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.

• Hazara Efficient Gas through Partner vs Oil and Gas Regulatory2019 MLD 1955 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-30Read full judgment →
• Hassan Jan vs Federation of Pakistan & 04 others2019 SHC 312 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-28
  constitutional jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunal jurisdictionde-novo enquirydisciplinary proceedingsdouble jeopardymoral turpitudevoluntary return
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant challenging a de-novo inquiry and charge sheet initiated against him regarding financial embezzlement and fraudulent GP Fund payments. The petitioner contended that he had already been penalized with a minor penalty for the same allegations and that the fresh proceedings violated the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Article 199 regarding disciplinary proceedings concerning the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant in light of the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Court held that Article 212 ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants, which fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that a writ petition is not maintainable against ongoing disciplinary proceedings involving corruption, corrupt practices, and moral turpitude, especially where the petitioner opted for voluntary return under the National Accountability Bureau law, which amounts to an admission of guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition against disciplinary proceedings concerning the terms and conditions of a civil servant in view of Article 212?
  • Does a de-novo inquiry initiated after a service tribunal's observation violate the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution?
  • Whether opting for voluntary return under the National Accountability Bureau law constitutes an admission of guilt amounting to moral turpitude?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashoo Holdings (Private) Limited vs Securities and Exchange Commission2019 CLD 675 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-04Read full judgment →
• Hashim vs The State2019 YLR 552 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-03
  police encounterbenefit of the doubtdelayed FSL reportunverified recoveryanti-terrorismillicit weaponsbomb disposal reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and the Explosive Substances Act following an alleged police encounter. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, given the lack of independent witnesses, unexplained delays in sending recovered weapons to the forensic laboratory, and glaring discrepancies regarding weapon and hand grenade serial numbers. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case, noting that the absence of injuries to the police despite heavy firing, failure to associate private independent mashirs from a populated area, inordinate delays in forensic analysis, and missing serial numbers in recovery memos rendered the entire police case doubtful and fabricated. The court laid down the principle that multiple material contradictions, unverified recoveries, and unexplained delays in forensic testing create a strong presumption of false implication, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained inordinate delay in sending recovered weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory render the positive FSL report doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained in a police encounter case where no injuries or damage are sustained by the police party despite an alleged exchange of heavy gunfire?
  • What is the legal effect on a recovery memo when the recovered weapons and hand grenades do not bear serial numbers at the time of seizure but miraculously acquire them in subsequent inspection reports?
  • Whether failure to associate independent private witnesses from a thickly populated area during recovery proceedings creates a fatal flaw in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashim Shah and others vs Mst. Hakeeman alias Bibi Wadal Shah and others2019 CLC 732 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-19Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 418 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-11
  revisional jurisdictionAssistant Sessions Judgesubordination of courtscriminal revisiondistribution of businessappellate hierarchy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sanghar, dismissing an application under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the return of a weapon. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses direct revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge, or if such jurisdiction lies with the Sessions Judge. The Court held that, based on Section 17(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, Assistant Sessions Judges are subordinate to the Sessions Judge, who also controls the distribution of business. Relying on the principle that the venue of appeal determines the hierarchy of courts, the Court concluded that the Sessions Judge is the appropriate forum for revision against orders of the Assistant Sessions Judge. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction, directing the applicant to approach the Sessions Judge instead. The judgment affirms that the revisional jurisdiction against orders of an Assistant Sessions Judge lies with the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have direct revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge?
  • Are Assistant Sessions Judges subordinate to the Sessions Judge under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Which court has the jurisdiction to hear a revision application against an order passed by an Assistant Sessions Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Ali Momin vs Ghulam Nabi and 6 others2019 MLD 1491 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-06
  acquittal appealbenefit of doubtidentification paradecontradictions in evidenceabductionpolice encounterdouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves criminal acquittal appeals filed against the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Hyderabad, which acquitted the respondents of charges related to abduction, police encounter, and illegal weapons. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence, the weight to be attached to material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the necessity of an identification parade where accused persons are not nominated in the FIR, and the principles governing interference by an appellate court in judgments of acquittal. The court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to fatal contradictions, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and recording statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C., and the failure to hold an identification parade or send recovered weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the impugned judgment suffers from gross misreading or non-reading of evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice, as accused persons who have been acquitted enjoy a double presumption of innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal judgment in the absence of gross misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice?
  • Does the failure to hold an identification parade for unnamed accused subsequently arrested create a fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect of material and unexplained contradictions in the testimony of eyewitnesses and abductees in a criminal trial?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the first information report undermines the credibility of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Arz Mohammad vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary, Islamabad and 8 others2019 YLR 2098 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Karim Memon and another vs The State and another2019 YLR 2376 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-24
  Illegal Dispossession Actforcible dispossessionmunicipal landKatchi Abadicriminal appealcriminal revisioncivil dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The complainant alleged that he was forcibly dispossessed from his plot by the accused, claiming ownership via a registered lease deed from Katchi Abadi Authorities. Conversely, the accused claimed title through civil court decrees and an agreement of sale. The core legal question concerned whether the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act were properly invoked where rival claims to municipal land existed and title documents lacked foundational legality, such as a formal notification under the Katchi Abadi Act, 1987. The Sindh High Court held that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature concerning municipal property, and neither party established lawful title, rendering the penal provisions inapplicable. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appeal allowed, the revision dismissed, and directions issued to the municipal corporation to reclaim and protect the public land from encroachments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be sustained when the underlying property dispute involves rival claims to municipal or public land?
  • Does a lease deed issued by Katchi Abadi Authorities carry legal weight without a notification issued under section 19 of the Katchi Abadi Act, 1987?
  • Whether disputes of a civil nature concerning property titles should be adjudicated through criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Ali Ravjani vs Gulzar Feroz2019 MLD 1625 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-28Read full judgment →
• Hafizullah vs The State2019 SHC 570 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Mohammad Shehzad vs The State2019 MLD 1588 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-01
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquirychemical reportunseen offencedelayed FIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of poisoning under sections 324, 511, and 337-J of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the evidence and the status of the trial. The court observed that the FIR was delayed, the offence was unseen, and the only incriminating evidence was a positive chemical report, which did not definitively establish that the applicant administered the poison. Furthermore, the court noted the victim's hesitation during cross-examination regarding her desire to live with the applicant. Relying on the principle that a positive chemical report alone does not necessarily implicate an accused and that the case required further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the observations were tentative and should not prejudice the trial court's final decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does a positive chemical report alone constitute sufficient evidence to deny pre-arrest bail in a poisoning case?
  • When does a criminal case qualify for 'further inquiry' under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the trial is at the verge of conclusion and the offence is unseen?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah son of Khadim Husain vs The State2019 SHC 434 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-06
  dacoitycriminal appealidentification paraderecovery on pointationpolice witnessesreappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity and sentencing him to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the appellant not being named in the first information report, the absence of an identification parade, and contentions regarding weak or contradictory evidence and non-compliance with statutory provisions. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution witnesses corroborated each other, the identification of the accused by the complainant at the police station and subsequently in court was reliable, and the recovery of looted property on the appellant's pointation was admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The court reaffirmed the principle that an identification parade is not mandatory in every case where the witness identifies the accused in court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade is strictly mandatory in every criminal case where the accused is not nominated in the first information report?
  • Is the in-court identification of an accused person by a victim or complainant sufficient to maintain a conviction?
  • Does the recovery of stolen property made on the pointation of an accused person remain admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Whether minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to discard an otherwise consistent and reliable prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulsher Ahmed Chachar and others vs National Accountability2019 YLR 1016 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-28Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan alias Gulan son of Abdul Rehman Shaikh vs Asif Ali son of Abdul Majeed Khoso2019 SHC 506 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Guinault Sa Pa Orleans Sologne vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2019 SHC 596 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Umar vs The State2019 MLD 1411 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-29
  criminal revisionbenefit of doubtprosecution evidencematerial contradictionsacquittalpolice witnessesSindh Arms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kamber Shandadkot, which had set aside a trial court conviction and ordered a retrial for the applicant, who was originally convicted under the Sindh Arms Act. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the evidence presented. Upon review, the High Court identified numerous material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the patrolling route, the duration of police procedures, and the sequence of events following the alleged encounter. The court held that these inconsistencies, coupled with the failure to secure independent witnesses in a populated area, rendered the prosecution's case unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the applicant, applying the established principle that if evidence creates a reasonable doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution's story, the benefit of that doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace. The judgment reaffirms that a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to warrant acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's evidence entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Are material contradictions in the testimonies of police witnesses sufficient to discredit the prosecution's case?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area a ground for doubting the prosecution's version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs The State2019 YLR 2530 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-05
  criminal appealmurder convictiondeath sentenceocular testimonyinterested witnessnatural witnessmedical evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court for the murder of a woman, punishable under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the defense's arguments regarding the credibility of the witnesses and alleged contradictions in the evidence. The High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution established its case through consistent ocular testimony corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. The court affirmed that mere relationship with the deceased does not render a witness 'interested' or unreliable; rather, the test is whether there is a motive to falsely implicate the accused. Furthermore, the court ruled that minor discrepancies in witness statements, often arising from the passage of time, do not undermine the prosecution's case if the witnesses are natural and their testimony is confidence-inspiring. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence, finding no material illegality in the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a blood relationship with the deceased automatically render a witness 'interested' and unreliable?
  • Can minor discrepancies in witness testimony justify the acquittal of an accused in a murder case?
  • What is the legal test for determining whether a witness is a 'natural witness'?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Jagirani vs Hussain Bux Jagirani2019 YLR 1161 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-29
  murderocular testimonysingle witness convictiondelay in FIRcommon objectunlawful assemblycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a single eyewitness (the complainant), the effect of a one-day delay in lodging the FIR, the non-examination of certain eyewitnesses who died natural deaths prior to deposition, and the application of common object and active participation in a murder committed by an unlawful assembly. The Sindh High Court held that the testimony of a single ocular witness, if confidence-inspiring and natural, is sufficient for conviction based on the quality rather than quantity of evidence, that delay plausibly explained does not vitiate the prosecution case, and that the appellant actively participated with a common object. The appeal was consequently dismissed and the conviction upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction in a murder case be based solely on the testimony of a single witness?
  • Does a delay of one day in lodging the FIR necessarily prove fatal to the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal consequence of the non-examination of eyewitnesses who pass away before testifying during the trial?
  • How is the common object of an unlawful assembly determined when accused persons are armed and act together?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Raheem vs University of Sindh through Vice-Chancellor and 22019 YLR 238 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qambar vs The State and 6 others2019 MLD 1766 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-28
  FIR registrationJustice of Peacecognizable offencespeaking ordercriminal procedurepolice dutySection 22-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application challenged an order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed the applicant's request for the registration of an FIR regarding an alleged assault, characterizing the dispute as purely civil. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace erred in passing a non-speaking order and whether the Station House Officer (SHO) is mandated to register an FIR upon receiving information of a cognizable offence. The Court held that the impugned order was illegal, vague, and failed to provide valid reasons, violating the requirement for a speaking order. The Court reiterated that the Justice of Peace performs administrative functions and must dispose of applications through reasoned orders without conducting a mini-trial. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, imposes a mandatory duty on the SHO to record information of a cognizable offence, regardless of the existence of a parallel civil dispute. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the SHO to record the applicant's statement and proceed according to law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Station House Officer mandatorily required to register an FIR upon receiving information of a cognizable offence?
  • Does the existence of a civil dispute preclude the registration of an FIR for a cognizable offence?
  • Must an order passed by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A/B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be a speaking and well-reasoned order?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Syed Ahmed Shah and 6 others2019 MLD 1066 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi son of Suhailo Dall vs The state2019 SHC 486 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-09
  acquittal appealscope of interferencepresumption of innocencepublic sector appointmentdelay in FIRbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial court whereby private respondents were acquitted of the charges against them. The prosecution case was that the appellant paid a sum of rupees fifteen lac to the private respondents to secure a public sector appointment as a Sub-Registrar, and upon failure to secure the appointment and the subsequent dishonour of a guarantee cheque, the FIR was lodged after a delay of six months. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the trial court's acquittal order and the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that recruitment in the public sector must be on merit, that the transaction involving alleged bribery to secure public office was implausible, and that the FIR suffered from an unplausible delay. Reaffirming the principle that the scope of interference in an acquittal appeal is extremely narrow and the presumption of innocence is doubled, the court concluded that the trial court's judgment was neither perverse nor suffered from material misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal judgment?
  • Does an unplausible delay in lodging the FIR warrant the extension of the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  • Can an appeal against acquittal succeed where the underlying transaction involves offering a bribe for a public sector appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Shaikh vs Firdous Matri and 4 others2019 YLR 223 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs P.O Sindh & Other2019 SHC 498 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mujtaba vs Syed Hussam and 2 others2019 MLD 1994 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-30
  false informationSection 182 PPCmalicious prosecutionlocus standicriminal acquittal appealpublic servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged a trial court judgment that acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which pertains to giving false information to a public servant. The appellant, who was a nominated accused in an FIR lodged by the respondent, sought to prosecute the respondent for providing false information to the police. The core legal question was whether a private individual, specifically a nominated accused in an FIR, has the standing to initiate or pursue proceedings under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or appeal an acquittal therein. The High Court held that Section 182 is designed to protect public servants from being misled into exercising their powers based on false information; therefore, only the aggrieved public servant has the authority to initiate such proceedings. The Court affirmed that a nominated accused in a false FIR has no standing to pursue a Section 182 complaint, as their proper remedy for such grievances lies in a suit for malicious prosecution, not in hijacking proceedings intended for the protection of public officials.

  Questions settled

  • Does a nominated accused in an FIR have the legal standing to initiate proceedings under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an order passed by a Magistrate on a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a judicial order?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a person falsely nominated in an FIR if they wish to seek redress for humiliation or insult?
  • Can a private individual appeal an acquittal in a case initiated under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by a public servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Chief2019 CLC 1173 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and others vs The State2019 YLR 2037 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-01
  criminal appealchance witnessbenefit of doubtcontradiction between medical and ocular evidencedelayed FIRmurderabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants handed down by the trial court under sections 302(b), 364, and 506/2 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of chance witnesses, delayed lodging of the First Information Report, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, and the benefit of doubt in criminal prosecutions. The Sindh High Court evaluated the evidence and held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the eye-witnesses were unconvincing chance witnesses whose presence at the crime scene was doubtful, the FIR was delayed and deliberated, and the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding firing distances. The court laid down the key principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the convictions and the immediate release of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of chance witnesses without a cogent explanation for their presence at the crime scene can be relied upon to sustain a conviction on a capital charge?
  • Does a delayed lodging of the First Information Report in the absence of a plausible explanation create room for consultation and deliberation?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when medical evidence directly contradicts the ocular account regarding the firing distance and absence of blackening?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder and others vs Chuttal Khan and others2019 MLD 1840 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-22
  Illegal Dispossession Act 2005interim reliefrestoration of possessionmutationburden of prooflawful possessioncriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal revision applications filed against orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed the applicants' requests for interim relief under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The applicants claimed they were forcibly dispossessed from landed property and sought restoration of possession pending trial. The core legal question was whether the applicants had established a prima facie case of lawful ownership or occupation to justify interim relief. The High Court held that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence of their prior possession or valid title. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that mutations are not documents of title and do not, by themselves, confer ownership; the burden of proving the validity of such transfers rests on the claimant. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the trial court's decision to dismiss the applications for interim relief, as the applicants failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for such intervention. The revision applications were dismissed, affirming that interim relief under the Act requires clear prima facie proof of dispossession from lawful possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mutation entry in revenue records by itself confer title or ownership of property?
  • What must a complainant prima facie establish to obtain interim relief under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie when claiming title through a mutation?
  • Can a court grant interim restoration of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 without evidence of the complainant's prior lawful possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider Jamali and others vs Chairman, National2019 MLD 884 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs Abu Bakar2019 MLD 1163 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-28
  illegal dispossessionburden of proofbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecriminal appealencroachmentacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, which convicted the appellant under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, for allegedly encroaching upon the complainant's land. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the appellant's illegal possession of the disputed property to sustain a conviction, particularly when the trial court acquitted co-accused on the same evidence and the complainant failed to examine the authors of the revenue reports relied upon. The Sindh High Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The court reasoned that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of illegal possession or unauthorized entry as required by the Act. Furthermore, the court emphasized that evidence cannot be selectively believed to convict one accused while acquitting others on the same set of facts without independent corroboration. The court reaffirmed the principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and cannot be shifted to the accused, and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be sustained if the complainant fails to prove the essential elements of illegal possession or unauthorized entry?
  • Is it legally permissible to convict one accused while acquitting co-accused on the same set of evidence without independent corroboration?
  • Does the filing of a counter-FIR by an accused regarding a different incident constitute proof of guilt for the charges brought against them in a separate complaint?
  • Can reports from revenue officials or police be relied upon as evidence in a criminal trial without the examination of their authors?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali and 3 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2019 YLR 2593 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-16Read full judgment →
• Gazi and 2 others vs The State2019 MLD 740 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-19
  Article 47 Qanun-e-Shahadatde novo trialtrial in absentiaadmissibility of evidencedeceased witnessfair trialcriminal revisioncross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad, which allowed the prosecution's application under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, to admit the evidence of two deceased prosecution witnesses recorded in earlier proceedings. The core legal question was whether evidence recorded during a prior trial, where the accused were tried in absentia but represented by state-appointed counsel who cross-examined the witnesses, could be admitted in a subsequent de novo trial following the death of those witnesses. The Court held that the evidence was admissible. It reasoned that the requirements of Article 47 were satisfied because the proceedings involved the same parties, the issues were substantially the same, and the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses through their appointed counsel. The Court affirmed that the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution does not permit an accused to hold the criminal justice system hostage or benefit from their own absconsion, provided the essential legal safeguards, such as the right to cross-examination, were previously exercised.

  Questions settled

  • Can evidence recorded in a prior judicial proceeding be admitted in a subsequent de novo trial if the witness has since died?
  • Does the admission of evidence from a prior trial in absentia violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is evidence admissible under Article 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 if the accused was represented by state-appointed counsel who cross-examined the witnesses during the initial proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Gangoo Mal and others vs The State2019 MLD 1569 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-01
  pre-arrest bailmurderabductionprohibitory clausetentative assessmentmedical and ocular evidence conflict
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves bail applications filed by the accused persons seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 69 of 2018 registered at Police Station Rohri for offences under sections 302 and 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific roles attributed to them in the FIR and supporting police statements concerning the abduction and subsequent murder of the deceased over a salary dispute. The court held that the applicants failed to make out a case for bail as ample prima facie material connected them to the alleged offense, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that deeper appraisals of evidence such as medical-ocular conflicts are unwarranted at the bail stage. The key principles laid down include that tentative assessment alone is permissible at the bail stage, that pre-arrest bail requires establishing mala fide or ulterior motives which the applicants failed to do, and that conflicts between medical and ocular evidence cannot be resolved without a deeper appraisal of evidence during trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused are nominated in the FIR with specific roles and prima facie connected to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause?
  • Can a conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account be deeply appraised and resolved at the bail stage?
  • Is it necessary for an accused seeking pre-arrest bail to establish mala fide or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant or prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Gajdhar alias Anand vs The State2019 YLR 1971 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-20
  post-arrest baildelay in trialdirectory directionsfinancial fraudremandbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail application filed by the applicant Gajdhar alias Anand in FIR No. 12/2016 registered at Police Station FIA, C.B.C. Karachi, under sections 409, 468, 471, 477-A, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to financial fraud and unauthorized fund transfers involving millions of rupees. The core legal question raised was whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail solely on the ground of non-compliance by the trial court with an expedited timeline given by the High Court while remanding a case after setting aside a previous conviction. The Sindh High Court held that directions issued by superior courts to conclude a trial within a specified period are directory rather than mandatory, and their non-compliance does not furnish a statutory or automatic ground for bail, particularly where the delay is largely attributable to adjournments sought by the accused and applications filed by the defence. The bail application was accordingly dismissed, with directions to the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-compliance with the High Court's directions to conclude a trial within a specified period creates an automatic right to post-arrest bail for an accused?
  • Are directions issued by superior courts for the expeditious conclusion of trials mandatory or directory in nature?
  • Does a delay in trial caused by the adjournments and applications of the accused entitle them to claim statutory hardship for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Gada Ali Abro vs The State2019 MLD 962 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-09
  narcotics recoverycharasControl of Narcotic Substances Actpolice witnessesburden of proofcriminal jail appealconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal impugned the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine for the recovery of a large quantity of charas. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics from the possession and Otaq of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the non-association of private local witnesses and the testimony of police officials vitiated the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent and unshaken, the chemical examiner's report was positive, and police officials are as competent witnesses as private persons. Furthermore, section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 excludes section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the burden under section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to establish innocence rests upon the accused. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police officials alone is sufficient to maintain a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 without independent corroboration from private local witnesses?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding mandatory association of mashirs?
  • Where does the burden of proof lie under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 once the prosecution establishes physical custody or concern with the recovered narcotic substance?
  • Can a conviction be set aside on the basis of a defense plea of political enmity that is not supported by consistent defense evidence or direct suggestions to prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Fozia Rahat vs Masood Ahmed & Others2019 CLC 1323, 2019 SHC 3 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
• Fouzia Khan vs Chairman/CEO Pi.A. & 2 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 1078, 2019 SHC 114 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-08
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantservice matterstransfer and postingstatutory rulesPIACconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employed as Airhostesses by the Pakistan International Airlines Company (PIAC), challenged their transfer orders from Karachi to Islamabad, alleging mala fide intent and violation of internal rotation policies. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to adjudicate service-related grievances, specifically transfers, against PIAC. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that PIAC’s service rules are non-statutory, serving merely as internal instructions for management. Consequently, the relationship between PIAC and its employees is governed by the principle of 'Master and Servant.' The Court affirmed that transfer and posting matters fall within the 'terms and conditions of service,' which, in the absence of statutory rules, are not enforceable through writ jurisdiction. The Court concluded that it could not interfere in such internal administrative matters, thereby dismissing the petitions in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 to challenge transfer orders of employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Company?
  • Are the service rules of the Pakistan International Airlines Company considered statutory rules?
  • Does the principle of 'Master and Servant' apply to the employment relationship between the Pakistan International Airlines Company and its employees?
  • Do transfer and posting orders of employees fall within the ambit of 'terms and conditions of service'?
  Read full judgment →
• FGBC Limited through Attorney and others vs Director General Mines and Mineral Development, Sindh and others2019 CLC 267 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-21Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan vs Official Assignee / Official Liquidator and others2019 CLD 1359, 2020 PLD Sindh 116, 2019 SHC 180 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-17Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs, Islamabad and 3 others vs Devri Sahib of Bhai Stramdass of Raharki through Care Taker Bhai Niranjan Lal2019 MLD 1781 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-01Read full judgment →
• Fazal-Ur-Rehman vs The State and another2019 MLD 57 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-30
  Illegal Dispossession ActCriminal AppealSentence ReductionCompromiseAppellate PowersRestoration of PossessionCompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under Section 2(3) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which had resulted in a five-year imprisonment sentence and a compensation order. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant restored possession of the disputed property to the complainant. The parties subsequently reached a compromise, wherein the complainant agreed to forgo the compensation and did not press for the conviction, provided the appellant undertook not to interfere with the property in the future. The core legal question was whether the appellate court could reduce the sentence based on this compromise. The Court held that, in exercise of its powers under Section 423(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it could modify the sentence. Consequently, the Court reduced the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone and recalled the compensation order. The judgment establishes that an appellate court may take a lenient view and reduce a sentence where a compromise exists between the parties and the complainant waives their claims.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence based on a compromise between the parties?
  • Does an appellate court have the power to recall a compensation order if the complainant agrees to forgo it?
  • Can a conviction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be mitigated through a compromise where the complainant does not press for the conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Wahid vs The State2019 YLR 171 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-02
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryforeigners actcitizenship claimnon-joining of private witnessescriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the release of the applicant, Fazal Wahid, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 154 of 2016 registered under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 at Police Station Shahdadpur. The applicant contended that he is a citizen of Pakistan, supported by documentary evidence including death certificates of his parents issued in Pakistan, his own birth certificate, and national identity documents held by family members. The State opposed the bail. The Sindh High Court observed that the birth and death certificates prima facie supported the applicant's claim of being a Pakistani resident and noted that all prosecution witnesses were police officials without any private public witnesses joined at the time of arrest. Holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of surety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused claiming Pakistani citizenship in a case under the Foreigners Act is entitled to post-arrest bail when birth and death certificates support his residency?
  • Does the non-joining of public witnesses at the time of arrest make out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when all prosecution witnesses are police officials and the trial is likely to take time?
  Read full judgment →
• Fawad and others vs The State2019 P Cr. LJ 1443 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-11
  murderconviction appealenhancement of sentenceacquittal appealeyewitness testimonybenefit of doubtcorroborationmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction, a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence, and an acquittal appeal arising from a murder trial. The core legal questions involve the assessment of ocular testimony, the corroboration rule, the evaluation of minor discrepancies in witness statements, the grounds for enhancing life imprisonment to death, and the strict parameters for interfering with an acquittal judgment. The court held that unimpeachable ocular testimony from natural witnesses, corroborated by medical and ballistic evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction even in the presence of minor discrepancies, and that the sentence of life imprisonment should be maintained after weighing mitigating factors such as advanced age and the absence of a brutal, frenzied attack. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse or arbitrary, given the double presumption of innocence. The key principles laid down include the application of the rule of abundant caution regarding corroboration, the holistic evaluation of mitigating circumstances for sentencing, and the rigorous criteria for setting aside acquittals.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated ocular testimony of a single reliable and confidence-inspiring eye-witness is sufficient to base a conviction?
  • Can a sentence of life imprisonment be enhanced to death when mitigating factors such as advanced age and the absence of a brutal attack are present?
  • What is the scope and standard of interference by an appellate court in a judgment of acquittal where the presumption of innocence is doubled?
  • Are minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooque vs The State2019 YLR 1392 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-27
  murderocular evidencefalsus in uno falsus in omnibusappreciation of evidencepre-meditated murdercriminal appealsifting grain from chaff
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for the murder of Imdad Ali Shah, imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the ocular evidence provided by related witnesses was sufficient for conviction despite the acquittal of a co-accused, whether the non-examination of the investigating officer prejudiced the defense, and whether the conviction warranted modification to Section 302(c) due to the nature of the injuries. The Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the acquittal of one co-accused does not automatically invalidate the case against others if independent corroboration exists. It affirmed that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is inapplicable, favoring the sifting of grain from chaff. The Court rejected the request to modify the sentence, finding the murder was pre-meditated and committed with a deadly weapon, distinguishing the case from precedents where lesser sentences were applied. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused in a criminal trial automatically entitle other co-accused to acquittal on the same evidence?
  • Is the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus applicable in the administration of criminal justice in Pakistan?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony of related witnesses if the investigating officer is not examined at trial?
  • Does the failure to mention witnesses in a sketch of the crime scene (vardat) invalidate their testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooque Jameel Durrani and others vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh and 9 others2019 MLD 1705 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-01Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali vs The State2020 YLR 1752, 2019 SHC 458 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-03
  criminal appealqatal-e-amadrobberyidentification paradebeyond reasonable doubtdeterrent sentenceocular evidencemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for the murder of the deceased during a robbery. The appellants were convicted under Section 302(b) and Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's arguments regarding delayed FIR registration, alleged police fabrication, and defects in the identification parade. The Court held that the prosecution's case was established through consistent, reliable, and confidence-inspiring ocular evidence from natural witnesses, which was corroborated by medical evidence, the recovery of the deceased's weapon from the appellants, and forensic reports matching crime scene empties with the recovered weapons. The Court affirmed that minor contradictions in testimony do not invalidate a case when the core evidence is solid. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions and sentences, emphasizing the need for deterrent punishment in cases of brutal street crimes and robbery-murders, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor defect in an identification parade necessarily invalidate the entire prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence when there is a delay in the registration of the FIR?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon belonging to the deceased from the accused sufficient to establish guilt in a robbery-murder case?
  • Does the presence of minor contradictions in witness testimony warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Fareed Ahmed Khan and others vs M. V. Miski The Vessel and another2019 SHC 348 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-06Read full judgment →
• Faraz Sherwani and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment and 2 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1084 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-24
  constitutional petitionpromotion criteriaNAB employeesservice ruleseligibility for promotionwrit jurisdictionterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) promoting the petitioners to the post of Private Secretary (BPS-17). The petitioners contended they were entitled to promotion as Assistant Directors (BPS-17) under the NAB Employees Terms and Conditions of Service (TCS), 2002, alleging discrimination and violation of statutory rules. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (BPS-17) and if the impugned notification was unlawful. The Court held that the petition was maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution, as NAB employees are not civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. However, on merits, the Court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioners failed to meet the requisite length of service criteria for the post of Assistant Director (BPS-17) under the applicable rules. The Court affirmed that promotion is not a vested right but depends on eligibility, fitness, and vacancy, and that courts should not interfere with the government's authority to prescribe qualifications and promotion policies.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of the National Accountability Bureau considered civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can an employee claim promotion to a higher grade as a vested right?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to hear service grievances of National Accountability Bureau employees?
  • Is the determination of eligibility and fitness for promotion a matter for the competent authority rather than the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqeer Muhammad vs The State2019 SHC 566 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
• Faizullah Azizi Shaikh through Authorized Attorney vs National Bank of Pakistan through President and 3 others2019 PLC (C.S.) 639 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-12
  constitutional petitionunauthorized absenceservice matterright to fair trialprinciples of natural justicebank employeevacation of appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order issued by the National Bank of Pakistan vacating the petitioner's appointment as AVP due to unauthorized absence from duty. The core legal question is whether the petitioner's termination of employment for unauthorized absence, following the expiration of his granted leave and refusal of extensions, violated principles of natural justice and Article 10-A of the Constitution. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity, was duly served multiple notices to resume duty, and failed to justify his prolonged unauthorized absence or verify his medical documents, thereby disentitling him to discretionary relief. The court affirmed that public functionaries acted fairly and in accordance with bank policy, while noting that the petitioner remained entitled to accrued dues for his past service.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee's appointment can be vacated for unauthorized absence after the refusal of leave extension?
  • Does the issuance of multiple notices to an absent employee satisfy the requirements of a fair trial and natural justice?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when filed through an attorney while the petitioner remains abroad?
  • Whether discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution can be extended to an employee who fails to justify prolonged unauthorized absence from duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal vs The State2019 SHC 234 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-19Read full judgment →
• Faisal Memon vs Province of Sindh & 02 others2019 SHC 380 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-19
  look after chargecivil servicetransfer and postingwrit jurisdictionad-hocismvested rightadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his removal from the 'look after charge' of the post of Regional Director (BPS-19) in the Sindh Katchi Abadis Authority, arguing that the assignment of this charge to a junior officer violated established legal principles regarding transfer and posting. The core legal question was whether a civil servant possesses a vested right to retain a 'look after charge' of a higher post and whether the court should interfere with such administrative transfers. The Court held that a government servant has no vested right to remain on a particular post for any stipulated period and can be transferred at any time. Furthermore, the Court observed that assigning a 'look after charge' of a higher post to a civil servant is not permitted under the law, characterizing such practices as a culture of ad-hocism that lacks legal recognition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, emphasizing that discretionary transfer powers vest in the competent authority and are not subject to judicial interference unless exercised for extraneous considerations.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to remain on a particular post for a stipulated period?
  • Does Section 10 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 permit the appointment of a civil servant to look after the work of a higher post?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against the relinquishment of a 'look after charge' of a government post?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Jaffari vs The State2019 MLD 1436 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-30
  statutory delaypost-arrest bailpolice encounterextra judicial killingdelay in trialabscondencehardship bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed on behalf of the applicant, Faisal Jaffari, seeking post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delay in the non-conclusion of his trial within two years under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant, an ASI, was implicated in a 2011 case involving charges under Sections 302, 365, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly abducting and murdering the complainant's son in a staged police encounter. The Sindh High Court evaluated the record, including trial court progress reports and case diaries, which revealed that the applicant had engaged in delaying tactics such as filing transfer applications, seeking numerous adjournments, and displaying unexplained abscondence prior to arrest. The court held that the statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial was occasioned by the acts and omissions of the applicant himself, thereby disentitling him to the statutory concession of bail. The court reaffirmed the principle that an accused responsible for delaying trial proceedings cannot claim the benefit of statutory hardship, and that unexplained abscondence deprives an accused of normal procedural rights. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to statutory bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the delay in the conclusion of the trial is occasioned by his own acts and omissions?
  • Does unexplained noticeable abscondence of an accused deprive him of normal rights granted by procedural and substantive law?
  • Whether filing transfer applications and seeking repeated adjournments can be attributed as delaying tactics on the part of the accused to disentitle him from statutory delay benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem Ali vs The State2019 MLD 468 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-20
  unlicensed armsrecovery witnessjoint mashirnamabenefit of doubtcross-examinationcomplainant as investigatorcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for being in possession of an unlicensed Kalashnikov. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the recovery proceedings, joint mashirnamas, non-production of daily diary entries, the implications of a complainant acting as the investigating officer, and the legal effect of a lack of cross-examination in criminal trials versus civil trials. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to major contradictions in witness testimonies, the failure to associate independent private mashirs under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the improper conduct of the complainant acting as the investigating officer, and the absence of chemical examiner reports. The court laid down the principle that criminal cases must be decided on the totality of circumstances rather than narrow grounds like the failure to cross-examine a witness on a particular fact, and that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principle that a fact is deemed proved if left un-cross-examined applies to criminal trials?
  • Does a complainant acting as the investigating officer vitiate the credibility of the police investigation?
  • Is the association of independent public mashirs mandatory under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the effect of failing to produce daily diary movement entries in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem Ahmed Attari and 70 others vs Province of Sindh and others2020 PLC (C.S) 1484, 2019 SHC 178 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-27
  constitutional petitionswithholding of salaryfake appointmentsdisputed questions of factlocal governmentdepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses constitutional petitions filed by teaching and non-teaching staff of the Education Department of Karachi Municipal Corporation seeking directions to release their withheld monthly salaries. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners' appointments were fake or irregular, whether their salaries could be stopped without a hearing, and whether constitutional jurisdiction can resolve disputed questions of fact regarding employment credentials. The court held that the veracity of appointment documents and claims involves disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated under constitutional jurisdiction, and therefore left the matter to be determined by the competent authority. The court laid down the principle that while ill-gotten gains cannot be protected and backdoor appointments cannot claim equity, disputed factual controversies regarding employment authenticity must be scrutinized through a proper departmental inquiry providing an opportunity of hearing, guided by the precedent of the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of employment appointments be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether salaries of employees can be withheld indefinitely without completing legal and codal formalities?
  • How should allegations of fraud or fake appointments in public departments be scrutinized when claims and counter-claims are raised by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad Parekh vs The State2019 PLD Sindh 585 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-19
  post-arrest bailsentencing legalityrevisional jurisdictioninterpretation of statutesseparate sentencessuo motu powersEmigration Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under the Emigration Ordinance 1979 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the trial court's sentencing of a co-accused—who was convicted of multiple offences but received only a single, non-specific fine—was legally valid, and whether the applicant is entitled to similar treatment. The Court held that the trial court's judgment was illegal because it failed to award separate, specific sentences for each distinct offence as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court clarified that where a statute provides for imprisonment, such punishment is often mandatory/obligatory, and the word 'or' in penal provisions is disjunctive, not interchangeable with 'and'. The key principles laid down are that a valid judgment must specify the offence and the corresponding section of law for which an accused is convicted, and separate sentences must be awarded for each distinct offence. Failure to do so renders the conviction and sentence illegal. Consequently, the Court exercised its suo motu revisional jurisdiction to examine the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Is the word 'or' in penal provisions interchangeable with 'and'?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require separate sentences for each distinct offence in a single judgment?
  • Can a court exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality of a sentence?
  • Is the imposition of a fine sufficient when a statute mandates imprisonment for a specific offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad Ali vs District Returning Officer, District Sanghar and 5 others2019 CLC 1496 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-14Read full judgment →
• Engineers & Professionals Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs The Institute2019 SHC 16 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Energy Solution (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The President of Pakistan through Director (Legal) and another2019 CLD 1194 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Energy Solution (Pvt) Ltd. vs The President of Pakistan through Director (Legal) and another2019 CLC 1639 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad vs The State2019 MLD 507 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-07
  post-arrest bailmurderabsconsionrule of consistencyheinous crimetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant Ejaz Ahmed sought post-arrest bail under Section 497, Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 121/2013 registered under Sections 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi, for the murder of Arshad alias Daniyal. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his co-accused caused fatal injuries to the deceased during a wedding ceremony following a previous dispute over a motorcycle. The applicant contended that he was innocent, sustained severe injuries during a fight initiated by the deceased, and was entitled to the rule of consistency since a co-accused was released under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the applicant's status as an absconder for a long period and his specific nomination in the FIR. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was nominated with a specific role, admitted his presence and injuries sustained during the incident, and had remained an absconder, which would delay trial proceedings if released. The court concluded that reasonable grounds existed to connect the applicant with the heinous crime and dismissed the post-arrest bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who remained an absconder for a long period is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused persons are placed in different factual circumstances regarding their roles in the crime?
  • Can bail be refused when an accused is specifically nominated in the FIR with an active role in a heinous crime supported by tentative assessment of the record?
  Read full judgment →
• East West Insurance Co. Limited vs Federal Insurance Ombudsman and Others2019 SHC 20 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• Dr. Uzma Shaheen Pirzada vs Province of Sindh through Secretary and 22019 PLC (C.S.) 1100 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-04
  voluntary retirementcompulsory retirementpension benefitsqualifying servicecivil servicepensionable servicestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, sought a declaration of entitlement to pension and retirement benefits after voluntarily retiring upon completing 22 years of service. The core legal question was whether the 20-year service threshold for retirement under Section 13(i) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, applied to voluntary retirement, thereby entitling the petitioner to pension benefits, or whether the 25-year qualifying service requirement under the Civil Service Regulations and the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, remained the governing standard. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 13(i) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, specifically concerns compulsory retirement initiated by the competent authority in the public interest, not voluntary retirement. The Court clarified that voluntary retirement is governed by the 25-year qualifying service period prescribed in the Civil Service Regulations and the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963. Consequently, the petitioner, having completed only 22 years, did not meet the requisite threshold for pensionable voluntary retirement. The judgment establishes that the 20-year provision in the Act and the 25-year requirement for voluntary retirement are distinct legal concepts.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 13(i) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, apply to voluntary retirement or only to compulsory retirement?
  • Is a civil servant entitled to pension benefits after completing 22 years of service if they retire voluntarily?
  • What is the qualifying period of service required for a government servant to be eligible for a retiring pension under the Civil Service Regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shaista Shah vs Province of Sindh & others2019 SHC 598 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitycivil servanttransfer and postingexclusive jurisdictionservice tribunalout of own pay scale
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, impugned a transfer notification through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, alleging mala fides and challenging the appointment of a private respondent. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition by a civil servant regarding terms and conditions of service is maintainable in the face of the constitutional bar under Article 212. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212, rendering the constitutional petition barred. The court established that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain service matters where an alternative remedy before the Service Tribunal is provided under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant regarding transfer and posting is maintainable in view of the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Does the jurisdiction of the High Court extend to service matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants?
  • Can an appointment on out of own pay scale or stopgap arrangement continue for an unlimited period of time in violation of relevant rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Seema Irfan and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PLD Sindh 516 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Dr. Seema Irfan and 5 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and 2 others2019 PTD 1678, 2019 PLD Sindh 516, 2022 PLJ Karachi 54 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Dr. Obaid ur Rehman & others vs Mrs. Neelofer Khalid & others2020 YLR 1783, 2019 SHC 110 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Naheed Fatima and 3 others vs Messrs Pakistan International Air2019 MLD 606 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-06Read full judgment →
• Dr. Naeem Memon vs Fed. of Pakistan and ORs2019 SHC 376 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-18
  National Command Authoritycompulsory retirementsupersessionmaster and servantstatutory rulesconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioner, a former Senior Medical Officer of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission whose services were merged into the National Command Authority, seeking to declare Chapter II of the National Command Authority Employees Service Rules 2011 as ultra vires the National Command Authority Act 2010 and Articles 4, 9, and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and to set aside his compulsory retirement order. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of the petition given the master-servant relationship, the statutory status of the service rules, and the validity of the disciplinary action and compulsory retirement based on multiple supersessions and adverse performance evaluation reports. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the rules framed under the National Command Authority Act 2010 are statutory, but that the petitioner's compulsory retirement resulting from multiple supersessions and adverse reports was carried out in accordance with the applicable service rules and established legal principles. The court established that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interfere with subjective evaluations of employee fitness and performance or to substitute the findings of competent departmental authorities where no fundamental right or mandatory law has been violated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether rules framed under Sections 7, 9, and 15 of the National Command Authority Act 2010 possess statutory status?
  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution substitute its own evaluation for the subjective assessment of a departmental promotion committee or competent authority regarding an employee's fitness for promotion?
  • Does multiple supersessions and the accumulation of adverse annual performance evaluation reports provide sufficient legal basis under service rules for the compulsory retirement of a public employee?
  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable to challenge service termination matters of employees governed by the master-servant principle where no violation of statutory provisions is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nadeem Khalid Khan vs Sindh Employees Society Security2019 PLC (C.S.) 864 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-17
  suspension from servicepower to suspendGeneral Clauses Act section 16interlocutory injunctionstatutory bodyservice regulationsdepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking an interlocutory injunction to suspend an office order suspending the plaintiff from service as the Chief Medical Officer of the defendant institution. The core legal question was whether a competent appointing authority possesses the implicit power to suspend an employee pending an inquiry even when the governing service regulations do not explicitly confer a power of suspension. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the competent authority indeed possesses the power to suspend an employee pending departmental proceedings or inquiry by virtue of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act 1897, unless a different intention appears in the governing statutes or regulations. The key principle laid down is that the statutory power to make an appointment includes the inherent power to suspend or dismiss an employee under Section 16 of the General Clauses Act 1897 as an implied term of service, provided no contrary intention is expressed in the governing law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an authority having the power to make an appointment also possess the implicit power to suspend an employee when the service regulations are silent on suspension?
  • Can Section 16 of the General Clauses Act 1897 be invoked to uphold an order of suspension where the governing regulations do not explicitly provide for such power?
  • Whether temporary suspension pending a departmental inquiry constitutes a penalty or an implied term of service contract?
  • Does the absence of a specific provision regarding suspension in service regulations amount to a different intention excluding the application of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Imran Qureshi and Others vs Mohammad Asif2019 SHC 446, 2020 CLD 1060, 2020 KLR Civil Cases 281, 2020 P C T L R 922 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-18Read full judgment →
• Dr. Moinuddin Shaikh vs Federation of Pakistan through Federal2019 PLD Sindh 506 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ghulam Raza vs Director General (Sindh Region) National2019 MLD 433 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-16
  double jeopardysupplementary referenceNational Accountability Ordinanceacting chairmanpardonSection 265-K Cr.P.C.constitutional petitionaccountability court
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the legality of supplementary references filed by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), the authority of the Acting Chairman to file references and grant pardons, and the dismissal of applications under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners contended that the proceedings constituted double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution and that the NAB lacked the authority to reinvestigate matters already subject to acquittal. The Court held that the petitions were without merit. It determined that the principle of double jeopardy is not violated when separate references are filed for distinct offences, such as misdeclarations involving different containers. The Court affirmed that the Acting Chairman NAB possesses the authority to file references and grant pardons under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. Furthermore, it held that the NAB is empowered to file supplementary references to introduce newly discovered evidence. The Court emphasized that the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 is a special law overriding other statutes and declined to interfere with the ongoing trial process, directing the trial court to proceed on a day-to-day basis.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of separate references for distinct offences involving different containers constitute double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the Acting Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau have the legal authority to file references and grant pardons under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Is the National Accountability Bureau empowered to file supplementary references after the initial reference has been filed?
  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before evidence has been recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Fozia Akmal vs Province of Sindh & 04 others2019 SHC 314 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-27
  regularization of servicecontract employeeleave vacancystatutory bodypublic appointmentconstitutional jurisdictionvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking to declare certain office orders illegal, to declare the petitioner as an active employee of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (SESSI), and to direct her regularization as a Consultant Gynecologist under the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013. The core legal questions revolved around whether a temporary employee appointed against a leave vacancy without following prescribed recruitment rules could claim regularization based on length of service, and whether the constitutional petition was maintainable. The court held that the petition was maintainable against the public sector statutory entity, but dismissed it on merits, ruling that initial appointments to regular posts must be made through transparent competitive processes via the Public Service Commission and that irregular or contingency appointments against leave vacancies do not accrue any vested right to regularization. The key principles laid down include that contract or contingency employees appointed outside statutory recruitment rules cannot bypass the mandatory competitive process for permanent absorption, and that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court will not be exercised to perpetuate illegalities in public appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a statutory public sector institution like the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution?
  • Does an employee appointed on a contingency basis against a leave vacancy acquire a vested right to regularization based on length of service?
  • Can appointments to regular BPS-18 posts be made without adhering to prescribed recruitment rules and the public service commission process?
  • Whether the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 applies to employees working on contingency or leave vacancies in statutory bodies lacking sanctioned substantive posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Anis Zohra vs IIIrd Judicial Magistrate, District South, Karachi and 2 others2019 YLR 836 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-22
  acquittal appeallimitation periodwrong forumdue diligenceleave to appealcriminal procedurecomplaint case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Karachi South, acquitting the respondent under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved the condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 when an appeal is filed before a wrong forum due to counsel's mistake, and the requirement of seeking special leave to appeal against an acquittal in a complaint case versus filing a direct appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that a counsel's lack of familiarity with the relevant jurisdictional provisions does not constitute a bona fide mistake or due diligence required for excluding time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal as incompetent and time-barred, laying down principles regarding the strict application of limitation periods, the limits of counsel negligence in pursuing remedies before wrong forums, and the statutory requirements for filing appeals against acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a litigant claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 when an appeal is filed before the wrong forum due to a counsel's technical mistake?
  • Does a counsel's failure to acquaint himself with the relevant provisions of law relating to court jurisdiction amount to negligence preventing the condonation of delay?
  • Is special leave of the High Court required for a private complainant to file an appeal against an order of acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Dow University of Health Sciences vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2019 SHC 66 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
• Dittal alias Ali Ahmed and 2 others vs The State2019 MLD 4 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-10
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilityfurther inquiryprohibitory clausecommon objectabsconsion of co-accusedFIR delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by three accused persons seeking release in a murder case registered under sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-H(2), 114, 147, 148, 149, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants, who were not attributed with the fatal shot but were alleged to have instigated the crime or held lathis, were entitled to bail despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court granted bail, holding that the applicants' vicarious liability and their specific roles were matters for the trial court to determine. The Court further noted the absence of independent witnesses at a public place, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the fact that the absconsion of co-accused does not preclude the grant of bail to present applicants. The key principle laid down is that where no active role is attributed to an accused in a case involving vicarious liability, and the case requires further inquiry, bail should be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absconsion of co-accused automatically disentitle the present applicants from the concession of bail?
  • Is the determination of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a matter to be decided at the bail stage or during the trial?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses at a public place of occurrence constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Diloo son of Mohammad vs State2019 SHC 260 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-07
  criminal appealanti-terrorismidentification paradebenefit of doubtacquittalunlicensed pistolhostile witness
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal appeals challenge the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting and sentencing the appellants for offences relating to terrorism, robbery, and possession of unlicensed arms. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of identification parades, hostile testimonies, and the use of evidence already disbelieved for an acquitted co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and involvement of the appellants satisfactorily, noting major evidentiary flaws, lack of independent corroboration, and the untenable reliance on evidence previously rejected for a co-accused. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants of all charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted on the basis of evidence that has already been disbelieved by the trial court while acquitting a co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Is the failure to hold an identification parade for unidentified accused persons arrested during investigation fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does an unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR affect the credibility of the prosecution's case when names and descriptions of culprits are missing?
  Read full judgment →
• Dhanya Agro-Industrial (Pvt.) Limited through Attorney vs Quetta2019 CLD 160 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-16
  foreign arbitral awardenforcement of awardarbitration agreementNew York Conventionex parte decreeinternational arbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed an application under Section 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, seeking the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award rendered by the International Cotton Association Limited. The dispute arose from a contract for the sale of raw cotton, which included an arbitration clause. The arbitral tribunal, seated in Liverpool, England, issued an award in favor of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to pay specific sums, including interest and costs. The defendant, despite being served through multiple methods, failed to appear, leading the court to proceed ex parte. The core legal question was whether the foreign arbitral award met the requirements for enforcement under the 2011 Act and the New York Convention 1958. The court held that the award was valid and enforceable, noting that no impediments under Section 7 of the Act or Article V of the Convention were present. Consequently, the court made the award a rule of the court and decreed the suit, emphasizing the legislative intent of the 2011 Act to provide an expeditious mechanism for enforcing foreign arbitral awards.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have the jurisdiction to enforce a foreign arbitral award under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011?
  • What is the legal status of a foreign arbitral award once it is recognized under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011?
  • Can a court proceed ex parte in a suit for the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award if the defendant fails to appear after proper service?
  Read full judgment →
• Deutsche Bank Ag vs Fateh Textile Mills Limited2019 CLD 285 · Sindh High Court · 2016-07-26Read full judgment →
• Deedar Ali and others vs The State2019 YLR 2902 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-30
  extortionanti-terrorismsentence reductionmitigating circumstancescriminal appealillegal arms possessionfirst offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offences related to extortion and illegal possession of firearms. The appellants were convicted under Section 7(1)(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, read with Sections 384, 386, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. Upon appeal, the appellants’ counsel did not challenge the convictions on merits but sought a reduction in sentences, citing mitigating factors such as the appellants being first-time offenders, sole breadwinners, and having family responsibilities. The Sindh High Court, upon reviewing the prosecution evidence, found the convictions to be well-founded and supported by independent testimony. However, acknowledging the mitigating circumstances presented, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentences while maintaining the convictions and fines. The judgment affirms the principle that while appellate courts may maintain convictions based on sufficient evidence, they may exercise leniency in sentencing when compelling mitigating factors are demonstrated by first-time offenders.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence based on mitigating circumstances when the conviction itself is not challenged on merits?
  • Does the failure to challenge a conviction on merits preclude an appellate court from reviewing the sufficiency of prosecution evidence?
  • Are first-time offenders entitled to leniency in sentencing for offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Dawlance Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited through Deputy Manager and another2019 CLD 920 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-05Read full judgment →
• Dad Raheem and 07 others vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2019 SHC 378 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-18
  maintainabilityconstitutional petitionwrit of mandamusservice disputeprivate cooperative societymaster and servantdisputed questions of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed by Dad Raheem and others challenging the termination of their services by the Administration Department of the Fishermen's Cooperative Society. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against a private cooperative society regarding a service dispute. The Sindh High Court held that the Fishermen's Cooperative Society is a private corporate body not performing public duties, and its internal service matters do not involve any public law element or violation of a mandatory statutory provision. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition in limine on the ground of maintainability, holding that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private entity and that disputed questions of fact relating to private employment cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that service disputes involving private cooperative societies and their employees are internal matters of a private character outside the scope of the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against a private cooperative society regarding the termination of employment?
  • Does a writ of mandamus lie against a private corporate body that performs no public duties?
  • Can disputed questions of fact in a private service matter be adjudicated by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction without recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Custom Public School Thr. Akbar Ahmed Khan vs Aftab Ahmed and others2019 CLC 1774, 2019 SHC 144 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Cosmic Resources (Private) Limited vs Government of Pakistan & Others2021 PLD Sindh 113, 2019 SHC 461 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, L.T.U., Karachi vs Messrs2019 PTD 447 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
• Faizan Shabbir vs Shaikh Abdul Wahab2019 PLD Sindh 559, 2019 SHC 130 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Collector, Model Customs Collectorate, Multan vs CustomsPTCL 2019 CL. 688, 2019 PTD 1716 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-12Read full judgment →
• Faiz-Ul-Hassan and 2 others vs Sh. Abdul Rasheed and 2 others2019 YLR 941 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-23Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs and 2 others vs Messrs Searle IV Solution (Pvt.)2019 CLC 634 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-26Read full judgment →
• China International Water and Electric Corporation through Authorized Representative and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and others2019 YLR 989 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-14Read full judgment →
• China Harbour Engineering Company (Chec) & Pemcon Geo Engineering2019 SHC 126 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Muhammad Saleem and 5 others vs Vth Additional District2019 YLR 2013 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-09Read full judgment →
• Chanessar Bheel vs The State2019 KLR Criminal Cases 174 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-15
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfree fightcounter-versionfurther inquirycriminal bailland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the applicant, who was charged under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following an altercation involving land disputes. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite allegations of specific injuries caused to the complainant, particularly in light of a counter-version of the incident and the fact that co-accused persons had already been granted bail. The court held that the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle of consistency, noting that since co-accused persons were already on bail and both parties had sustained injuries in what appeared to be a free fight, the applicant’s case was at par with the co-accused. Furthermore, the court established that where there are conflicting versions of an incident and it is prima facie difficult to determine the initial aggressor, the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby entitling the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply to a bail application when co-accused persons have already been granted bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when it is prima facie difficult to determine the initial aggressor in a free fight?
  • Should bail be granted when both the complainant and the accused parties have sustained injuries and filed cross-versions of the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Captain Javed Afzal & 05 others vs Pakistan International Airlines2019 SHC 136 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-09Read full judgment →
• Capt. Syed Muhammad Aslam vs The State and another2019 YLR 204 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-06
  criminal acquittal appealcriminal trespasshouse-trespasscheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of propertycriminal intimidationbenefit of doubtinterference with acquittalopen plot encroachment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondent was acquitted of charges under Sections 447, 448, 420, and 506-B of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established criminal trespass, house trespass, cheating, and criminal intimidation beyond reasonable doubt regarding an open plot dispute. The Sindh High Court held that since the property was an open plot without a boundary wall, house trespass was not attracted, and mere interference with an open plot does not constitute criminal trespass or cheating involving dishonest inducement without independent corroborative evidence. The court concluded that the trial court's view resulting in acquittal was plausible and sustainable, establishing the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment unless it is perverse or wholly unsustainable, and that civil or tortious disputes over open land or encroachments do not automatically warrant criminal liability.

  Questions settled

  • Does an open plot without a boundary wall attract the definition of house trespass under Section 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained in the absence of dishonest inducement to deliver property?
  • Under what circumstances should an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment rendered by a trial court?
  • Does simple encroachment or trespass on an open plot amount to criminal trespass under Section 441 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of criminal intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Capri Autos, Motorcycle Dealers vs Dr. Masuma Hasan and others2019 YLR 2500 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-23
  eviction applicationwillful defaultchange of ownershipstatutory noticetrespassermoney orderdeposit of rentSindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the High Court of Sindh challenged concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Court ordering eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The applicant-landlady alleged default without disclosing the monthly rent quantum or period of default, while simultaneously maintaining that the tenant was a trespasser and illegal occupant. The High Court analyzed whether an eviction application lies against an alleged trespasser and whether willful default was established. The Court held that the landlady failed to serve a statutory notice of change of ownership under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 and that courier receipts produced to show service were fabricated. Upon gaining knowledge of ownership via newspaper publication, the tenant promptly tendered rent via money order and subsequently deposited it in a Miscellaneous Rent Case under Section 10(3). The High Court held the default to be engineered, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and dismissed the eviction application.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord maintain an eviction application under rent law while simultaneously alleging that the occupant is a trespasser rather than a tenant?
  • Whether default in payment of rent can be established against a tenant without prior service of notice of change of ownership under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Is a tenant liable for eviction for default if rent is tendered by money order and deposited in court promptly after acquiring knowledge of the landlady's ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Bux Ali alias Dodo vs The State2019 YLR 324 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-22
  murder convictionmitigating circumstancesdeath sentence conversionmental health of accusedocular testimonyinterested witnessesabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Umerkot, for the murder of the complainant's son. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, after an initial altercation with the complainant, returned armed with a gun and shot the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the lack of established motive and the appellant's mental health status. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses credible and corroborated by medical evidence, despite the failure to prove the specific motive. However, the Court held that the appellant's mental condition (Major Depressive Disorder) and the lack of a proven motive constituted mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the Court converted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while maintaining the conviction and compensation order, with a modification to the default sentence. The judgment reaffirms that while related witnesses are not inherently unreliable, the court must carefully scrutinize evidence, and that mental health issues can be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of related witnesses be accepted in a murder case if there is no evidence of a motive to falsely implicate the accused?
  • Does a diagnosis of a mental disorder, such as Major Depressive Disorder, constitute a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing in a capital case?
  • Is the abscondence of an accused considered a relevant piece of evidence against them?
  • Can a death sentence be converted to life imprisonment if the prosecution fails to prove the motive for the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Bostan Khan Khattak vs Federation of Pakistan Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence & 03 others2020 PLC (C.S.) 392, 2019 SHC 146 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-16
  house rent subsidyconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitynon-statutory rulesdisputed questions of factservice lawNational Command Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by a retired employee seeking House Rent Subsidy (HRS) retrospectively, along with a challenge to an administrative order declining the same. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a writ petition to enforce non-statutory rules, the applicability of the National Command Authority (Amendment) Act, 2016, and whether disputed questions of fact regarding rent agreements and retrospective financial claims could be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that the rules governing the petitioner's claim are non-statutory under the National Command Authority (Amendment) Act, 2016, and that claims based on disputed factual controversies and private lease arrangements cannot be resolved through a constitutional petition. The court laid down the principle that writ petitions for enforcing terms governed by non-statutory service rules or involving intricate factual disputes are not maintainable, and dismissed the petition accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable for the enforcement of non-statutory rules and policies of an organization?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding rent agreements and financial claims be resolved under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether employees of organizations governed by the National Command Authority can seek judicial review of non-statutory service benefits through a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →