concurrent sentenceslife imprisonmentinherent jurisdictioncriminal proceduresentencing policyconsolidation of sentences
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought an order for two separate life sentences, awarded in distinct criminal proceedings, to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The core legal question was whether the High Court, under its inherent jurisdiction, could order the concurrent running of sentences when the Supreme Court, while converting a death sentence to life imprisonment in a subsequent case, was unaware of a prior life sentence. The Court allowed the application, directing that the two life sentences run concurrently. Relying on the precedent set in Rahib Ali v. The State, the Court affirmed that where a subsequent conviction is silent regarding the consolidation of sentences, the High Court may invoke its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, read with Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to order concurrent sentences. This aligns with the judicial policy of taking a charitable view regarding the deprivation of liberty, preventing the negation of Section 57, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which defines the duration of life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court order two life sentences from different cases to run concurrently under its inherent jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure of an appellate court to order concurrent sentences due to lack of information regarding prior convictions preclude the High Court from granting such relief?
  • Is it permissible for life sentences in separate trials to run consecutively given the definition of life imprisonment under Section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• N.J. Autos through Authorized Officer vs State & 3 othersPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1697 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-22
  second complaintwithdrawal of complaintcriminal revisionacquittallegal personprivate complaintSection 248 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged an order by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption dismissing a private complaint under Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant had previously filed a complaint against the same respondents, which was withdrawn under Section 248, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a second complaint is maintainable on the same facts after the first was disposed of under Section 248. The Court held that the second complaint was incompetent. It reasoned that a disposal under Section 248, which mandates the acquittal of the accused, creates a bar to subsequent proceedings on the same facts. Furthermore, the Court clarified that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against a designation (designata) rather than a natural person, as Section 11 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 defines "person" in a manner excluding official designations. Additionally, the Court noted the complaint was procedurally flawed for being filed by an attorney. The judgment reinforces that while exceptions exist for filing second complaints after Section 203 dismissals, they do not apply where the previous matter concluded in an acquittal under Section 248.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second complaint maintainable on the same facts after the first complaint was withdrawn under Section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a criminal case be registered against an official designation rather than a natural person?
  • Does the disposal of a complaint under Section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operate as an acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Zorlu Enerji Pakistan Limited vs Sindh Revenue Board and others2020 PTD 1288, PTCL 2019 CL. 598 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-20Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan International Container Terminal Ltd vs The Sindh Labour2019 SHC 90 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-22
  constitutional petitionlabour appellate tribunalcompensation in lieu of reinstatementhabitual absenteemisconductconsent decreewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, which had modified a Labour Court's order by enhancing the lump-sum compensation awarded to an employee in lieu of reinstatement. The core legal question concerned whether the Appellate Tribunal's enhancement of compensation and the finding of a consensual settlement were sustainable, and whether the High Court should interfere under its constitutional jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that since the petitioner employer had accepted the initial Labour Court decision granting compensation instead of reinstatement by failing to challenge it, and given that the petitioner's counsel had consented to compensation before the Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment enhancing the compensation amount based on relevant factors was well-reasoned and fair. The key principle laid down is that a party who accepts an award of compensation by not appealing the initial forum's decision and whose counsel consents to compensation before the appellate forum cannot subsequently challenge the quantum of compensation in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, absent any jurisdictional error or illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer who fails to challenge a Labour Court's award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement can subsequently contest the quantum of compensation before the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can a counsel give a valid consent regarding compensation on behalf of a client before the Labour Appellate Tribunal without the client's personal presence?
  • Whether the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution can interfere with a concurrent factual finding of lower labour forums regarding compensation where no jurisdictional error is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Noman Abid Co. Limited (Regd.) vs Naveed Haider2019 CLC 2052, 2019 SHC 242 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-19Read full judgment →
• M/s. Getz Pharma (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & others2020 P C T L R 890, 2019 PTD 2209, 2019 SHC 248 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-02Read full judgment →
• M/s. Gaaza Broadcast System Pvt. Ltd vs The Federation of Pakistan &2019 PLD Sindh 332, 2020 PLJ Karachi 38, 2019 SHC 44 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• M/s. Commercial Bank International PSC vs M.V. Miski and another2019 SHC 400 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-02Read full judgment →
• M/s. Combined Industries vs Shabir Hussain and another2019 SHC 88 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-22
  constitutional jurisdictionlabour lawconcurrent findings of factreappraisal of evidencegrievance petitionseverance compensationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a consolidated judgment of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which awarded compensation to respondents in lieu of reinstatement following their dismissal. The petitioner sought to set aside the orders of the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the forums failed to properly appreciate evidence regarding the respondents' employment status and the time-barred nature of the grievance petitions. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower labour forums. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that its constitutional jurisdiction is limited and discretionary, intended to correct jurisdictional errors or illegality rather than serve as a substitute for appeal or revision. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional defect or perversity in the concurrent findings of the lower forums, the Court declined to reappraise the evidence. The key principle established is that the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in constitutional jurisdiction unless substantial injustice or a clear jurisdictional error is proven.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court reappraise evidence in its constitutional jurisdiction when concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by lower labour forums?
  • Is a constitutional petition a valid substitute for an appeal or revision against the findings of a labour tribunal?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with the orders of a labour court or tribunal in its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Baluchistan Wheels Limited vs The Registrar of Industry-wise Trade2019 SHC 390 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-25
  constitutional petitiontrade union registrationalternative remedyaggrieved partylocus standiindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner-establishment under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging the order passed by the Registrar Trade Union issuing a registration certificate to the respondent union. The core legal questions involved were whether the petitioner-establishment qualified as an aggrieved party to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction, and whether the petition was maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was incompetent and misconceived because the petitioner failed to establish its status as an aggrieved party capable of impugning the union's registration in constitutional proceedings, and because an adequate alternative remedy was provided under the law. The court laid down the principle that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is barred where an adequate alternative statutory remedy exists and where the petitioner lacks the requisite locus standi as an aggrieved party.

  Questions settled

  • Can an establishment maintain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge the registration of a trade union?
  • Is a constitutional petition barred when an adequate remedy is provided under the Industrial Relations Act?
  • What constitutes an aggrieved party capable of challenging a trade union registration certificate?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. A.F. Ferguson & Co. & others vs Pakistan & others2020 PTD 27, 2019 SHC 264 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-09Read full judgment →
• M/s Sing Fuels Pte Ltd vs M.V. "Yasa Aysen" & others2020 CLD 70, 2019 SHC 318 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-29Read full judgment →
• M/s Sindh Club vs (1) Mazhar Hussain & others (2) Muhammad Miskeen &2019 PLC 268, 2018 SHC 1128 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-16
  labour disputewrongful terminationreinstatementback benefitsconcurrent findingsconstitutional jurisdictionworkman
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by the Petitioner-Club impugning judgments of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Sindh Labour Court, which reinstated the services of the private respondents (a baker and a cook) with back benefits after finding their termination illegal. The core legal questions concern whether the private respondents were permanent employees of the club, whether their termination was lawful, and whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the employee status and illegal termination were based on proper appreciation of evidence, and that the respondents qualified as workmen under relevant labour laws. The court dismissed the petitions, affirming that concurrent factual findings cannot be lightly interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of material illegality or jurisdictional defect. The key principle laid down is that High Courts will not re-evaluate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of specialized labour tribunals unless an error of law or perverse appreciation of evidence is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain grievance applications filed by employees of a club operating as a commercial establishment?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether employees who have served for more than nine months without formal appointment letters can be deemed permanent workers entitled to protection against summary termination?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and two2020 CLD 829, 2019 PLD Sindh 624, 2019 SHC 108 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muzafar ali vs Federation of Pakistan and 02 others2019 SHC 392 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-25
  master and servantstatutory rulesnon-statutory rulesconstitutional petitionreview applicationterms and conditions of servicePrinting Corporation of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a review application filed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition relating to service disputes between an employee and the Printing Corporation of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the service rules of the Printing Corporation of Pakistan are statutory in nature, thereby making employment terms enforceable through constitutional jurisdiction under the principle of master and servant. The court held that the service rules of the respondent corporation are non-statutory, having been framed pursuant to an agreement with labor unions rather than under direct statutory authority, and publishing them in the official gazette does not render them statutory. Consequently, the relationship between the corporation and its employees is governed strictly by the principle of master and servant, and internal service disputes cannot be enforced through a constitutional petition under Article 199. The court laid down the principle that mere publication of service rules of a non-statutory body in the official gazette does not elevate them to statutory rules without proper statutory backing and governmental approval, and dismissed the review application as no error apparent on the face of the record was made out.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service rules of the Printing Corporation of Pakistan are statutory or non-statutory in nature?
  • Can the terms and conditions of service of an employee governed by non-statutory rules be enforced through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the publication of service rules of a non-statutory body in the official gazette automatically render them statutory rules?
  • What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order XLVII read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Jamal Kazi and others vs National Accountability Bureau and others2019 YLR 650 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited through duly Constituted Attorney vs Sajida Naqi Riaz and others2019 CLC 1371 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mushtaque Hussain through L.Rs. and another vs Province of Sindh2019 YLR 730 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-16Read full judgment →
• Murad Ali Bangalani and 5 others vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 95 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-09
  anti-terrorism acttransfer of casejurisdictiondefinition of terrorismsense of fear and insecuritycriminal revisionpolice picket
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court dismissing the applicants' application under Section 23-A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for the transfer of cases to the ordinary trial court. The prosecution alleged that the accused attacked a police picket, fired upon police personnel, confined them, and took compromising photographs to blackmail them regarding illegal irrigation water supply. The core legal question was whether the alleged acts fell within the purview of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Sindh High Court held that while the acts against the police were serious, they did not constitute terrorism because they occurred in secluded areas and closed rooms without members of the public present, thus lacking the requisite design or impact of creating a sense of fear, awe, or insecurity in society under Section 6 of the Act. The court laid down the principle that for an act to qualify as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it must satisfy both the specific actionable offences under Section 6(2) and the overarching intent and societal impact requirements of Section 6(1)(b) or (c).

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence committed against police officials in a secluded area constitutes terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What are the dual requirements under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for an act to fall within the purview of anti-terrorism laws?
  • Can an act meeting the criteria of Section 6(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court without satisfying the impact requirements of Section 6(1)?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Malik and another vs The State2019 YLR 770 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-20
  Anti-Terrorism ActOcular evidenceCommon intentionCriminal appealJurisdiction by consentNon-compoundable offenceWeapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentences imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for murder, attempted murder, and weapons offenses. The appellants contended they were falsely implicated due to a minor dispute and argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, despite their prior consent to the forum. Furthermore, they sought acquittal based on an alleged compromise with the complainant party. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established guilt through consistent ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of crime weapons matching the forensic reports. The Court affirmed that minor contradictions in witness statements do not invalidate the prosecution's case. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the appellants could not challenge the forum after consenting to it. Crucially, the Court held that non-compoundable offenses, particularly those under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, cannot be settled through private compromise, and the complainant's "no objection" to acquittal holds no legal value. Consequently, the convictions were upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of a trial court after having previously consented to its jurisdiction?
  • Does a private compromise between parties regarding a non-compoundable offense under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 have legal validity?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on ocular account alone when corroborated by medical evidence and weapon recovery?
  • Are minor inconsistencies in witness statements sufficient to discredit the entire prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussian alias Munawar alias Muno vs The State2019 YLR 51 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-01
  narcoticscharas recoverysafe custody of case propertybenefit of the doubthostile witnessillegal detentioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge/Special Court for CNS Ghotki, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to four and a half years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the credibility of police testimony without independent corroboration, the presence of material contradictions, failure to establish safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband, and the plausibility of the defence plea regarding previous illegal detention through a habeas corpus petition. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to a hostile mashir, missing Malkhana entries, failure to examine the carrier of the samples to the chemical examiner, and unconvincing police evidence juxtaposed with the appellant's defence. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right when discrepancies impair the reliability of prosecution evidence and safe custody of the case property is unestablished.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's failure to examine the Malkhana incharge and the official who transported samples to the chemical examiner vitiates the proof of safe custody?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained on uncorroborated police testimony riddled with material contradictions?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when a mashir is declared hostile and contradicts the arresting officer?
  • Does the prior filing of a habeas corpus petition regarding illegal police detention substantiate a defence plea of false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussain vs The State2019 SHC 432 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-06
  post-arrest baildomestic violenceprohibitory clausetentative assessmentcriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Munir Hussain, who was charged under Sections 337-A(iii), 337-A(i), and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly causing injuries to his wife. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the specific allegations, the medical evidence, and the nature of the offense. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, finding that the FIR contained specific allegations corroborated by a medical certificate, and the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of evidence is required, and deeper appreciation is not permitted. It further noted that domestic violence cases require strict judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, with directions to the trial court to expedite the proceedings and to the prison authorities to ensure the applicant receives necessary medical treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrants the grant of bail when the accused is nominated in the FIR with specific allegations?
  • Does the delay in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to bail if the delay is reasonably explained?
  • Can the court conduct a deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage of criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar son of Anwar rind vs The State2019 SHC 534 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-17
  narcotics recoverybenefit of doubtsafe custody of samplescriminal appealacquittalprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the alleged recovery of 1100 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the safe custody of the recovered contraband and the reliability of the recovery proceedings. The Court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, noting the failure to associate independent witnesses despite prior information, contradictions between the complainant and the recovery witness regarding the weighing method, and the failure to produce Malkhana records or examine the Malkhana in-charge. Relying on established precedents regarding the necessity of proving safe custody and transmission of samples, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reinforces the principle that an accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, even if only a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce Malkhana records or examine the Malkhana in-charge create a fatal flaw in a narcotics case?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and transmission of samples to the Chemical Examiner in narcotics cases?
  • Does an inconsistency between the complainant and a recovery witness regarding the weighing method of contraband entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali vs Province of Sindh through Addl. Chief Secretary2019 CLC 1917 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-12Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali vs Ld. Incharge Session Judge2019 SHC 524 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz vs The State2019 SHC 508 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmed Qureshi vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Karachi and 8 others2019 YLR 2703 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-06Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ali vs The State and 4 others2019 P Cr. L J 1201 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-18
  Ex-Officio Justice of PeaceJurisdictionRevenue recordsCriminal ProcedureQuashing of proceedingsStatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which directed a revenue official to update revenue records based on a registered sale deed. The core legal question was whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace possesses the jurisdiction under Section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to issue directives to revenue authorities. The High Court held that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that Section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is explicitly limited to issuing directions to police authorities concerning the non-registration of criminal cases, transfer of investigations, or neglect of duty by police officials. It does not extend to the oversight of revenue authorities or the maintenance of revenue records. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order, establishing the principle that an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace cannot exercise powers beyond those statutorily granted, and any order issued in excess of such jurisdiction is void and subject to interference by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have the jurisdiction under Section 22-A(6)(iii), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to issue directions to revenue authorities?
  • Is the scope of Section 22-A(6)(iii), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited exclusively to the oversight of police authorities?
  • Can an order passed by a judicial officer in excess of jurisdiction be set aside by the High Court even if the applicant was not a party to the original proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Hussain vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others2019 SHC 342 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-28Read full judgment →
• Mujahid alias Ghulam Shabbir vs The State2019 P Cr. LJ 1701 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-04
  fair trialstatement of accusedcross-examinationremand of caseincriminating evidenceadditional evidencefundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under sections 302, 457, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. The core legal questions involved whether a trial can proceed without affording an opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness, and whether the failure to put incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court committed grave illegalities by denying the opportunity to cross-examine a key witness, thereby violating the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and by failing to put crucial incriminating evidence to the appellant in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The ratio decidendi is that un-confronted incriminating evidence cannot be used for conviction, and complete omission of cross-examination without legal justification causes a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for limited re-trial steps.

  Questions settled

  • Can an incriminating piece of evidence be used to convict an accused if it was not put to him during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether failure to provide an opportunity to cross-examine a material prosecution witness causes a mistrial requiring a remand of the case?
  • What is the scope and extent of the trial court's powers under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon or recall witnesses for a just decision of the case?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 encompass the effective testing of prosecution testimony through cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs The State2019 SHC 512 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair through Attorney vs Mst. Lala Rukh Samad Khan and 22019 YLR 2121 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs Federation of Pakistan through Chief Election2019 YLR 1357 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid vs Federation of Pakistan & 06 others2019 SHC 158 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-15
  civil servantterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of service tribunalconstitutional petitionreduction to lower posttransfer and postingdepartmental promotion committee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk, challenged an order downgrading his post to Lower Division Clerk and a subsequent corrigendum, arguing it was an illegal punishment imposed without disciplinary proceedings or a hearing under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal questions centered on whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable for a civil servant regarding terms and conditions of service in light of the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction, and whether the matter falls within the exclusive domain of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable, holding that matters relating to terms and conditions of service, including disciplinary actions, promotions, reversions, and transfers, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 3 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The court laid down the principle that the constitutional bar under Article 212 strictly ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in service matters of civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of his service in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does reduction to a lower post constitute a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Whether a civil servant aggrieved by a final departmental order regarding service terms has an exclusive remedy before the Federal Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does a civil servant possess a vested right to remain posted on a particular post indefinitely under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Trustees of the Port of Karachi & others2020 YLR 578, 2019 SHC 468 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →