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.

• Mehran Hussain vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad and 52019 P Cr. L J 281 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-09
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peacepolice protectionconstitutional petitionapplication of judicial mindcivil disputecognizable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition filed before the Sindh High Court challenging an order passed by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, whereby an application seeking legal protection for the petitioner and his family was dismissed under the misconception that it sought the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). The core legal question was whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace can mechanically dismiss a petition seeking police protection by treating it as a prayer for an FIR and directing a direct criminal complaint instead. The High Court held that the Justice of Peace failed to apply his judicial mind to the actual contents and prayer of the application, and that complaints regarding insecurity and requests for police protection fall squarely within the functions and duties of police authorities. The Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that providing protection against insecurity is a statutory duty of the police, and directed the official respondents to provide necessary protection to the petitioner in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace can dismiss an application seeking police protection by erroneously treating it as a petition for the registration of an FIR?
  • Does a failure or neglect by police authorities to provide protection fall within the scope of Section 22-A(6)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it incumbent upon an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to examine the actual contents and specific prayer of a petition before passing an order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Rangoonwala and others vs Furqan Ali Mustafa and others2019 P Cr. L J 1634 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-03
  Illegal Dispossession Actquashment of proceedingssection 265-K Cr.P.C.premature acquittalfunctus officiocivil and criminal proceedingsbanking court auction
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants filed a criminal miscellaneous application before the Sindh High Court seeking the quashment of proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and the suspension of non-bailable warrants issued against them. The core legal questions involved whether the rejection of an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. for one accused applies to all, whether established statutory procedure can be deviated from by changing names in subsequent petitions, and whether a court can re-examine its own final order. The court held that after cognizance is taken, an accused must seek premature acquittal through section 265-K, Cr.P.C. before the trial court rather than bypassing the forum through a petition for quashment of proceedings. Furthermore, parallel civil litigation or alternate remedies under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 do not bar independent criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The High Court dismissed the application as not maintainable, directing the applicants to approach the trial court for early acquittal if so advised.

  Questions settled

  • Whether rejection of an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. for one accused is sufficient to be taken as a decline for all accused persons?
  • Whether the procedure provided by law can be deviated from merely by a change of name in the petition?
  • Whether a High Court can examine its own order when presented under a different name?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation or other remedies bar proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ellahi and another vs The State2019 YLR 2144 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-11
  criminal appealvicarious liabilitycommon intentiondying declarationbenefit of doubtmurderacquittalcontradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants for murder and related offences arising from a fatal shooting incident. The core legal questions involved the existence of common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, the admissibility and credibility of an alleged dying declaration, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish vicarious liability or a pre-arranged plan, noting numerous contradictions in witness statements, unexplained delays, missing medical and material evidence, and serious doubts regarding the purported dying declaration. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, allowed the appeal, set aside their convictions, and ordered their immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere presence at the scene of a crime and vague allegations are sufficient to establish vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a statement recorded days after the incident be treated as a reliable dying declaration under Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 without proof of the declarant's fitness and independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary consequence under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when the prosecution fails to examine material witnesses and the medical officer who determined the cause of death?
  • Does a series of material contradictions and inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt resulting in acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Meer Nawaz and another vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 17 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-20
  murderocular testimonyprompt FIRmedical corroborationballistic reportmotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants to imprisonment for life under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Nawab. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitness accounts, the credibility of the prompt First Information Report, the establishment of the motive concerning a disputed second marriage, and the legal effect of the appellants' acquittal in companion cases under the Arms Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, positive forensic and ballistic reports, and a promptly lodged First Information Report. The court ruled that an acquittal in a separate weapon recovery case does not automatically discredit the substantive murder trial when independent evidence is sufficient. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal in a companion case under the Arms Ordinance affects the conviction in a substantive murder trial?
  • Does the non-production of a marriage certificate blemish the prosecution case when confidence-inspiring ocular and medical evidence is available?
  • Whether a promptly lodged First Information Report eliminates the possibility of consultation and fabrication in a criminal case?
  • Does the failure to examine a person not present at the scene of the crime as a witness affect the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• MCR (Pvt.) Limited through Authorized Attorney and another vs Soneri2019 CLD 492, 2020 P C T L R 1208 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-08Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Ltd vs Messrs Duty Free Shop Ltd2019 CLC 1136, 2022 [M] CLR 691, 2022 PCTLR 759 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited vs Emadul Hassan2019 CLD 352 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ali Babar & another vs Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Govt.2019 SHC 308 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-27
  civil servantsconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of High CourtFederal Service Tribunalpromotiondemotion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking to set aside an order recalling their promotion as officiating Superintendent (Customs) Preventive (BS-16) following the bifurcation of Customs Preventive of Model Customs Collectorate, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi. The core legal question addressed was whether a writ petition by civil servants is maintainable regarding service matters in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212 and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was not maintainable, ruling that matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including promotion and demotion grievances, fall exclusively within the domain of the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution and the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is ousted in respect of service matters of civil servants that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of service tribunals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in respect of terms and conditions of service?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of civil servants?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants under the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Maulana Muhammad Mohsin Faiz vs Sheikh Sikandar Hussain and 22019 MLD 1653 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-11
  private complaintpreliminary enquiryblasphemybailable warrantscriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision and miscellaneous application arose from a private complaint filed under Sections 295-B, 295-C, 298-A, 423, 469, 464, 471, 196, 195, and 192/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court could register the complaint and issue bailable warrants against the accused without complying with prior judicial orders directing a preliminary enquiry and obtaining opinions from religious institutions, given the sensitive nature of the blasphemy allegations. The High Court of Sindh held that the trial court erred in registering the complaint and issuing warrants without conducting a preliminary enquiry. The Court emphasized that in cases involving highly sensitive allegations, a preliminary enquiry under the proviso to Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is essential. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's order, discharged the bail bonds, and directed that a proper preliminary enquiry be conducted, utilizing assistance from specialized police branches if necessary.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court required to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before registering a private complaint involving highly sensitive allegations such as blasphemy?
  • Can a trial court issue bailable warrants against accused persons in a private complaint without complying with prior judicial orders directing a preliminary enquiry and expert opinions?
  • What is the appropriate procedure for investigating sensitive religious allegations raised in a private complaint under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Master Motor Corporation (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2020 CLC 117, 2019 SHC 33 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Masood vs The State2019 SHC 552 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
• Masood Alam Niazi son of Rasheed Ahmed vs The State through Chairman2021 P Cr.LJ 99, 2019 SHC 258 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-07
  misuse of authorityburden of proofstatutory presumptioncorruption and corrupt practicesNational Accountability Ordinanceprocedural irregularityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting the appellants under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for corruption, corrupt practices, and misuse of authority regarding alleged misappropriation in the payment of labour charges for lifting sugar. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of misuse of authority and misappropriation, and whether the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 shifts the initial burden of proof onto the accused without the prosecution first establishing a reasonable case. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its primary burden of proving the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that a mere procedural irregularity does not constitute a punishable misuse of authority or corruption. The court ruled that the statutory presumption under Section 14 does not dispense with the prosecution's initial obligation to prove foundational facts. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere procedural irregularity in the exercise of official duties amount to a punishable misuse of authority under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 be invoked without the prosecution first establishing a reasonable case against the accused?
  • Does the burden of proof ever shift to the accused before the prosecution successfully discharges its initial onus of proving the essential ingredients of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • What constitutes mens rea in the context of a charge of misuse of authority under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Mashooque vs Province of Sindh through Deputy Commissioner and 42019 PLD Sindh 660 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-15Read full judgment →
• Mars, Incorporated through Authorized Signatory and others vs The Registrar of Trade Marks and others2021 P C T L R 308, 2019 CLD 27 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-25Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmed & 09 others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2019 SHC 354 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-12Read full judgment →
• Manzar Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan & 03 others2019 SHC 164 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-23
  quo warrantoown pay and scalecivil serviceconstitutional petitionservice rulesacting charge appointmentpublic office
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant Constitution petition challenged the appointment of a BS-19 officer to a BS-20 post on an "Own Pay and Scale" (OPS) basis, seeking a writ of quo warranto. The core legal question was whether such an appointment is permissible under the prevailing service laws and rules. The High Court held that the appointment was illegal, setting aside the impugned notification and declaring the post vacant. The court ruled that there is no provision in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 or the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 authorizing appointments on an OPS basis. It established that such practices lack legal sanction, undermine the dignity of the civil service, and unfairly block the promotion of senior, eligible officers. The court emphasized that any vacancy in a higher post must be filled strictly through the prescribed legal mechanisms, such as acting or current charge appointments, following proper selection procedures. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that decisions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding questions of law are binding on all courts under Article 189 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appointment of a civil servant to a higher grade post on 'Own Pay and Scale' (OPS) basis legally permissible under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does a writ of quo warranto lie against a civil servant holding a public office on an OPS basis without the requisite qualifications?
  • Is a petitioner required to be an 'aggrieved person' to file a petition for a writ of quo warranto regarding the occupation of a public office?
  • Are the decisions of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding questions of law binding on the High Court under Article 189 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzar Alam vs Malik Muhammad Yamin and another2019 YLR 598 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Wahid vs Senior Member,. Board of Revenue, Sindh and others2019 PLD Sindh 377 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ali Abbasi vs Amir Bux and another2019 MLD 1618 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-25Read full judgment →
• Manik and another vs The State2019 MLD 1342 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-15
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilitysupplementary statementdelayed FIRcommon intentionmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises out of a post-arrest bail petition filed by the applicants seeking release in a murder case registered under sections 302, 337-H(2), 449, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail where no active role of firing is attributed to them, one applicant is named only in a belated supplementary statement under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the main accused attributed with the fatal shot was placed in column No. II by the police, and the case falls within the realm of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants successfully made out a case for further inquiry, noting contradictory statements, delayed FIR and supplementary statements, and the fact that bail cannot be used as a punitive measure. The court granted post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of solvent sureties, affirming that vicarious liability and the applicability of prohibitory clauses require deeper assessment during trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when no active role of firing is attributed and their name is introduced through a belated supplementary statement under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Does the tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage warrant granting bail when the primary accused attributed with the fatal shot has been let off by the police during investigation?
  • Can bail be withheld as a punishment when the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Hussam-Ul-Haq vs Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin and 2 others2019 CLC 1063 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-14Read full judgment →
• Makhan vs Allahdino and 4 others2019 MLD 1383 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-13
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtdouble presumption of innocenceocular testimonyinterested witnessesindependent corroborationmedical evidencedelayed forensic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 302, 324, 114, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, giving them the benefit of the doubt. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related ocular witnesses, the corroboration of circumstantial and medical evidence, and the grounds for interfering with an acquittal judgment carrying a double presumption of innocence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in the testimony of closely related eye-witnesses lacking independent corroboration, unexplained delays in sending the weapon to the forensic laboratory, and inconsistencies between the medical and ocular evidence. The court reaffirmed the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's judgment is arbitrary, capricious, or suffers from gross misreading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the parameters for an appellate court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal carrying a double presumption of innocence?
  • Can uncorroborated testimony of closely related eye-witnesses full of material contradictions be relied upon for a conviction?
  • Does an unexplained delay in dispatching a recovered crime weapon to the forensic laboratory create a doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Whether inconsistencies between medical evidence and ocular accounts warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Majmua-Tun-Noor "Hajj" and "Umrah" Service through Member vs2019 CLC 1206 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-02Read full judgment →
• Majid alias Dodo and 3 others vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 201 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-10
  Anti-Terrorism Actjurisdiction of special courtstransfer of caseterrorismcriminal procedurepremeditated murderpublic insecurity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Sukkur, which dismissed the applicants' request to transfer their case to a court of ordinary jurisdiction. The applicants were accused of murdering a person after the complainant party objected to their operation of illegal gambling and narcotic dens. The core legal question was whether the alleged offence constituted an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, necessitating trial by a special court. The High Court upheld the impugned order, holding that the offence fell within the ambit of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court established that in determining whether an act constitutes terrorism, the "design" or "manner" of the act is paramount, rather than the underlying motive or personal enmity. Because the incident was premeditated and intended to create a sense of fear and insecurity in the neighborhood, it constituted an act of terrorism, thereby justifying the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence committed due to personal enmity automatically exclude it from the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is the 'design' or 'manner' of an act the primary factor in determining whether it constitutes terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court refuse to transfer a case to an ordinary court if the act was designed to create a sense of fear or insecurity in the public?
  Read full judgment →
• Majid Akhtar vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary New Sindh2019 PLC (C.S.) 771 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-21
  retrospective regularizationad-hoc appointmentseniorityservice tribunaldepartmental promotion committeeconstitutional jurisdictioncivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the Home Department, Government of Sindh, which retrospectively regularized the service of the fourth respondent and restored his promotion, despite a prior judgment by the Sindh Service Tribunal (upheld by the Supreme Court) that had set aside such retrospective regularization. The core legal question was whether the executive authority could override a binding judicial decision regarding service seniority and regularization. The Court held that the impugned notification was unlawful as it circumvented the finality of the Service Tribunal's judgment. The Court reaffirmed that ad-hoc appointments do not confer a vested right to seniority from the date of initial induction, and that seniority in a grade must take effect only from the date of regular appointment. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notification and the subsequent promotion of the fourth respondent, emphasizing that executive authorities cannot sit in appeal over judicial decisions or ignore established service laws regarding the calculation of seniority.

  Questions settled

  • Can an ad-hoc employee claim seniority from the date of their initial induction rather than the date of regular appointment?
  • Does an executive authority have the power to issue a notification that effectively overrides a final judgment of the Service Tribunal?
  • Is a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting valid if the head of the department, who is a mandatory member, is excluded from the proceedings?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to set aside an executive order that violates a binding judicial decision regarding service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmooda Tapal & another vs Standard Chartered Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. & 52021 PLD Sindh 28, 2019 SHC 76 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
• Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Wali Khan Durrani vs University of Karachi2019 MLD 1882 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-18Read full judgment →
• Limited through Secretary vs Trustee of Port of Karachi (KPT)2019 CLC 1339 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-22Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali Bhatti & others vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation &2020 PLC (C.S.) 1006, 2019 SHC 362 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-16
  promotionsenioritystructured discretionmaster and servantstatutory corporationinjunctionsupersessiongood governance
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiffs seeking the suspension of promotion minutes and orders whereby private defendants were promoted as Chief Engineers in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). The core legal questions involved whether the promotions were made in violation of the applicable working agreement, service rules, and established principles of seniority and structured discretion, and whether an aggrieved senior employee has a right to be considered fairly and furnished reasons upon supersession. The court held that while promotion itself is not a vested right and courts generally refrain from substituting their subjective assessment for that of a promotion board, public authorities and statutory corporations must exercise their discretion in a transparent, fair, and structured manner in accordance with governing rules and agreements. The court found prima facie procedural irregularities, including a lack of supporting evaluation material and failure to provide reasons for superseding senior employees. Consequently, the court suspended the impugned promotion order pending final disposal of the suit and allowed the management to hold fresh promotion proceedings strictly in accordance with law and the governing agreement. The key principles laid down include that discretion in public employment must be structured and exercised reasonably, that reasons must be provided in cases of supersession of senior employees, and that statutory corporations cannot arbitrarily bypass established service regulations and collective agreements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee has a vested right to promotion in a statutory corporation?
  • Can a promotion board exercise unguided and unstructured subjective discretion while bypassing established seniority and service rules?
  • Is a statutory corporation bound to provide reasons when superseding senior qualified employees for promotion?
  • Does a court have the power to suspend promotion orders where the selection process prima facie violates governing service agreements and transparency norms?
  Read full judgment →
• Letter of Administration of Deceased Tahir Ahmed Khan: In the matter2019 PLD Sindh 130 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-02Read full judgment →
• Layari Development Authority through Law Officer vs Muhammad2019 YLR 1965 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-17Read full judgment →
• Lajpal Rice Mills vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 P C T L R 809, 2019 PTD 1958 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• KPT Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 23 others2019 YLR 1671 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-08Read full judgment →
• KPT Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Government of Sindh2019 SHC 48 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Khushi Mohammad and 19 others vs Noor Mohammad alias Photo2019 YLR 740 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-02Read full judgment →
• Khurram Shehzad vs United Bank Limited2020 P C T L R 1246, 2019 CLD 1205 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Khawer Hanif vs Imran Hanif & others2019 CLD 971, 2019 KLR Criminal Cases 161, 2019 PLD Sindh 564, 2019 SHC · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Yahya vs StatePLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1394 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-03
  post-arrest bailextortionpolice encounterstatement of co-accusedfurther inquiryunlicensed weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from three criminal cases involving post-arrest bail applications filed by Khawaja Muhammad Yahya, who sought bail in multiple FIRs registered under sections related to extortion, assault on police, terrorism, and arms possession. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail where the prosecution's case primarily rested on an inadmissible statement of a deceased co-accused, lacking identification parades or incriminating recoveries from the applicant's direct possession other than an unlicensed weapon. The court held that since the applicant was not nominated in the initial FIR, the co-accused's statement before the police was inadmissible, no identification parade was conducted, and no incriminating evidence regarding the extortion was recovered from the applicant, a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was made out. The key principles laid down include that reliance on the statement of a deceased co-accused recorded before police does not sustain pre-trial detention without corroborative evidence, and that absence of incriminating recoveries alongside lack of identification warrants the grant of bail for further probe.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the applicant is not nominated in the FIR and the prosecution case relies solely on the statement of a deceased co-accused?
  • Does the absence of an identification parade and failure to record a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make a case one for further inquiry under Section 497(2)?
  • Is a statement made by an accused person to the police admissible in evidence against a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Asghar vs Muhammad Irfan and 4 others2019 MLD 1603 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-02
  Section 324 PPCcharge sheetjudicial mindattempt to commit qatl-i-amdlethal weaponsmagisterial cognizanceSection 173 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate accepting a police report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which omitted Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite allegations of an attack with lethal weapons. The core legal question was whether Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, is applicable when an accused attempts to commit qatl-i-amd but fails to cause injury due to external circumstances, and whether a Magistrate is bound by the police's assessment in a charge sheet. The Court held that the omission of Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was unlawful, as the section covers attempts to commit qatl-i-amd regardless of whether injury is sustained. The Court further held that a Magistrate is not bound by the police report and must apply an independent judicial mind to the material before accepting it. Consequently, the Court set aside the Magistrate's mechanical acceptance of the charge sheet, emphasizing that the Magistrate must form an independent opinion rather than merely endorsing the Investigating Officer's conclusions.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, require the victim to sustain injuries for the offense to be complete?
  • Is a Magistrate legally bound to accept the conclusions reached by the Investigating Officer in a report submitted under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an act be considered an attempt to commit qatl-i-amd if the offender fails to cause injury due to circumstances independent of their will?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Rehman Qureshi & Another vs Advocate General Sindh & Others2019 SHC 98 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain Kutrio and another vs The State and others2019 P Cr. L J 1001 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-18
  corruption and corrupt practicesmisuse of authoritywhite-collar crimeaccountability courtland record manipulationburden of proofcriminal accountability appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Criminal Accountability Appeals filed against the judgment of an Accountability Court, which convicted the appellants for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether the appellants, as government officials, misused their authority by manipulating land records and verifying bogus No Objection Certificates (NOCs) to facilitate the illegal transfer of government land. The Court upheld the convictions, holding that the prosecution successfully established that the appellants deliberately exercised their authority for improper purposes, thereby causing significant loss to the government exchequer. The Court affirmed that 'misuse of authority' involves a wrong or improper exercise of power for objectives not intended by law. It established that once the prosecution proves the charge, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt. Additionally, the Court emphasized that in white-collar crimes, the standard application of the benefit of doubt differs from private-capacity offenses, as the court must prioritize the protection of society and the integrity of public institutions.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes 'misuse of authority' under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused in corruption cases once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Are the standard principles regarding the benefit of doubt in ordinary criminal cases applicable to white-collar crimes involving public functionaries?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and 18 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Irrigation Department SIndh and 4 others2020 PLJ Karachi 65, 2019 YLR 2390 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-13Read full judgment →
• Kashif Dars S/o Muhammad Usman Dars vs The State2020 PCr. L J 259, 2019 SHC 266 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-16
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationcyber crimedefamationmalafidesmobile data analysissupervisory jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal applications filed under Sections 498 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail and setting aside an order of the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi, Malir, which had cancelled the post-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant by a Magistrate in a case involving cyber crimes under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether pre-arrest bail was warranted when technical analysis, mobile phone records, and incriminating digital material directly connected the accused to fake Facebook profiles used for circulating defamatory content, and whether the Sessions Court rightly cancelled bail granted perfunctorily by the trial Magistrate. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant failed to establish mala fides on the part of the investigating agency or complainant, and that the Sessions Court correctly set aside the trial court's order since the material on record prima facie connected the accused to the offence. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail requires clear proof of mala fides, which cannot be inferred merely because technical investigation by the FIA successfully traced internet and mobile data to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted on the sole ground of mala fides when an accused is nominated or connected through technical investigation?
  • Whether the High Court can uphold the cancellation of bail where the trial Magistrate granted bail in a perfunctory manner without discussing available material?
  • Does the use of a registered mobile number associated with fake social media profiles constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to connect an accused to cyber offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016?
  Read full judgment →
• Kashif Ali and another vs The State2019 YLR 1573 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-21
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtinterested witnessesrobberyrecovery of weaponcontradictory evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellants under Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of robbery with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given discrepancies in the recovery of the alleged crime weapon and the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with fatal contradictions, including a discrepancy between the FIR and trial testimony regarding the caliber of the recovered weapon, the failure to produce the weapon in court, and the acquittal of the appellant in a companion case under the Sindh Arms Act. The Court emphasized that the testimony of interested witnesses requires independent corroboration, which was absent here. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to establish the recovery of the crime weapon and relies on contradictory evidence from interested witnesses without independent corroboration, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of an accused in a companion case regarding the recovery of a weapon fatally undermine the prosecution's case in the main trial?
  • Is the testimony of interested witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of a material contradiction between the FIR and the trial testimony regarding the description of the recovered weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Kasb Invest (Private) Limited & Another vs The Registrar Modaraba2020 CLD 523, 2019 SHC 464 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Kasb Corporation Limited through Chief Executive Officer and another vs Bank Islami Pakistan Limited through President2019 YLR 345 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-18
  suit for declarationinterim injunctionattachment before judgmentamalgamationbanking lawfinancial liabilityequity instrumentsright sharesminimum capital requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a suit for declaration and injunction filed by KASB Corporation Limited against the defendant bank following the amalgamation of KASB Bank into the defendant's entity. The plaintiffs sought directions for the defendant to deposit US$ 10 million (approximately Rs. 981 million) with the Court, arguing that this amount, originally advanced for the future issuance of right shares, should be treated as a financial liability under International Accounting Standard 32 (IAS 32). The core legal question was whether the advance constituted a debt liability or equity capital, and whether the defendant should be compelled to secure the amount pendente lite. The Court dismissed the applications, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. The Court observed that the advance was explicitly made to meet minimum capital requirements per State Bank of Pakistan directives and was recorded as equity at its inception. Under IAS 32, initial classification as equity cannot be unilaterally altered due to subsequent circumstances. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the defendant intended to frustrate a potential decree, a prerequisite for attachment before judgment.

  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux Lashari vs The State2019 SHC 350 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-06
  murderdeath sentence commutationmitigating circumstancesunproven motiveocular testimonyinterested witnessesmedical corroborationyouth as mitigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal and confirmation case arose from a judgment by the Sessions Judge, Thatta, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the complainant's brother following a refusal of a marriage proposal, resulting in a death sentence. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the unproven motive and appellant's youth constituted mitigating circumstances warranting the reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Sindh High Court held that the ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and prompt recovery of the weapon, proved the appellant's culpability beyond a doubt. However, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive and noting the appellant's youth at the time of the offense, the court held that these factors operated as mitigating circumstances. The ratio decidendi is that while ocular and medical evidence establish guilt for murder, an unproven motive coupled with the youth of the convict serves as a valid ground to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment. The court dismissed the appeal with modifications, converting the death sentence to imprisonment for life under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while maintaining the compensation order under Section 544-A.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere relationship of an eye-witness with the deceased renders them an interested witness requiring independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive serve as a valid mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can the youth of an accused at the time of the commission of the offense be considered a mitigating factor for the commutation of a death sentence?
  • Is the uncorroborated testimony of a single complainant sufficient to uphold a murder conviction if found confidence-inspiring?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Tubes Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. through duly authorized officer, Lahore2019 PTD 1723 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-07Read full judgment →
• Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through Mayor and another vs Messrs Zafar Memorial Education Society Karachi through President2019 CLC 1697 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Kamran Chandio vs P.D.O.H.a and Others2019 SHC 368 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →
• Kamran alias Kami alias Kamoo and another vs The State2019 YLR 887 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-06
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtchance witnessidentification paradeforensic evidencecapital punishmentocular evidencemedical jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the sole eyewitness and the integrity of the forensic evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found the alleged eyewitness to be a "chance witness" whose presence at the crime scene was not established, and noted that his testimony conflicted with medical evidence regarding the distance of the firearm discharge. Furthermore, the court ruled that the identification parade was legally deficient because the witness failed to assign specific roles to the accused. Additionally, the unexplained four-month delay in sending the crime empty to the forensic laboratory destroyed its evidentiary value. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an eyewitness to assign a specific role to an accused during an identification parade render the identification evidence unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular testimony of a chance witness contradicts the medical evidence regarding the distance of the firearm discharge?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending crime empties to a forensic laboratory destroy the evidentiary value of the recovery?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness admissible without corroboration when their presence at the crime scene is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Ahmed Mallah and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and others2019 PLC (C.S.) 41 · Sindh High Court
  regularization of serviceconstitutional petitioncontract employeesstate enterprisediscriminatory treatmentretrospective applicationmaster and servantfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the regularization of contract employees serving at Sui-Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL). The petitioners challenged the company’s refusal to regularize their services and its unilateral, retrospective enhancement of recruitment criteria from 35% to 60% in aptitude tests. The core legal questions addressed were whether SSGCL, a state-controlled entity, is amenable to the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction, and whether the petitioners were entitled to regularization based on their long-standing service and applicable government policies. The Court held that SSGCL performs functions connected to the affairs of the Federation and is thus subject to Article 199 jurisdiction. It further ruled that the company’s retrospective application of new, more stringent recruitment criteria to existing employees was discriminatory and mala fide. The Court affirmed that long-serving contract employees performing permanent functions are entitled to regularization based on the principles of equity and parity. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent company to consider the petitioners' regularization in accordance with established government policies and relevant Supreme Court precedents within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Is a state-owned company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance 1984 amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199?
  • Can an employer retrospectively apply enhanced recruitment criteria to contract employees already in service to deny them regularization?
  • Are long-serving contract employees performing permanent functions entitled to regularization based on the principle of parity and equity?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaikobad Edul Bankwala vs Messrs Shell Pakistan Ltd, Karachi and 22019 YLR 2337 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-19Read full judgment →
• K-Electric Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan and 4 others2020 P C T L R 870, PTCL 2020 CL. 110, 2019 PTD 2021 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-12Read full judgment →
• K-Electric (Pvt) Ltd. through authorized Officer_Attorney and others vs The State and others2021 P T C L R 705, 2019 PLD Sindh 209 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-26Read full judgment →
• Junaid Iqbal vs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2019 CLD 531 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26Read full judgment →
• Jumoon Bughio vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 325 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-25
  post-arrest baildelay in FIRtentative assessmentcounter versionsprohibitory clauseintent to murder
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under various sections including 324, 147, 148, 149, 109, 395, 337-F(iii), 504, and 337-H(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code, arising from an alleged incident of firing, robbery, and altercation over land affairs. The core legal questions involved whether the unexplained 24-day delay in lodging the FIR, the applicability of Section 324 PPC where the accused did not repeat fire, the existence of a counter-version of the incident, and the advanced age of the 72-year-old applicant justified the grant of post-arrest bail. The High Court held that the unexplained delay, lack of repeated firing indicating questionable intent under Section 324 PPC, absence of recovery, existence of a counter-version requiring trial determination, and the applicant's age warranted the concession of bail. The key principles laid down include that unexplained delay in FIR registration creates doubt, that not repeating a gunshot prima facie brings the intent under Section 324 PPC into further inquiry, and that counter-versions of the same incident make the question of aggressor versus aggressed one to be determined at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of 24 days in lodging an FIR cast sufficient doubt to warrant post-arrest bail?
  • Whether failure to repeat a firearm shot brings the ingredients of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code within the scope of further inquiry?
  • Can the existence of a counter version regarding the same incident establish grounds for further inquiry regarding who was the aggressor?
  • Does the advanced age of an accused person constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Juman vs The State2019 YLR 628 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-16
  attempted rapehostile witnessesdelayed FIRcriminal appealvictim testimonysexual assaultcriminal intimidation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Thatta, for attempted rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376, 511, and 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant was accused of intruding into a lady doctor’s office at a hospital, bolting the door, and attempting to commit rape, causing injuries to the complainant. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the impact of hostile witnesses on the prosecution's case, and the validity of the conviction despite a delay in lodging the FIR. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through the consistent, unshaken testimony of the victim and supporting hospital staff. It ruled that the delay in filing the FIR was adequately explained by the complainant’s mental trauma and shock. The judgment affirms the conviction, reinforcing the principle that where a victim's testimony is confidence-inspiring and corroborated by natural witnesses, minor discrepancies or hostile witnesses do not invalidate the prosecution's case, particularly in crimes against women.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically invalidate a prosecution case involving sexual assault?
  • Can a conviction for attempted rape be sustained when some prosecution witnesses are declared hostile?
  • Is the testimony of a victim of attempted rape sufficient to secure a conviction when corroborated by other hospital staff?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 1610 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-15
  narcotics traffickingdefective chargefair trialconscious possessionSection 342 Cr.P.C.remandfailure of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence for narcotics possession and trafficking. The core legal question is whether the trial court’s defective framing of the charge—specifically omitting the weight of the contraband and details regarding the vehicle involved—vitiated the trial and prejudiced the accused. The High Court held that the conviction could not be sustained, setting aside the judgment and remanding the case for a fresh trial. The Court reasoned that the charge failed to provide the accused with sufficient notice of the specific accusations, thereby violating the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Furthermore, the trial court failed to put incriminating evidence regarding the vehicle to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering that evidence inadmissible against him. The Court affirmed that errors in a charge are not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they result in a failure of justice, and that trafficking charges require proof of conscious possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to specify the weight of contraband in a charge sheet constitute a curable defect under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can evidence not put to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered for conviction?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove conscious possession in cases involving the trafficking of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Under what circumstances does a defective charge warrant the remand of a criminal case for a fresh trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawed Hussain vs The State2019 SHC 210 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-27
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequefresh grounds for bailprotracted trialcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from an application under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail for the applicant, who is facing trial for offences under Sections 489-F and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 relating to a dishonoured cheque exceeding five crore rupees. The core legal question is whether the recording of the complainant's evidence and the passage of a protracted trial period constitute fresh grounds for granting post-arrest bail after a prior bail application on merits was dismissed. The Sindh High Court held that the mere recording of the complainant's evidence does not constitute a fresh ground to justify bail, particularly when the trial is at the verge of final disposal and merits have already been determined against the applicant. The court laid down the principle that recording of the complainant's evidence in a fast-approaching conclusion of trial does not furnish fresh statutory grounds for bail when earlier bail pleas have been dismissed on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of the complainant's evidence constitute a fresh ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail solely on the ground of suffering the agony of a protracted trial nearing its final disposal?
  • Can a successive bail application be maintained on merits after the dismissal of a previous bail application by the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawaid and 6 others vs Province of Sindh through Minister,Ministry of Local Government and 4 others2019 CLC 1032 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-30Read full judgment →
• Javeed Ibrahim vs The State2019 MLD 841 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-19
  bank fraudsuspension of sentencerevisional jurisdictionacquittalappraisal of evidencebail pending appealsuo motu notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter involves appeals against a trial court judgment whereby certain co-accused were convicted while others were acquitted of charges related to fraudulent bank transactions and unauthorized fund transfers. The core legal question concerns whether the trial court properly appreciated the evidence and whether the acquittal of accused individuals facing main allegations—while convicting others based on system ID entries—warrants interference by the High Court. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned judgment prima facie reflects misreading or non-reading of evidence, particularly given that acquitted co-accused were implicated in the FIR and found guilty in an internal bank inquiry. Consequently, the court issued a show-cause notice regarding the acquittal under revisional powers and suspended the sentence of the appellant, granting him post-arrest bail pending the hearing of the appeal. The key principles laid down include the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction to examine acquittals suo motu upon noticing patent illegality, and the principles governing the suspension of sentences and grant of bail where a conviction opens room for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an acquittal without a formal written application?
  • Does a conviction that opens room for further inquiry justify the suspension of a sentence and grant of bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether two signatures on the reverse of a cheque are mandatory for encashment under banking practices?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior and 3 others2019 YLR 1247 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-29Read full judgment →
• Javed Akhtar vs Secretary, Education and Literacy Department2019 PLC (C.S.) 989 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-04
  constitutional petitioncontractual appointmentmaster and servanttermination of servicestatutory rulesmisconductopportunity of hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a contractual employee challenging his termination order from the Sindh Education Foundation. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against a statutory body governed by specific service rules, and whether the termination of a contract employee accused of misconduct without regularisation violated principles of natural justice and fundamental rights. The Sindh High Court held that since the Sindh Education Foundation Employees Service Rules, 1999 were framed under section 16 of the Sindh Education Foundation Act, 1992 and were statutory in nature, the constitutional petition was maintainable. However, on merits, the court held that a contract employee governed by the principle of master and servant has no vested right to seek reinstatement or regularisation. The court found that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity through show-cause notices and an inquiry committee proceeding regarding allegations of misconduct, and that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 is maintainable against an educational foundation having statutory rules of service?
  • Does a contract employee possess a vested right to claim reinstatement or regularisation in service?
  • Can the service of a temporary or contract employee be dispensed with upon the expiry of the contract or in accordance with the terms of employment?
  • Whether disputed questions of fact regarding allegations of misconduct can be adjudicated within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Jameel Akhtar and others vs Chairman National Accountability2019 P Cr. L J 475 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-13
  pre-arrest bailrule of consistencycorrupt practicessales tax refundNational Accountability Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  Through these petitions, the petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in Reference No. 51 of 2016 relating to corruption and corrupt practices involving fraudulent sales tax refunds. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail on the rule of consistency given that a co-accused with a similar or greater role had already been granted bail by the court. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioners were prima facie entitled to have their pre-arrest bail confirmed based on the rule of consistency, noting also that the amount involved was relatively minor in the context of mega corruption cases under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and that recalling pre-arrest bail would serve no useful purpose as they would be granted post-arrest bail in any event. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency applies to extend bail when a co-accused facing similar allegations has been granted relief, preventing needless incarceration when the ultimate grant of post-arrest bail is inevitable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed on the basis of the rule of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail?
  • Does the relatively minor amount involved in a corruption reference influence the consideration for bail under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Whether the absence of a challenge to a co-accused's bail order by the prosecution makes the rule of consistency applicable to other similarly situated accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Jam Mitha Khan vs Province of Sindh & Others2019 SHC 388 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-23
  post-retirement benefitspensionary benefitspermanent absorptionrepatriation of employeescivil servantsuperannuationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner, initially appointed in WAPDA and later permanently absorbed into the Irrigation and Power Department of the Government of Sindh pursuant to a policy decision and transfer of administrative control of a project, sought directions for the issuance of his post-retirement pensionary benefits. His services were subsequently affected by orders of repatriation passed in light of Supreme Court judgments concerning absorption cases, though he attained the age of superannuation during the ensuing litigation without joining his parent department. The core legal question was whether a permanently absorbed employee who retired during litigation, and whose repatriation order was not given effect, is entitled to pensionary benefits from the Sindh Government. The Sindh High Court held that the Supreme Court's repatriation rulings do not apply to retired employees, and directed the Sindh Government to pay all perks, privileges, and pensionary benefits to the petitioner within two months. The key principle laid down is that orders regarding the repatriation of absorbed employees do not affect those who have already attained superannuation, and retired personnel are entitled to their terminal benefits from the employing provincial department.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee permanently absorbed into provincial service from an autonomous body can be repatriated after attaining the age of superannuation?
  • Does a judgment directing the repatriation of absorbed employees apply to personnel who have already retired from service?
  • Can a high court under Article 199 enforce and interpret Supreme Court directions regarding the status of absorbed civil servants?
  • Whether a permanently absorbed employee whose lien with the parent department was terminated is entitled to pensionary benefits from the provincial government upon retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalil Ahmed & others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary and others2019 CLC 1872, 2019 PLJ Karachi 55 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-20
  fundamental rightslawful tradepublic healthhazardous foodpure food ordinancetobacco pan masalagutkaconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the interference by police with the business of manufacturing and selling "Tobacco Pan Masala," "Gutka," and "Mainpuri." The petitioners argued their businesses were lawful under Article 18 of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether these products constitute "food" under the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, and whether their sale is protected as a fundamental right. The Court held that these products, being hazardous to public health, fall within the definition of "food" under the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960. Consequently, the protection of Article 18 is unavailable, as it applies only to "lawful" trade. The Court ruled that the state has a duty under Article 9 to protect life from hazardous substances. It directed the authorities to enforce licensing requirements, ban the sale of such hazardous items, and initiate legislative measures to address the menace. The principle laid down is that the right to trade is not absolute and does not extend to businesses that are inherently injurious to public health or violate statutory safety standards.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right to trade under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 extend to the sale of products that are hazardous to public health?
  • Do tobacco-based mixtures like pan masala, gutka, and mainpuri fall within the definition of 'food' under the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960?
  • Can the High Court issue directions to the executive to initiate legislative measures to protect fundamental rights when the state fails to act?
  • Is a license required for the sale of manufactured tobacco products under the West Pakistan Tobacco Vend Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalaldin vs The State & another2020 P Cr.L J 451, 2019 SHC 176 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-21
  rash and negligent drivingabsconding accusedpolice negligencevehicle owner liabilityroad accident investigationdriving license verificationcontempt of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the failure of the police to apprehend an absconding appellant/accused in a case involving a fatal road accident. Despite repeated court directions and undertakings by the SSP Investigation, the accused remained at large, prompting the Court to address the broader issue of police negligence in investigating road accident cases. The Court observed that the vehicle owner was not impleaded as a co-accused alongside the driver, contrary to established legal principles. Relying on the precedent set in Atta Muhammad vs. The State (2005 P.Cr.L.J 1648), the Court held that in cases under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the owner or person in charge of the vehicle should be charged as a co-accused to ensure accountability and road safety. The Court directed the police to strictly follow these guidelines in all pending cases and warned of potential contempt proceedings for non-compliance. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the necessity for the Driving Licensing Authority to verify the fitness and licensing of drivers of transport vehicles to prevent future fatalities.

  Questions settled

  • Should the owner of a vehicle involved in a road accident be impleaded as a co-accused alongside the driver in cases under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the failure of the police to comply with judicial directions regarding the arrest of an absconding accused warrant the initiation of contempt proceedings?
  • What are the obligations of the Driving Licensing Authority regarding the licensing of drivers over 50 years of age operating transport vehicles?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalal vs The State2019 SHC 476 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-06
  criminal appealunlicensed riflearms ordinancerecovery doubtfulindependent witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 13-(d) of the Arms Ordinance for possession of an unlicensed rifle and live bullets. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution proved the recovery of the weapon and ammunition beyond a reasonable doubt, given the absence of independent witnesses, contradictions in the mashirnama timing, and lack of proof regarding safe custody and transmission to the ballistic expert. The Sindh High Court held that discrepancies in the recovery proceedings and the absence of corroborative evidence render the prosecution's case doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant of the charge. The key legal principle laid down is that contradictory recovery timings without explanation, coupled with a lack of independent corroboration and proof of safe custody of recovered items, vitiates the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions in the timing of the mashirnama make recovery proceedings doubtful?
  • Is a conviction sustainable under the Arms Ordinance without independent corroboration when recovery is disputed?
  • Does failure to prove safe custody and transmission of recovered items to an expert warrant acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalal Hassan vs Ameer Hamza Awan and 2 others2019 MLD 1170 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-13
  acquittal appealcircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencebenefit of doubtpresumption of innocencemurdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented—comprising last-seen testimony, mobile call data, and weapon recovery—was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby warranting interference with the trial court's acquittal. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the crime. The court emphasized that the scope of interference in an acquittal appeal is narrow, as the presumption of innocence is doubled once an accused is acquitted by a competent court. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must provide a complete, unbroken chain of evidence where every link is established conclusively, leaving no room for any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. Finding the prosecution's evidence unreliable and missing critical links, the court upheld the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is broken?
  • Does the presumption of innocence increase after an acquittal by a competent court?
  Read full judgment →
• Jahan Ara vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department2019 MLD 1722, 2019 PLJ Karachi 39 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-02Read full judgment →
• Jaggu son of Ropo Bheel vs THe State2019 SHC 526 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-16
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubthostile witnessunexplained delay in FIRacquittalcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Sht. Rekha. The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed the deceased using a hatchet and poisonous substance. The trial court convicted the appellant while acquitting his co-accused. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the significant evidentiary gaps. The High Court found that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained one-day delay, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the key prosecution witnesses, including the witness upon whose information the FIR was based, failed to support the prosecution's case and were declared hostile. The Court noted that the same evidence used to acquit the co-accused could not reliably sustain the appellant's conviction without independent corroboration. Emphasizing that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile and fail to support the case?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a presumption of consultation and deliberation?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal if the same evidence used to acquit co-accused is insufficient to prove his guilt?
  • Is it necessary to have multiple circumstances creating doubt to entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Jadal and others vs Hassan Mukhtar and others2019 YLR 2446 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-07Read full judgment →
• Ismail Memorial Trust vs Karachi Co-operative Housing Societies Union2020 CLC 331, 2019 SHC 154 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Ishaq Ali and another vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 55 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-31
  pre-arrest baildacoitydelay in FIRenmitybailable offencebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was filed by the applicants seeking confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 395 and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicants committed dacoity at the complainant's house and subsequently assaulted and injured him. The High Court observed that there was an unexplained delay of nearly a month in reporting the dacoity and twelve days in reporting the assault. Furthermore, the police had initially recommended disposing of the FIR under 'C' Class, and there were counter-FIRs indicating a long-standing enmity between the parties, raising the possibility of false involvement. One applicant was not named in the dacoity charge, and the assault offence under Section 337-A(i) was bailable. No recovery of stolen property had been made. Consequently, the High Court held that the veracity of the prosecution's case could only be determined after evidence was led at trial, and confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained and substantial delay in registering an FIR for dacoity and assault can ground the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where there is a history of counter-cases and long-standing enmity suggesting potential false involvement?
  • Is pre-arrest bail liable to be confirmed when the main offence alleged is bailable and the non-bailable charge lacks recovery or specific details in the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ali and 42 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2019 PLD Sindh 596 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-15Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ali and 42 others vs Province of Sindh and others2019 SHC 60 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-15Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmed vs Port Qasim Authority through Chairman and 2 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 557 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-13
  back benefitssuperannuationdisciplinary inquirypensionary benefitsreinstatementconstitutional jurisdictionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns a claim for back benefits and pensionary adjustments by a former employee of the Port Qasim Authority. The petitioner was removed from service in 2003, a decision subsequently set aside by the High Court in 2011 with a conditional order allowing the department to conduct a fresh inquiry. The department failed to conduct the inquiry, and the petitioner reached the age of superannuation in 2007. Upon reinstatement in 2014, the department treated the intervening period as extraordinary leave without pay. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to back benefits and pensionary adjustments despite the department's failure to conduct the inquiry. The Court held that since the department failed to conduct the ordered inquiry and disciplinary proceedings cannot be maintained against a retired employee, the petitioner is entitled to full back benefits and pensionary adjustments. The judgment affirms that pension is a vested right, not a bounty, and that an employer cannot deny benefits based on administrative lapses where no inquiry was conducted.

  Questions settled

  • Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated or continued against a government employee who has attained the age of superannuation?
  • Is an employer entitled to deny back benefits to a reinstated employee if the employer failed to conduct the disciplinary inquiry ordered by the court?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain a petition regarding service matters of the Port Qasim Authority?
  • Is a pension considered a bounty from the state or a vested right of the employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Irrudiyanadan Francis vs Deutsche Bank A.G.2019 PLC (C.S.) 1028 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-15
  master and servantwrongful retirementspecific performancelimitation periodemployment discriminationprivate bankservice contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment and decree dismissing a suit for recovery of unpaid wages and compensation filed by a former bank employee against a private bank. The appellant, retired after thirty years of service, alleged unlawful retirement and discrimination, citing the retention of another employee. The core legal questions were whether the employment relationship was governed by the principle of Master and Servant, whether the suit was maintainable for specific performance, and whether the claim was time-barred. The Court held that in the absence of statutory service rules, the relationship between the private bank and its employee is governed by the principle of Master and Servant, which precludes specific performance of a service contract. The Court further held that the suit was time-barred under Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as it was filed seven years after the cause of action accrued. Additionally, the Court affirmed that an employer retains discretion in retaining staff, and mere allegations of discrimination without proof of mala fides are insufficient. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a contract of private service capable of specific enforcement under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Does the principle of Master and Servant apply to employees of private banks where no statutory rules exist?
  • What is the limitation period for a suit claiming compensation for breach of an implied or express contract of service?
  • Does the retention of one employee beyond the standard retirement age constitute discrimination against another retired employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal vs The State2019 SHC 280 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-19Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain vs Mushtaq Ahmed and 2 others2019 MLD 1947 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-26
  appeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocencecontradictory evidencedelayed FIRidentification of accusedbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court under Section 245(i), Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Sections 392, 427, 337-A(i), and 34 of the P.P.C. The core legal question revolves around whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused due to contradictions in prosecution evidence, delayed lodging of the FIR, and failure of eye-witnesses to identify the accused. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and appellate interference is warranted only in cases of gross misreading of evidence or perversity. The court established that minor contradictions, an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, and material witnesses failing to support the prosecution's case fully justify maintaining an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal?
  • Does an unexplained delay of nine days in lodging an FIR cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of eye-witnesses failing to identify the accused during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Information and Technology, Government of Pakistan and 7 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 475 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-05
  de novo proceedingscompulsory retirementregular enquirymajor penaltyservice lawback benefitsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a punishment order of compulsory retirement and the subsequent departmental appellate order. The petitioner, a former employee of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited, contended that the respondents failed to comply with the Federal Service Tribunal's direction to initiate 'de novo proceedings' by dispensing with a regular enquiry and relying on previous material. The core legal question was whether the initiation of proceedings from the stage of a show-cause notice, without a fresh regular enquiry, satisfied the requirement of 'de novo proceedings' and whether a regular enquiry is mandatory when a major penalty is imposed and the charges are specifically denied. The Court held that 'de novo' implies starting afresh as if no prior proceedings existed. It ruled that when a public servant denies the allegations, holding a regular enquiry is a mandatory prerequisite for imposing a major penalty, and dispensing with such an enquiry is legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the payment of back benefits, as the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'de novo proceedings' require the initiation of fresh proceedings as if no previous proceedings had occurred?
  • Can a competent authority dispense with a regular enquiry when a public servant categorically denies the charges levelled against them?
  • Is the holding of a regular enquiry a mandatory prerequisite for the imposition of a major penalty in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmed vs Col. (R) Abdul Kabir through duly constituted lawful2019 YLR 89 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-08Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmed and 6 others vs Maqbool Ahmed and 7 others2019 MLD 545 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-16Read full judgment →
• Intakhab Hussain Shah and another vs National Bank of Pakistan and another2019 CLD 1021 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Indus Motor Company Limited vs Pakistan through Secretary Finance and anotherPTCL 2020 CL. 6, 2020 PTD 297, 2019 SHC 520 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
• Indus Lyallpur Ltd. & another vs Federation of Pakistan2019 PTD 760, PTCL 2019 CL. 111 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-30Read full judgment →
• Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Limited through. Duly Authorized2019 P Cr. L J 262 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-24
  PEMRAproscribed organizationfreedom of informationreasonable restrictionsAnti-Terrorism Actmedia regulationbroadcasting code of conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a fine of one million rupees imposed by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) on the appellant for airing a message from a leader of a proscribed organization, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The core legal question was whether the appellant's broadcast of the proscribed leader's statement, which violated a specific PEMRA circular and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was protected under the right to information. The Court held that the appellant's actions constituted a clear violation of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on Article 19-A of the Constitution, clarifying that the right to transmit information is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law, such as the prohibition against projecting proscribed organizations. The Court emphasized that airing such content, even under alleged threats, amounts to aiding and abetting terrorism. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting that the regulatory authority had been lenient in imposing a fine rather than pursuing more severe penalties for the admitted violation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right to information under Article 19-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 protect a broadcaster from airing messages of proscribed organizations?
  • Can a media broadcaster justify the airing of prohibited content on the basis of threats from terrorist organizations?
  • Does the dissemination of material glorifying or projecting a proscribed organization constitute an offence under Section 11-W of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ali vs The State2019 YLR 2807 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-11
  misappropriationcriminal breach of trustbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRfood inspectoranti-corruptionwheat shortageprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a Food Inspector, for the alleged misappropriation of government wheat stock. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of embezzlement beyond reasonable doubt, given the significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and evidence suggesting the wheat shortage resulted from natural decay and poor storage conditions rather than criminal misappropriation. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The court emphasized that an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR casts doubt on the entire prosecution case. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation was flawed, failing to account for departmental reports regarding storage conditions and the lack of evidence implicating the appellant specifically. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution evidence is insufficient or contradictory.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR invalidate a criminal conviction?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction for misappropriation be sustained when the prosecution fails to account for natural decay or poor storage conditions of the subject goods?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in anti-corruption cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmed Barakzai vs Federal Tax Ombudsman and 2 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1145 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-12
  contractual employmentmaster and servanttermination of servicevested rightFederal Tax Ombudsmanconstitutional petitionmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioner challenging the verbal termination of his contractual employment as an Advisor in the Regional Office, Karachi of the Federal Tax Ombudsman. The core legal questions involved whether a contractual employee's service period can be curtailed before expiry, whether the principle of master and servant applies to such contractual appointments, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against such termination. The court held that the petitioner's employment was governed by the principle of master and servant, and a contract employee has no vested right to claim regularization or complete the remaining portion of contractual service when terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract and Section 20 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. The court laid down the principle that temporary or contractual employees cannot challenge the exercise of discretionary termination by the competent authority when done pursuant to contractual stipulations, and such service disputes are not amenable to constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contractual employee has a vested right to complete the remaining portion of their contractual service?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to the contractual employment of an Advisor under the Federal Tax Ombudsman?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against the termination of a contractual employee whose service is governed by the principle of master and servant?
  • Is the Federal Tax Ombudsman empowered under Section 20 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 to appoint and dispense with the services of advisors?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Khan Sahito vs Province of Sindh, Through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, & 04 others2019 SHC 116 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-08
  quo-warrantoup-gradation versus promotionout of turn promotionpublic officestatutory corporationservice structurecontempt of supreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking a writ of quo-warranto against Respondent No. 5 regarding his appointment, up-gradation, and promotion to BS-19 and BS-20 as Managing Director / Deputy Managing Director of Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Limited (SITE). The core legal question was whether the up-gradation of a post from BS-16 to BS-20 and the consequent promotion of an incumbent through person-specific up-gradation and change of cadre violated the binding judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning out-of-turn promotions and illegal absorptions. The Sindh High Court held that up-gradation is distinct from promotion, attaches to the office rather than the incumbent, and cannot be used to confer automated promotions or benefit specific individuals in violation of service rules and Supreme Court directives. The court declared the impugned notifications and orders promoting and posting Respondent No. 5 to BS-20 to be without lawful authority and set them aside, directing strict compliance with the Supreme Court's judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether up-gradation of a post is distinct from promotion and restricted to the office rather than the person occupying it?
  • Can a writ of quo-warranto under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan be maintained against the unauthorized occupation of a public office in a statutory body?
  • Whether person-specific up-gradation and change of cadre to benefit an individual violate settled principles of service law and binding judgments of the Supreme Court?
  • Whether employees of statutory bodies controlled by the government are bound by Supreme Court mandates regarding the reversal of illegal and out-of-turn promotions?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Hussain vs Banker's Equity Limited through Authorized2019 CLD 272 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-27Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ali vs Sessions Judge Ex Officio Justice of Peace Matiari2019 SHC 574 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
• Ikramullah and Others vs Federation of Pakistan & OthersPTCL 2019 CL. 675, 2019 PTD 1702, 2019 SHC 74 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-13Read full judgment →
• Ideal Ardade Builders and Development through Authorize2019 PLD Sindh 691 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-30Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs The State2019 SHC 296 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-06
  criminal appealdeath sentencemitigating circumstanceqatl-e-amdmurder referencereduction of sentenceimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi, whereby he was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death for the qatl-e-amd of his uncle, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alongside a murder reference submitted to the Sindh High Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned whether the conviction was sustainable and whether mitigating circumstances warranted a reduction of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness testimony and recoveries, but modified the death sentence to imprisonment for life and reduced the compensation amount in view of the close relationship and absence of deep-rooted enmity between the parties. The key principle laid down is that the presence of a single mitigating circumstance or reasonable doubt regarding the quantum of sentence is sufficient to exercise judicial caution and award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses who are closely related to the deceased can form the basis of a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the existence of a single mitigating circumstance justify the reduction of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Whether close relationship and the absence of deep-rooted enmity between the accused and the victim's family can be considered a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• Hum Network Ltd. through constituted attorney vs Pakistan through Secretary Revenue and 2 others2019 PCRLJ 620, 2019 PTD 987 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-20
  withholding taxagency commissionadvance taxdeductions not allowedshow-cause noticeinterim injunctiontax circulars
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three civil suits filed by media channels seeking injunctive relief against show-cause notices issued by the tax department regarding alleged non-deduction of withholding tax on agency commissions under Section 233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and the consequent disallowance of expenses under Section 21(c). The core legal question is whether media houses are liable to withhold advance tax under Section 233 on agency commissions and whether such commissions were validly treated as expenses. The court held that the department committed a fundamental factual error by treating gross revenue deductions in the plaintiffs' audited financial statements as claimed expenses, and further found that the payment mechanism prescribed by Federal Board of Revenue circulars exempts media houses from direct tax deduction obligations when advertisers make payments. The court concluded that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, confirming the interim injunctions and restraining the department from passing final adverse orders pending final adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether media houses can be held liable for non-deduction of withholding tax under Section 233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, on amounts accounted for as revenue deductions rather than claimed expenses?
  • Are the circulars and clarifications issued by the Federal Board of Revenue regarding the payment mechanism between advertisers, advertising agencies, and media houses binding on the tax department under Section 214 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Whether the disallowance of expenses under Section 21(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is attracted when the taxpayer has not claimed the disputed amount as an expense in its financial statements?
  • Does the absence of a principal-agent relationship between the taxpayer and the payee preclude the application of Section 233(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Hijab Qazi vs Chairman/CEO Piac & 04 others2019 SHC 156 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-15
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantstatutory rulesservice disputedismissal from servicePIAC
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an air hostess dismissed from service by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging her dismissal order. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 is maintainable against PIAC in service matters, given that PIAC employees are governed by the principle of master and servant rather than statutory service rules. Relying heavily on binding precedents of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the court held that PIAC's service rules and regulations are non-statutory instructions for internal control, meaning the employment relationship is strictly governed by the rule of master and servant. Consequently, service grievances against PIAC cannot be enforced through a writ petition under Article 199. The petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether PIAC has statutory rules of service and if a writ can be issued against it under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against PIAC in light of Supreme Court jurisprudence governing its employment relations?
  • What are the salient characteristics that distinguish statutory rules of service from non-statutory rules in public employment?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to the terms and conditions of employment of PIAC employees?
  Read full judgment →
• HESCO & another vs Mst. Subhan Khatoon & Ors.2019 SHC 536 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-17Read full judgment →
• Hazaro alias Hazar Khan Shar vs The State2019 YLR 1620 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-01
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction baillife imprisonmentappellate courtstatutory interpretationmedical grounds for bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, filed an application seeking suspension of his sentence pending appeal. The core legal question was whether the appellant, an 82-year-old individual, was entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the appeal being fresh and the two-year statutory period for deciding appeals not having elapsed. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant did not meet the statutory criteria for bail under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the appeal was filed recently and the two-year threshold had not been reached. Furthermore, the court determined that advanced age alone is not a sufficient ground for suspending a sentence, and medical reports indicated that the appellant's condition did not necessitate release for medical reasons. Consequently, the court dismissed the application while directing an expedited hearing of the main appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is advanced age alone a sufficient ground for suspending a sentence pending appeal?
  • Does the statutory requirement of a two-year delay in deciding an appeal under Section 426(1-A)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to fresh appeals?
  • Can a sentence of life imprisonment be suspended if the medical condition of the convict is being managed within the prison system?
  Read full judgment →