Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Syed Qamar Sultan vs Javed Iqbal Gohar and another2018 MLD 777 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali Asad Jaffery vs Province of Sindh & Others2018 SHC 577 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali Abidi vs the State2018 SHC 477 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-09
  post-arrest bailbank fraudrule of consistencywhite collar crimeforgeryfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by Syed Muhammad Ali Abidi before the Sindh High Court, seeking bail in FIR No. 08 of 2016 registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code and the Federal Investigation Agency Act. The core legal question involved whether the applicant, who was allegedly the principal accused in a massive financial fraud involving the encashment of third-party dividend warrants and illegal transfer of bank shares through fake accounts, was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry and the rule of consistency vis-a-vis a co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant played a distinct and primary role as the mastermind of the fraudulent scheme, whereas the co-accused granted bail had a minor, derivative role, making the rule of consistency inapplicable. The court laid down the principle that economic crimes and bank-related offences require different considerations for bail compared to ordinary crimes, and principal perpetrators of financial fraud with prima facie reasonable grounds of involvement are not entitled to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when the role of the bail-seeking accused is distinguishable from that of a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
  • Does the opening of fake bank accounts and fraudulent encashment of third-party dividend warrants constitute reasonable grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Are considerations for the grant or refusal of bail in offences relating to banks different from those in ordinary crimes?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Masood Hussain son of Syed Iqbal Hussain vs The State2018 SHC 865 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-13
  concurrent sentencesconsecutive sentencesbank fraudcriminal appealsentencing discretionreformation of offendersCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals filed by appellants convicted in multiple separate cases of bank fraud under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants challenged the consecutive nature of their sentences, arguing for concurrent execution to mitigate excessive imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the court possesses the discretion to order sentences from separate trials to run concurrently under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants, the circumstances warranted a departure from the general rule of consecutive sentencing. Relying on the principle that punitive law should be interpreted to favor liberty and reformation, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. It ordered all substantive sentences and those in default of fines to run concurrently, noting the appellants were first-time offenders and not hardened criminals. The key principle laid down is that courts have wide, unfettered discretion to order concurrent sentences in separate trials to prevent hardship and promote the reformative objectives of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the court have the discretion to order sentences from separate trials to run concurrently?
  • Should the principle of reformation be considered when determining whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively?
  • Can sentences awarded in default of fines be ordered to run concurrently with substantive sentences?
  • Is the general rule of consecutive sentencing absolute under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Maqbool Hussain Zaidi vs Federation of Pakistan and Ors2018 SHC 410 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-03
  constitutional petitionwrongful terminationdue processstatutory bodymisconductservice regulationsdepartmental inquirywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the removal of the petitioner from service by the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL). The core legal questions were whether the petition was maintainable against PTCL, a limited company, and whether the removal order, issued without a formal departmental inquiry, violated due process. The Court held that the petition was maintainable because PTCL performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, and the petitioner’s terms of service, protected under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996, are statutory in nature. Consequently, the Court found that the summary removal of the petitioner without a proper inquiry or adherence to procedural formalities, such as a charge sheet and opportunity for cross-examination, was unlawful. The impugned removal order and the subsequent rejection of the departmental appeal were set aside. The Court ordered the petitioner's reinstatement and directed the respondent to conduct an impartial inquiry into the allegations within two months, establishing the principle that statutory bodies must strictly adhere to due process and fair inquiry procedures before imposing major penalties on employees whose service terms are statutorily protected.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited regarding service matters?
  • Does the removal of an employee without a formal departmental inquiry violate the principles of due process?
  • Are the terms and conditions of service of employees transferred to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited protected by statutory provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah vs Sayeda Firdous Azara Bukhari2018 CLC 1320 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Khadim Hussain Shah Wheedhal Shah through L.Rs, and 2 others vs Syed Shujja Hussain Shah and 10 others2018 YLR 297 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Itrat Hussain Rizvi vs Messrs Tameer Micro Finance Bank Limited2018 CLD 116 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-03
  summary suitleave to defendmicrofinance institutionjurisdictionreturn of plaintbanking courtrecovery of loan
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Karachi (Central), which decreed a summary recovery suit filed under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. by the respondent, a microfinance bank. The appellant contended that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction, arguing that the respondent was a financial institution and the suit should have been filed before the Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The High Court examined Section 3(2) of the Microfinance Institutions Ordinance, 2001, which explicitly exempts licensed microfinance institutions from laws governing banking companies or financial institutions. The Court held that the respondent was not a banking company for the purposes of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and thus the civil court of general jurisdiction had proper jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that in a summary suit under Order XXXVII C.P.C., a defendant cannot file interlocutory applications, including those challenging jurisdiction, without first obtaining leave to defend. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a licensed microfinance institution is deemed a banking company or financial institution for the purposes of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can a defendant in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. file an interlocutory application challenging jurisdiction before obtaining leave to defend?
  • What is the legal consequence if a defendant in a summary suit fails to apply for leave to defend within the prescribed statutory period?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed Hashmi vs Federation of Pakistan and 02 others2018 SHC 673 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-02
  civil servantcompulsory retirementproforma promotionacting charge appointmentconstitutional petitionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a retired civil servant seeking various reliefs, including the production of a gradation list, proforma promotion to BPS-16 as the senior-most officer in HSG-11, re-fixing of salary, and recalculation of pensionary benefits pursuant to judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant holding an acting charge or officiating post in BPS-16 is entitled to regular promotion or restoration to that post, and whether a retired civil servant who suffered a major penalty of compulsory retirement can be granted proforma promotion. The Sindh High Court held that acting or current charge appointments are temporary stopgap arrangements that do not confer a vested right to regular promotion or permanent absorption. Furthermore, the court held that a civil servant who has been compulsorily retired from service under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, and whose dismissal/retirement has attained finality, cannot be awarded promotion or proforma promotion from a back date. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as non-maintainable and devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appointment on current or acting charge basis confers any vested right for regular promotion or permanent absorption to a higher post?
  • Can a civil servant who has been compulsorily retired from service under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 be granted proforma promotion from a back date?
  • Does a high court act as an executing court for judgments passed by the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether a retired civil servant is entitled to claim promotion and associated financial benefits after a major penalty of compulsory retirement has attained finality?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Imtiaz Hussain vs Abdul Aziz and 2 others2018 MLD 937 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Hasam Uddin vs Federation of Pakistan and 12 others2018 MLD 1748 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Abbas Shah vs Province of Sindh & others2019 PLC (C.S) 1114, 2018 SHC 869 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-13
  terms and conditions of servicetransfer and postingconstitutional jurisdictionouster of jurisdictionservice tribunalcivil servantvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant challenging his transfer and the posting of a respondent to the post of Chief Inspector of Stamps, Board of Revenue, Sindh. The core legal questions concern the maintainability of a writ petition by a civil servant regarding transfer and posting in view of the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction, and whether the appointment violated the applicable recruitment rules. The Sindh High Court held that matters relating to transfer, posting, and terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby barring the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199. Furthermore, the court held that transfer and posting are prerogative matters of the competent authority under Section 10 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973, and a civil servant has no vested right to remain posted on a particular post. The petition was accordingly dismissed as non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants?
  • Whether a civil servant has a vested right to remain posted on a particular post for a stipulated period?
  • Does the competent authority have the power to transfer a civil servant and post an officer from the Ex-PCS Cadre to the post of Chief Inspector of Stamps under the relevant recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Farukh Mazhar vs SGS Headquarters and others2018 PLD Sindh 327 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Farukh Mazhar vs SGS Headquarters & others2018 SHC 493 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Faisal Ali and others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2019 PLC (C.S) 751, 2018 SHC 505 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-10
  regularization of servicecontract employeesconstitutional jurisdictionmaster and servantstate enterprisefunctional testlegitimate expectation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought regularization of their services as Junior Engineers/Assistant Managers (BPS-17) on contract basis in the Central Power Generation Company Ltd (GENECO-II), along with back benefits and seniority. The respondent-company raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the constitutional petition, contending that it is incorporated under the Companies Ordinance 1984, operates on a master-servant relationship, and lacks statutory rules of service. The Sindh High Court held that GENECO-II is a state enterprise performing public functions and is thus amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The court ruled that contractual employees who have served for a substantial period against permanent posts are entitled to be considered for regularization in light of government policies and judicial precedents, observing that departmental irregularities in initial appointments cannot prejudice the rights of employees. The petition was accordingly disposed of with directions to the competent authority to consider the petitioners' cases for regularization.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Central Power Generation Company Ltd (GENECO-II) is amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a constitutional petition lie for the regularization of contract employees against a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Whether contractual employees performing duties of a permanent nature are entitled to regularization under government policies and judicial precedents?
  • Can an employer deny regularization to employees based on alleged irregularities committed by the department itself during the initial appointment process?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Athar Hussain vs Chairman NAB & another2019 YLR 788, 2018 SHC 1157 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Arif Ali and another vs Zeenat Hanif Siddiqui and 2 others2018 PLD Sindh 151 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Altaf Hussain Shah vs The State2018 YLR 482 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-14
  criminal breach of trustanti-corruptionfood inspectorshortage of wheatbenefit of doubtdouble jeopardycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, a Food Inspector, under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for a shortage in wheat stock weight. The core legal questions involve whether the appellant was rightly convicted despite depositing the alleged misappropriated amount prior to the FIR registration, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the appellant demonstrated bona fides by depositing the loss amount prior to the FIR, that continuing prosecution under such circumstances amounts to double jeopardy, and that material contradictions and interested testimony created reasonable doubt. The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, laying down that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, and that pre-FIR settlement of departmental losses precludes criminal culpability where weight deficiencies are fully compensated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the pre-FIR deposit of an alleged shortage amount by a public servant negates criminal intent and warrants acquittal?
  • Does prosecuting a government employee for a weight shortage after the financial loss has already been compensated constitute double jeopardy?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when prosecution evidence contains material contradictions and lacks independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and another2018 PLD Sindh 174 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Muhammad Naqvi through L.Rs, and others vs Abbas Raza and another2018 YLR 1616 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Ahad vs Abdul Shakoor and others2019 CLC 146, 2020 [M] C L R 1123, 2018 SHC 752 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-11Read full judgment →
• Sunny vs The State2018 YLR 1645 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidence contradictionocular evidencepersonal libertybenefit of doubtpolice encounter
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused person facing charges under Sections 353, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, following an alleged police encounter. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence and the delay in trial proceedings. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting significant discrepancies between the FIR, which stated the accused sustained injuries on their right legs, and the medical certificates, which indicated injuries on their left legs. Furthermore, the Court observed that no police personnel sustained injuries during the alleged encounter. Emphasizing that personal liberty is a precious right and that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage should favor the accused when the prosecution's case appears improbable, the Court concluded that the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the bail application was granted, subject to the provision of solvent surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the location of injuries on an accused justify the grant of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution case lacks probability and requires further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
  • Should an accused be granted bail if the trial has been delayed for over a year and the prosecution witnesses are primarily police personnel?
  Read full judgment →
• Suneil vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 959 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-10
  anti-terrorismsentencing discretionreformationexplosive substancesarms actmitigation of sentencefirst offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the conviction and sentencing of an appellant for offences related to the possession of explosives and arms. The core legal questions addressed were whether the mere possession of explosives constitutes an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in sentencing a first-time offender. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary 'object, design, or purpose' required to classify the possession of explosives as an act of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thereby setting aside the conviction under Section 7 of the Act. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion regarding the quantum of punishment, noting that for offences where the statute provides a maximum limit rather than a mandatory minimum, the court must consider mitigating circumstances, such as the offender's status as a first-time breadwinner. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentences, emphasizing the principle of reformation over retribution for non-hardened criminals, and converted the conviction under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of explosives, without proof of a specific terrorist design or object, constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is a trial court required to consider mitigating circumstances when sentencing an offender under a statute that provides a maximum punishment rather than a mandatory minimum?
  • Can an accused be convicted for the same act of possessing explosives under both the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 without violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
  • Does the conviction of a sole breadwinner for a non-serious offence warrant a reduction in sentence based on the principle of reformation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Zareen & another vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal [Slat] & 022018 SHC 1146 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-26
  constitutional petitionseasonal workerspreferential right of re-employmentconcurrent findingsgrievance petitionlabour dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the Sindh Labour Court and the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the grievance petitions filed by seasonal workers seeking reinstatement in service against a sugar mills management. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of the grievance applications and whether seasonal workers possess an absolute right to reinstatement or preferential re-employment without proving infringement of statutory rights. The Sindh High Court held that seasonal and temporary workers cannot claim reinstatement as a matter of right, and while they enjoy a preferential right of re-employment, such right only accrues if junior or new workers are hired in preference to them, a fact not established in the case. Furthermore, the court held that concurrent findings of fact by lower tribunals cannot be interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of any illegality, infirmity, or material irregularity. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether seasonal workers can claim reinstatement in service as a matter of right?
  • Under what circumstances does a seasonal worker's preferential right of re-employment accrue?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower labour forums in its constitutional jurisdiction without proof of illegality or material irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Qamar Siddiqui vs National Accountability Bureau and others2018 P Cr. L J 1145 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-31
  constitutional petitionremand orderNational Accountability Bureaumala fidefundamental rightsillegal detentionaccountability courtprocedural compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a remand order passed by an Accountability Court, seeking the petitioner's release from jail custody. The core legal question concerned whether the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) acted lawfully in arresting the petitioner while withholding material information from the High Court and failing to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. The Court held that the NAB authorities acted with mala fide intent by discreetly filing a reference and obtaining non-bailable warrants without disclosing these facts in pending proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found that NAB failed to comply with Section 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, which mandates the delivery of a copy of the reference to the accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the remand order and directed the petitioner's immediate release. The judgment establishes that statutory authorities must act transparently, and any failure to adhere to mandatory procedural safeguards, particularly when depriving a citizen of liberty, renders such actions unlawful and subject to judicial intervention under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the National Accountability Bureau to disclose the filing of a reference in pending proceedings constitute mala fide conduct?
  • Is the delivery of a copy of the reference to the accused under Section 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 a mandatory requirement?
  • Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to set aside a remand order if the arresting authority has acted in violation of statutory procedural requirements?
  • Does the procedure under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 supersede the specific requirement of Section 24(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 regarding the delivery of a reference?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan and others vs The State2018 YLR 204 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-27
  pre-arrest bailcross-version casefurther inquiryprohibitory clauseproperty disputedelayed FIRmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of assault and property disputes. The applicants were charged under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following an FIR lodged with a 36-day delay. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the existence of a cross-version case, the delay in FIR registration, and the nature of the injuries sustained by both parties. The Court observed that the case involved two conflicting versions of the same incident, with both parties sustaining injuries and alleging aggression by the other. Noting that the offenses charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and considering the admitted enmity and the lack of objection from the State, the Court held that the applicants' involvement required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that where cross-cases exist and the determination of the aggressor requires trial evidence, the case warrants further inquiry, favoring the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version case where both parties allege aggression entitle the accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
  • When injuries sustained in a criminal case do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, is the grant of bail generally favored?
  • Can bail be confirmed when the determination of the primary aggressor requires the evaluation of evidence at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed Soomro vs Ali Mohammad & others2018 SHC 513 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-19Read full judgment →
• Suhabat Ali vs The State2018 MLD 850 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-21Read full judgment →
• Sudhir vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 909 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-28
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRmaterial contradictionsacquittalappreciation of evidenceattempt to commit qatl-i-amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for allegedly firing at the victim. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering significant contradictions in witness testimonies, an unexplained nine-month delay in lodging the FIR, and discrepancies in medical evidence. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the complainant’s testimony was fundamentally unreliable due to contradictions regarding his presence at the scene, the distance of the fire, and the presence of co-accused. Additionally, the police's practice of obtaining thumb impressions on blank papers and the lack of explanation for the delayed FIR were fatal to the prosecution's case. The court reaffirmed the principle that the benefit of doubt is not a matter of grace but a right of the accused; if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit must be extended to them.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant's testimony contradicts the medical evidence regarding the distance of the fire?
  • What is the legal effect of police obtaining thumb impressions on blank papers during an investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sub-Engineers/Staff Welfare Association Sindh & others vs Government of2018 SHC 1110 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-09Read full judgment →
• State through Prosecutor General, Sindh vs Waseem Faraz2018 YLR 1695 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-26
  Criminal Acquittal AppealSection 249-A Cr.P.C.Unlicensed weaponTrial procedureProcedural delayFair trialRemand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the State against an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate, which acquitted the respondent under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a trial court is justified in acquitting an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely due to procedural delays in trial progression, despite the existence of prima facie evidence. The High Court set aside the acquittal order, holding it to be perverse and legally unsustainable. The court determined that the trial court improperly invoked Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because the charge was not groundless. The key principle laid down is that criminal cases must be adjudicated on merits after recording prosecution evidence and hearing both parties, rather than being dismissed for procedural delays caused by external factors such as the non-production of the accused or judicial leave. The court emphasized that the fate of a criminal matter should be determined through a full trial process to ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely due to delays in trial progression?
  • Is the non-production of an accused by jail authorities a valid ground for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must a criminal case be decided on merits after recording prosecution evidence rather than being dismissed for procedural delays?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Messrs Group2018 MLD 948 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-03Read full judgment →
• Tarique and 3 others vs The State2018 MLD 745 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilityineffective firingaerial firingdelay in FSL reporttentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail application filed by the applicants Tarique, Bukhshal, and Ghulam Mustafa seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 360 of 2015 registered under sections 302, 120-B, 337-H(ii), and 35 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Badin. The core legal question involves determining whether the applicants, to whom no fatal injuries were attributed and whose role was limited to ineffective firing, aerial firing, or presence without causing injury, are entitled to bail under the rule of further inquiry, particularly considering the applicability of vicarious liability and delayed forensic analysis of weapon empties. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicants did not cause any injuries to the deceased or prosecution witnesses, and the question of their vicarious liability and common intention requires further inquiry, their case falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that mere presence or aerial firing without causing injuries, coupled with unexplained delays in sending recovery empties to the forensic laboratory and lack of trial progress, makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused assigned the role of ineffective or aerial firing without causing any injury to the deceased or witnesses is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the unexplained delay in sending crime empties and weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory create a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the question of vicarious liability and common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be conclusively determined at the bail stage?
  • Does the mere pendency of other criminal cases, without proof of conviction, disentitle an accused from the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi vs Johar2018 MLD 1293 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-23Read full judgment →
• Spectre Consulting Limited through Attorney vs MT _Everrich_ 6 through Master and others2018 PLD Sindh 136 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-12
  admiralty jurisdictionaction in personamaction in remcarriage of goods by seamareva injunctiontemporary injunctionarbitration clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This lawsuit was brought under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Courts Ordinance, 1980, where the plaintiff, a UK-based company, sought a decree for the recovery of an advance payment made to defendant No. 3 under a contract for the purchase and shipment of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) to Yemen, along with injunctive relief to restrain the vessel and cargo from leaving Karachi port. The core legal questions involved whether the plaintiff's claim fell within the admiralty jurisdiction under Section 3(2)(h) of the Ordinance, whether an action in personam could be maintained in Pakistan against foreign entities without a local nexus, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive or attachment relief akin to a Mareva injunction. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action arising within Pakistan, that the bill of lading was never issued in the plaintiff's favour, and that the contractual dispute was subject to exclusive foreign arbitration in Dubai. Consequently, the court dismissed the interlocutory applications for injunction and attachment. The key principle laid down is that admiralty jurisdiction and interim injunctive relief cannot be invoked in personam where the contract was executed abroad, performance was destined for a foreign port, the defendant has no business presence in Pakistan, and the underlying dispute is subject to an exclusive foreign arbitration clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a claim arising out of a contract for the sale and purchase of goods can be entertained under Section 3(2)(h) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980?
  • Can a court entertain an action in personam when the defendant has no ordinary residence or place of business in Pakistan and the cause of action did not arise within Pakistani territorial waters?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to interim injunctive relief or attachment of a vessel amounting to an arrest when the bill of lading was never issued in the plaintiff's favour?
  • Should a court decline to exercise jurisdiction when the contracting parties have mutually agreed to submit their disputes to foreign arbitration in Dubai?
  Read full judgment →
• South Asia Geophysical Services (Sageo) through Senior Officer vs New2018 CLD 273 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-12Read full judgment →
• Sophia Com B.V. through Duly Authorized Officer vs Pakistan through Secretary Revenue and 2 othersPTCL 2019 CL. 271, 2018 PTD 2208 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-06Read full judgment →
• Soneri Bank Limited through President vs Aurangzeb and another2018 PLC 117 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-21
  service terminationback benefitsmisconductdepartmental inquiryright to fair trialconstitutional petitionlabour appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside the dismissal of Respondent No. 1 and directed his reinstatement with back benefits. The core legal question revolves around whether an employee of a bank can be terminated summarily on the basis of allegations of misconduct and corruption involving a previous employer and a pending inquiry by the National Accountability Bureau, without holding a regular departmental inquiry and without affording an opportunity of being heard. The court held that termination of service on the basis of unproven allegations and hearsay evidence without conducting a regular inquiry violates the principles of natural justice and the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The court laid down the principle that an employer cannot dispense with the requirement of a full-fledged inquiry and due process when terminating an employee for alleged misconduct, and findings of fact recorded by a competent labour appellate tribunal based on evidence will not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction unless tainted by perversity or misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can be dismissed from service on the basis of allegations of misconduct from a previous employer without conducting a regular departmental inquiry?
  • Does the summary termination of an employee without a show-cause inquiry violate the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal?
  • Is an employer required to prove allegations of misconduct in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 before terminating an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Soneri Bank Limited through Attorneys vs Grey Printers Pvt. Limited2018 CLD 1183 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-05Read full judgment →
• Sobia Hassan vs Province of Sindh & others2018 SHC 448 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-07Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1179 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-02
  trial in absentiaabsconding accuseddue processAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal appealconviction in absentiaright to fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Sirajuddin, under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, recorded in absentia by the Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether a conviction for absconsion can be sustained where no charge was framed, no evidence was recorded, and no finding was made regarding the appellant's status as a fugitive from law. The Court held that the procedure adopted by the trial court was illegal and violated the constitutional rights of the accused. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that trial in absentia without due process is repugnant to the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court clarified that an appellant convicted in absentia is not required to first move the trial court under Section 19(12) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, before filing an appeal under Section 25 of the same Act. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without a charge being framed or evidence recorded?
  • Is it mandatory for an accused convicted in absentia to file an application under Section 19(12) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, before filing an appeal under Section 25 of the same Act?
  • Does a trial in absentia without due process violate Articles 9 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Siraj and others vs The State2018 YLR 1875 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
• Sinotec Co. Limited through Authorized Person vs Province of Sindh2018 PLD Sindh 303 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-15
  public procurementWorld Bank Guidelinestemporary injunctionpre-qualificationjudicial reviewSindh Public Procurement Rules 2010lowest bidderinterim relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was instituted by Sinotec Co. Limited seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Province of Sindh and other defendants, challenging the pre-qualification and acceptance of the lowest financial bid of defendant No. 6 (M/s. Descon) for the World Bank-financed Sindh Barrages Improvement Project (SBIP/G2). The core legal questions were whether the procurement process was governed by the Sindh Public Procurement Rules 2010 or the World Bank Procurement Guidelines, and whether the plaintiff satisfied the prerequisites for interim injunctions under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, and Section 151 CPC.

  The High Court held that under Rule 5 of the Sindh Public Procurement Rules 2010, the World Bank Guidelines prevail in cases involving international financing agreements, rendering the domestic rules and Review Committee's jurisdiction inapplicable. The Court found the procurement process transparent, non-discriminatory, endorsed by the World Bank, and free of mala fides. Lacking a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, the plaintiff's interlocutory applications for temporary injunction and stay were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the World Bank Procurement Guidelines override the Sindh Public Procurement Rules 2010 in projects funded by international financial institutions pursuant to Rule 5 of the Sindh Public Procurement Rules 2010?
  • Whether an unsuccessful bidder offering a substantially higher financial bid can claim a vested right or establish a prima facie case for an interim injunction against the award of a public contract to the lowest bidder?
  • What is the scope of judicial review over commercial and policy decisions involving the pre-qualification of bidders in foreign-funded infrastructure projects?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Revenue Board vs M/s. Meesam Construction Company2018 PTD 1827, PTCL 2018 CL. 564 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sindh Revenue Board vs Messrs Meessam Construction Company2018 PTD 1827 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-20Read full judgment →
• Sikander alias Sani vs The State2018 SHC 436, 2018 MLD 1220 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-22
  police encounterbenefit of doubtcontradictory evidenceanti-terrorismillegal weaponscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under sections 324, 353, and 23(1)-A of the Sindh Arms Act and section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was apprehended during a police encounter after direct firing, resulting in the recovery of a repeater and a live rifle grenade. The core legal questions involved the credibility of uncorroborated police testimony, glaring contradictions regarding weapon serial numbers and the timing of the bomb disposal squad's intervention, and the benefit of the doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case was marred by fatal discrepancies, including contradictory timings and mismatched weapon serial numbers, rendering the evidence untrustworthy. Setting aside the conviction, the court laid down the principle that the harsher the sentence, the stricter the standard of proof required, and that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between the testimony of police witnesses and expert evidence regarding the timing and place of recovery are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does a mismatch in weapon serial numbers across various police documents destroy the sanctity of the recovery?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • What is the standard of proof required in cases carrying harsher criminal sentences?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikander @ Sani vs State2018 SHC 436 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-22
  benefit of doubtpolice encounterstandard of proofcriminal appealappreciation of evidenceanti-terrorismrecovery of weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code, the Sindh Arms Act, and the Anti-Terrorism Act. The prosecution alleged a police encounter involving an exchange of fire, leading to the appellant's arrest and the recovery of a grenade and a repeater. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt given significant evidentiary discrepancies. The High Court found the prosecution's case marred by fatal contradictions, including the BDU expert claiming knowledge of the incident before it occurred, conflicting serial numbers for the recovered weapon, and the absence of independent corroboration or physical evidence of the alleged encounter. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The ratio emphasizes that for the safe administration of criminal justice, the harsher the sentence, the stricter the standard of proof required. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, and ordered his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant discrepancy in the timing of a police encounter and the expert's knowledge of the incident create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to provide independent corroboration for police testimony in a contested encounter case?
  • Does the principle that the harsher the sentence, the stricter the standard of proof apply to convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution provides conflicting serial numbers for the primary weapon allegedly recovered from the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali Shah & Others vs Province Sindh and others2018 SHC 930 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-04Read full judgment →
• Sibghatullah Sheikh vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 PLC (C.S.) 682, 2018 SHC 986 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26
  constitutional petitionright to appointmentvested rightselection processcontractual appointmentdiscriminationservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking appointment as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) with the Sindh Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority (STEVTA), alleging that despite qualifying the test and interview, the authority failed to issue an offer letter. The Petitioner contended that the competent authority had approved his appointment and that he was being discriminated against. The Respondent-Authority argued that the selection process was for contract-based positions, that only one candidate (who scored higher than the Petitioner) was recommended for the specific post, and that no vested right of appointment was created for the Petitioner. The Court held that mere selection in a test or interview does not confer an indefeasible right to be appointed or to receive an offer letter. Finding that the candidate selected for the post had obtained higher marks than the Petitioner and that no candidate with lower marks had been appointed, the Court rejected the claim of discrimination. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit, affirming that the selection process did not create a vested right for the Petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere selection in a test or interview confer an indefeasible right to be issued an offer letter for appointment?
  • Can a candidate claim a vested right to appointment based solely on qualifying a recruitment test?
  • Is a claim of discriminatory treatment in recruitment valid when the appointed candidate scored higher than the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali vs Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Adam and 3 others2018 YLR 1546 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-26
  transfer of casecriminal procedurethreat to witnessesjudicial discretionbald allegationspolice protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This transfer application was filed by the applicant seeking the transfer of a Sessions case pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Adam, to another district. The applicant, who is also a witness in the case, alleged that he and other witnesses faced serious life threats from the private respondents, rendering them unable to appear before the trial court. The court examined the application and found that the allegations were entirely generic, lacking specific details regarding dates, times, or incidents of threats. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate that he had approached local law enforcement or the trial court for protection prior to seeking judicial intervention. The court held that transfer of a case under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be granted on the basis of bald, unsubstantiated allegations, as doing so would disrupt the smooth functioning of the judiciary. The application was dismissed, with the court directing the applicant to approach local police authorities for protection and to inform the trial court of any specific threats.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be transferred under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on generic and unsubstantiated allegations of threats?
  • Is it a prerequisite for a party seeking case transfer due to threats to first approach local police or the trial court for protection?
  • Does the court have the authority to dismiss a transfer application that lacks specific details regarding the alleged threats?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Ali vs The State2018 MLD 1835 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-29
  narcotics recoverychain of custodyreasonable doubtchemical examiner reportindependent witnessescriminal appealControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, following the alleged recovery of 12.5 kilograms of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the integrity of the recovery proceedings and the chain of custody of the narcotic substance. The Sindh High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden. The Court emphasized that although Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, the failure to associate independent witnesses in a public place where they were available, combined with unexplained erasures in official records and overwriting in recovery memos, created significant doubt. Crucially, the Court held that the failure to examine the official responsible for transporting the case property to the chemical examiner broke the chain of custody, rendering the chemical report unreliable. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted, and the State's appeal for sentence enhancement was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the official who transported the narcotic substance to the chemical examiner break the chain of custody?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 when there are unexplained erasures in the police roznamcha and overwriting in the recovery memo?
  • Is the prosecution required to associate independent witnesses in narcotics cases even if Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is excluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Ahmed and others vs The State and others2018 YLR 176 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-13Read full judgment →
• Shiraz Ali vs Province of Sindh and others2018 SHC 975 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-19Read full judgment →
• Shezan Services Limited (Now known as Shezan Services (Private)2018 CLD 1305 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-19Read full judgment →
• Sheraz vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 600 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-31
  post-arrest bailnarcotic traffickingpossession of narcoticsheinous offensebail restrictionControl of Narcotic Substances ActCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from the arrest of the applicant, who was apprehended while driving a vehicle containing 135 kilograms of charas, leading to charges under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the substantial quantity of narcotics recovered and the statutory restrictions on bail for such offenses. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant failed to establish grounds for relief. The Court emphasized that offenses under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are heinous and directed against society at large. It affirmed that when narcotics exceed one kilogram, the offense falls under section 9(c), which carries severe penalties, including death or life imprisonment, thereby triggering the restrictive bail provisions of section 51 of the Act. Furthermore, the Court established that a driver of a vehicle transporting narcotics is prima facie responsible for the contraband, regardless of exclusive possession, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the driver of a vehicle transporting narcotics bear responsibility for the contraband under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is an accused charged with an offense under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 entitled to bail when the quantity of narcotics exceeds one kilogram?
  • Can a court conduct a deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage in narcotics cases?
  • Does section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 restrict the grant of bail for offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Zafar and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 SHC 440 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-06
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantpassage policystatutory rulesterms and conditions of servicediscriminatory policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, retired employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), filed a constitutional petition seeking the extension of benefits under a revised passage policy (Admin Order No. 07 of 2012) to retired employees, alleging discrimination as it was granted to specific management groups. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against PIAC under Article 199 of the Constitution and whether PIAC's passage policies constitute enforceable statutory rules. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that PIAC's passage rules are non-statutory instructions meant for internal management, and the relationship between PIAC and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant. Consequently, constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge internal policy decisions regarding passage benefits unless a violation of statutory rules or fundamental rights is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether or not a writ could be issued against the Respondent-PIAC under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Whether Passage policy issued under Admin Order No. 07/2012 dated 09th February, 2012 is a policy decision of Respondents/PIAC?
  • Are the passage rules and policies of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation of a statutory nature enforceable through constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Javaid vs Sartaj Saqlain and others2018 SHC 470 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-17Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Javaid vs Sartaj Saqlain and 5 others2018 CLD 1237, 2018 CLC 1676 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-17Read full judgment →
• Shehzado vs Mst. Bashira2018 YLR 158 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-15Read full judgment →
• Shehzad vs The State2018 MLD 1495 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-27
  criminal appealrobberybenefit of doubtdelayed FIRocular evidencemedical evidenceacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, which convicted the appellant under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the substantial delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in the ocular evidence, and the absence of recovery of the alleged robbed items. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The Court observed that the 34-day delay in FIR registration, coupled with discrepancies between the medical evidence and the prosecution's narrative, rendered the case doubtful. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, not grace, whenever the prosecution's case suffers from infirmities that create a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the Court emphasizing that a single material infirmity is sufficient to undermine the entire prosecution case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is a single material infirmity in the prosecution's evidence sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  • Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused as a matter of right or as a matter of grace?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehryar Waqas Malik and another vs Muhammad Zafar Ali Khan and another2018 CLD 1040 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-29
  banking executioninterlocutory ordermaintainability of appealFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001exclusive jurisdictionFIA noticecompromise decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This Special High Court Appeal challenged an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in a banking execution proceeding, which had suspended a notice issued by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to a bank. The appellants, who were not parties to the original banking suit, sought to set aside this suspension, arguing that the Banking Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with criminal investigations. The Court held that the appeal was not maintainable because the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, expressly bars appeals against interlocutory orders that do not dispose of the entire case. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the Ordinance is to ensure the swift and expeditious recovery of banking debts, which would be frustrated if interlocutory orders were subject to frequent appellate challenges. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Banking Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to the execution of its decrees, and the appellants failed to establish any legal standing or merit for their challenge.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, override other laws regarding the challenge of interlocutory orders?
  • Can a Banking Court exercise exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to the execution of its decrees to the exclusion of other courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehbaz Ahmed vs The State2018 YLR 2284 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-16
  extortionbhattaanti-terrorismbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalcontradictions in evidencerecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellant made extortion ('Bhatta') demands via mobile phone, threatening the complainant, and was subsequently apprehended in a trap while receiving extortion money. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the numerous discrepancies in the evidence, unsealed recovered items, and doubtful mashirnamas vitiated the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case was riddled with fatal lacunas, material contradictions among witnesses, and suspicious overwriting on police documents, which completely shattered the credibility of the prosecution's evidence. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt arising from the evidence entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's failure to seal recovered extortion money and SIM cards casts serious doubt on the recovery proceedings?
  • Does material contradiction among prosecution witnesses and the mashir regarding the time and details of arrest vitiate the conviction?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Whether mere allegations of demanding extortion are sufficient to attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 in the absence of tangible material regarding financial status?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Zaib and 8 others vs Khuram Zaib and 3 others2018 CLC 970 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-16
  administration suitinheritanceHibapartitionco-sharerreceiverIslamic law of inheritanceestate administration
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for administration, account, partition, and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs against their siblings regarding the estate of their deceased parents. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of the administration suit where defendants claimed ownership of certain properties via alleged gifts (Hiba) and disputed the inclusion of other assets. The Court held that the suit was maintainable, emphasizing that an administration suit is the proper mechanism to determine the deceased's estate. The Court ruled that the burden of proving a valid gift lies heavily on the claimant, and the defendants failed to provide cogent evidence regarding the date, time, and delivery of possession for the alleged gift of 'Mukaram Market.' Consequently, the property remained part of the estate. The Court appointed the Nazir as Receiver to auction the property and distribute proceeds among the legal heirs according to Islamic law. The judgment reaffirmed that a plea of gift by a co-sharer does not oust the court's jurisdiction to inquire into the estate's composition, and possession by one co-sharer is deemed to be for the benefit of all heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Is an administration suit maintainable when a defendant claims ownership of a property via an alleged gift?
  • Does a plea of gift by a legal heir oust the court's jurisdiction to inquire into the status of the property in an administration suit?
  • What is the burden of proof for a defendant claiming a gift (Hiba) in an administration suit?
  • Can a court appoint a Nazir as a Receiver to auction property in an administration suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali alias Baba alias Shauki vs The State2018 SHC 967 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-10
  anti-terrorismpolice encounteridentification paradejudicial confessionrobbery and murdercriminal appealmodification of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, attempted murder, robbery, and assault on public servants during a police encounter. The core legal questions involve the assessment of identification parade evidence, judicial confession, and whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's participation in the single transaction involving robbery of a police weapon and murder. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through a credible identification parade, a voluntary judicial confession, and incriminating evidence identical to that of a co-accused whose conviction was previously maintained. The court affirmed the conviction while modifying the default sentences for non-payment of compensation and fines from rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment, laying down that unexpected possession of a robbed weapon in a single transaction serves as presumptive evidence connecting the accused to robbery and murder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexpected possession of a robbed weapon in a single transaction serves as presumptive evidence on charges of robbery and murder?
  • Can a conviction be maintained based on a credible identification parade and a voluntary judicial confession?
  • Whether default sentences for non-payment of compensation and fines can be modified from rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shariq-ul-Haq and Others vs PIA Corporation Limited & another2018 SHC 788 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-03Read full judgment →
• Shariq-ul-Haq and Others vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation2018 PLC (C.S.) 975, 2018 SHC 455 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-08
  master and servantspecific reliefmemorandum of understandingservice benefitsinterim injunctioncivil procedurepromotion of employees
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs, senior B-777 First Officers, filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) seeking implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding their promotion to Captain on A-320 aircraft. The core legal question was whether the court could enforce the MOU and grant injunctive relief in a master-servant relationship where no statutory service rules existed. The court held that while specific performance of personal service contracts is generally barred, the present case involved serving employees seeking enforcement of collective benefits rather than reinstatement after termination. Consequently, the court ordered the Pakistan Airline Pilots Association (PALPA) to be impleaded as a necessary party and directed PIAC and PALPA to negotiate the methodology for promotion as stipulated in the MOU. The court established that in the absence of statutory remedies, civil courts possess jurisdiction to protect service benefits and ensure fair treatment, preventing the exploitation of employees under the guise of the master-servant doctrine, while maintaining the status quo regarding the plaintiffs' flying duties and licenses during negotiations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court grant injunctive relief for the implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding in a master-servant relationship?
  • Is the principle of master and servant an absolute bar to seeking relief for service benefits other than damages?
  • Can a court suo motu implead a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the absence of statutory service rules allow an employee to file a civil suit for the enforcement of service-related rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Shariq-Ul-Haq and 5 others vs Pakistan International Airlines2018 PLC (C.S.) 975 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-08
  master and servantmemorandum of understandinginterim injunctionpilot promotioncareer planspecific reliefnecessary partyservice benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter involves lawsuits and interim applications filed by serving senior B-777 First Officers of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and the implementation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated March 18, 2016, executed between PIAC and Pakistan Airline Pilots Association (PALPA). The core legal question concerns whether the plaintiffs can enforce the terms of the MoU regarding their career progression and training without a pre-formulated methodology, and whether the relationship of master and servant bars serving employees from seeking remedies other than damages. The Sindh High Court held that the MoU is a binding agreement and that serving employees are not strictly limited to claiming damages when seeking enforcement of service benefits during employment. The court disposed of the applications by impleading PALPA as a defendant, directing PIAC and PALPA to negotiate and formulate the required methodology within a stipulated timeframe, and restraining PIAC from compelling the plaintiffs to join the transition training course or disturbing their seniority during the negotiation period. The key principles established relate to the enforceability of binding MOUs in collective employee relations, the non-exclusive application of the master-and-servant doctrine for serving employees, and the court's power to implead necessary parties under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee under the master and servant framework can file a suit for the implementation of service benefits and implementation of an MoU during active service, or if they are exclusively restricted to claiming damages?
  • Can a Memorandum of Understanding executed between an airline corporation and a pilots' association be legally enforced when a stipulated methodology for implementation is yet to be devised?
  • Does the failure to implead a collective bargaining association necessitate the dismissal of a suit filed by individual employees, or can the court exercise its powers under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. to implead the association?
  • Whether an interim injunction can be granted restraining an employer from forcing employees to attend a transition training course contrary to the terms of an agreed Memorandum of Understanding?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamimuddin Ahmed and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 3 othersPTCL 2019 CL. 282, 2018 PTD 2112 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-10Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Hyder and 2 others vs The Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Sindh and 11 others2018 YLR 1255 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-10Read full judgment →
• Shakeel alias Hakla vs The State2018 MLD 1396 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-28
  narcotics recoverysafe custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealpolice encounterindependent witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the recovery and subsequent safe custody of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court observed that despite the arrest occurring in a thickly populated area, no independent witnesses were associated with the recovery proceedings. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to provide evidence regarding the safe custody of the narcotics at the police station or their safe transit to the chemical examiner. Material contradictions in the evidence and unexplained overwriting in official documents further undermined the prosecution's case. The court reiterated the principle that the prosecution must affirmatively prove the safe custody and transit of recovered samples to the chemical examiner to rule out tampering. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, receiving the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area during a narcotics recovery create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and safe transit of recovered narcotics to the chemical examiner to secure a conviction?
  • Does the absence of evidence regarding the deposit of recovered narcotics in the malkhana entitle an accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Asghar vs Muhammad Abdullah and another2018 CLC 1409 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-29Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Atif Zia vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Government2018 MLD 181 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-13Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Abdul Jabbar through his Legal Heirs vs Irfan Jami Rafique and another2018 SHC 760 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-08Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Aadil Jamil vs The Federation of Pakistan & others2020 PLC (C.S.) 160, 2018 SHC 570 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-19
  constitutional petitionBenazir Employees Stock Option SchemeCouncil of Common Interestslocus standiaggrieved personpublic moneyshare transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the president of a registered labor union seeking directives to transfer twelve percent of the Government of Pakistan's shares in Sui Southern Gas Company Limited to its employees under the Benazir Employees Stock Option Scheme, and to challenge the alleged arbitrary issuance of shares to select employees. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the locus standi of a union not being a collective bargaining agent to claim such benefits, and the legality of the creation of employee empowerment trusts without the approval of the Council of Common Interests under Article 154 of the Constitution. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner lacked locus standi as an aggrieved person, that the matter involved policy decisions and contractual obligations not enforceable in constitutional jurisdiction, and that the creation of such trusts and transfer of public shares without Council of Common Interests' approval violated Articles 154 and 173 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a labor union that is not a collective bargaining agent has the locus standi to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan to claim shares for employees?
  • Does the creation of an employee empowerment trust and the transfer of government shares in state-owned entities require the prior approval of the Council of Common Interests under Article 154 of the Constitution?
  • Can contractual obligations and policy matters regarding the disbursement of state shares and dividends be enforced through the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether employees performing regular duties for which they receive salaries are legally entitled to additional benefits through shares under the Benazir Employees Stock Option Scheme without statutory sanction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad alias Pakora and others vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 396 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-25
  illegal weaponsbenefit of doubtpolice encountertampering of case propertyarms act convictioncredibility of mashiroff-shoot caseappellate acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a common judgment passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Karachi, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment, while being acquitted of the main charges under sections 353, 324, 427, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the conviction for illegal possession of weapons could be sustained on the same discredited police evidence and uncorroborated police encounter testimony that the trial court had already rejected for the main charges. The High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions, holding that once the foundational police encounter story and the testimony of the private mashir were disbelieved, and safe custody as well as transit of the case property (weapons) were not established, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that a conviction in off-shoot arms cases cannot be sustained on weak, contradictory, and uncorroborated police testimony when the main police encounter case has already been rejected by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for illegal arms possession under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 be sustained when the foundational police encounter story has been disbelieved by the trial court?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt must be extended to accused persons when safe custody and safe transit of recovered weapons to the forensic laboratory are not established?
  • Is the testimony of a police official and a private mashir sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration when material contradictions exist?
  • Does the acquittal of accused persons in a main encounter case under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 necessitate a re-evaluation of evidence in connected off-shoot arms cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ahmed vs The State2018 SHC 619 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-07
  extortionbhattabenefit of doubtcontradictions in evidencesafe custody of case propertyfirearm recoverycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences relating to extortion and illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with an absconding accomplice, was apprehended red-handed while collecting extortion money following telephonic demands and threats, and that a pistol was recovered from his person. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the recovery was free from suspicion, and whether the procedural lapses and contradictions in police testimonies warranted an acquittal. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that numerous material contradictions, defective investigation, failure to prove safe custody of recovered case property, non-production of star private witnesses, and unexplained delays in sending the weapon for forensic analysis rendered the prosecution case highly doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in dispatching a recovered firearm to the forensic laboratory create a fatal doubt regarding the safe custody of the case property?
  • Whether material contradictions and discrepancies among police witnesses regarding the place and manner of arrest are sufficient to discredit the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution's failure to produce material private witnesses cited in the crime report during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh Shakeel Khan and others vs Province of Sindh through Chief2018 SHC 525 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-05Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh Shakeel Khan and 2 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief2018 SHC 466, 2018 SHC 525, 2018 PLD Sindh 498 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-05
  private school feesArticle 18freedom of traderegulatory frameworkprice fixationconstitutional petitionadministrative lawreasonable restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Ordinance 2001 and the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Rules 2005, specifically regarding the regulation of private school fees. The core legal question was whether the 5% cap on annual fee increases imposed by Rule 7(3) of the 2005 Rules violates the fundamental right to conduct a lawful trade or business under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that while the State may regulate private schools as a business under the licensing system condition of Article 18, the specific mechanism in Rule 7(3) is constitutionally impermissible as it imposes an unreasonable, one-stage restriction. The Court quashed Rule 7(3) but granted a 90-day interim period for the government to frame a new, constitutionally compliant regulatory framework. The key principle laid down is that while the State can regulate school fees, such regulation must be reasonable, structured, and provide for a two-stage procedure with a reversal of onus, rather than an arbitrary, one-stage cap.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sindh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2013 impliedly repeal the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Ordinance 2001?
  • Is the regulation of private school fees by the Provincial Government a violation of the fundamental right to conduct a lawful trade or business under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the State impose a fixed cap on the increase of school fees under the licensing system condition of Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the regulation of staff salaries in private schools fall within the permissible regulatory scope of the State under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh Shakeel KHan & ors vs Province of Sindh & ors2018 SHC 466 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-05Read full judgment →
• Shahneel Gul and 2 others vs The State2018 YLR 999 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-19Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Khatri vs Province of Sindh and others2018 SHC 872 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-13Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Babar vs Federation of Pakistan another2018 SHC 1049 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-17Read full judgment →
• Shahmir Khan and Ors vs Province of Sindh & Others2018 SHC 1015 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-03Read full judgment →
• Shahid Iqbal Shaikh, Advocate vs The Government of Sindh & 04 others2018 SHC 635 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-20Read full judgment →
• Shahi Syed through Attorney vs Total Parco Marketing Limited through Company Secretary and another2018 YLR 2039 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-10Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Residence Welfare Association vs Athesham Haider and four2018 SHC 772 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-27Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Garment (Pvt) Ltd vs Govt of Sindh & Ors2018 SHC 712 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-22
  social security contributionminimum wageSESSIbeneficial legislationrepealed ordinancesaving of notificationsSindh Employees Social Security Act 2016
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter involves a batch of constitutional petitions challenging demand notices issued by the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution (SESSI) requiring employers to pay social security contributions based on a minimum wage of Rs. 14,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- per worker per month for the years 2016 and 2017 respectively, rather than the static rate of Rs. 10,000/- advocated by the petitioners. The core legal question is whether employers are liable to pay social security contributions based on officially notified minimum wages under the applicable labor laws when the Governing Body has allegedly failed to issue a specific wage limit notification under the Sindh Employees Social Security Act 2016. The Sindh High Court held that employers are under a statutory obligation to make social security contributions in accordance with the minimum wage rates notified for the respective years, and that prior notifications and wage structures remain saved under Section 86(2) of the Act of 2016 and Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act 1897. The court laid down the principle that the minimum wage for social security contributions cannot be less than the remuneration declared under the Minimum Wages Ordinance 1961, and the absence of a fresh recommendation by the Governing Body does not invalidate the legally prevailing minimum wage notifications.

  Questions settled

  • What is the applicable amount of minimum wage for calculating social security contributions in the absence of a fresh wage limit notification by the Governing Body?
  • Whether notifications and orders issued under the repealed Provincial Employees SocialSecurity Ordinance 1965 continue to remain in force under the Sindh Employees Social Security Act 2016?
  • Can social security contributions be less than the minimum rates of wages declared under the Minimum Wages Ordinance 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ahmed vs The State2018 YLR 2284, 2018 SHC 567 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-16
  extortionbhattabenefit of doubtcriminal appealanti-terrorismrecovery memoacquittalevidentiary discrepancies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence recorded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for extortion under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given the evidence presented. The High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with significant lacunas, including the failure to seal recovered evidence, the absence of serial numbers for currency notes, and material contradictions in witness testimony regarding the timing and documentation of the recovery. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish the complainant's financial status, which is relevant in extortion cases. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing the principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution. The Court reaffirmed the golden rule that if there is any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit must be extended to them as a matter of right, not grace, ensuring that no innocent person is punished due to a flawed investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to seal recovered evidence and record serial numbers of currency notes create reasonable doubt in an extortion case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory testimony regarding the time and date of recovery?
  • Must the prosecution establish the financial status of a complainant to substantiate allegations of extortion?
  • Does the existence of overwriting and alterations in official police documents like mashirnamas undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman vs The State2018 YLR 1800 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-30
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionvicarious liabilityfurther inquirypre-trial incarcerationbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Shah Zaman, who was charged under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was present at the scene but attributed no specific overt act or injury to the deceased, was entitled to bail given the allegations of common intention and vicarious liability. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, reasoning that the issue of common intention in the context of an accused with no active role constitutes a matter of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that vicarious liability requires evidence to be thrashed out at trial. Furthermore, the Court noted the lack of recovery from the applicant and the significant period of pre-trial incarceration. The key principle laid down is that at the bail stage, the question of common intention is generally a matter of further inquiry unless compelling evidence connects the accused to the crime, and the benefit of doubt regarding innocence should favor the accused to prevent unjust long-term incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without an active role, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail based on common intention?
  • Is the question of common intention considered a matter of further inquiry at the bail stage?
  • Should the benefit of doubt regarding innocence be extended to an accused at the bail stage to avoid unjust long-term incarceration?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Alam vs The State2018 YLR 338 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-25
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequesprohibitory clausebusiness transactioncriminal breachbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 118 of 2017 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station North Nazimabad, Karachi, alleging the issuance of dishonoured post-dated cheques after a failed business deal regarding fish stock. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail for an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the issuance of dishonoured cheques involving a substantial admitted amount. The Sindh High Court held that although the offence carries a maximum sentence of three years and ordinarily attracts the rule that bail is a rule and refusal an exception, the issuance of cheques with dishonest intention in monetary disputes disentitles the accused to bail as the prohibition rule is not of universal application and each case must be decided on its own facts. The court dismissed the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the issuance of dishonoured cheques in a monetary dispute disentitles an accused to post-arrest bail under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the rule that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception apply universally to offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court deny post-arrest bail when there is a prima facie indication of dishonest intention in issuing cheques for an admitted business liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Abul Hasan vs The Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PLC (C.S) 839, 2018 SHC 433, 2018 [M] C.L.R. 634 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-26
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitystatutory rulesnon-statutory regulationsmedical facilitiesState Bank of Pakistanservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired employee of the State Bank of Pakistan, filed a constitutional petition seeking directions for the respondents to grant full medical facilities to his second wife and children, and to reimburse medical expenses incurred for his late first wife. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the State Bank of Pakistan regarding its internal regulations concerning employee medical and pension benefits. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the regulations of the State Bank of Pakistan governing terms, conditions, and medical facilities are non-statutory instructions for internal control and management rather than statutory rules. The court laid down the principle that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked against a corporate entity like the State Bank of Pakistan in respect of service matters governed by non-statutory regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the State Bank of Pakistan in respect of service and medical benefit regulations?
  • Are the regulations framed by the State Bank of Pakistan concerning employee welfare and medical facilities statutory or non-statutory in nature?
  • Does the lack of statutory backing in internal regulations preclude an employee from invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Abul Hasan vs The Federation of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 433 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-26Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Hussain Shah vs Fed. of Pakistan and Ors2018 SHC 1069 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-26Read full judgment →
• Shafiquddin Moinee vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Islamabad and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 1183, 2018 CLD 1088 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-12
  trans-provincial companiesworkers' participation18th Amendmentlegislative competenceterritorial nexusbeneficial legislationlabor welfare
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legislative competence and applicability of the Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 1968, and the Sindh Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 2015, specifically regarding "trans-provincial" companies following the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. The core legal question was determining which statute governs profit-sharing obligations for companies operating across provincial boundaries. The Court held that the Sindh Act applies to trans-provincial companies, but its application is territorially limited to workers physically present within Sindh. The Court rejected the argument that the 1968 Act remains the sole governing law for such entities. Instead, it established that the obligation to distribute profits under the Sindh Act must be read down to require payment only for workers in Sindh, calculated proportionately based on the company's total workforce. The Court affirmed that labor welfare legislation is beneficial in nature and must be interpreted to advance its purpose while respecting constitutional territorial constraints. Consequently, the location of a company's registered office or industrial undertaking is irrelevant to the applicability of the provincial statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sindh Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act, 2015 apply to trans-provincial companies?
  • Is the applicability of provincial labor legislation limited to workers physically located within the province?
  • Can a court interpret a statute to read in proportional obligations to ensure constitutional compliance and avoid absurd results?
  • Does the location of a company's registered office determine the applicability of provincial labor laws for trans-provincial entities?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Aslam vs Province Sindh and others2018 SHC 1105 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-07Read full judgment →
• Shabana Noor Ahmed vs Director General Immigration and Passport and others2019 PLD Sindh 456, 2018 SHC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-12Read full judgment →
• Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan vs Messrs Dadabhoy2018 CLD 993 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-31Read full judgment →
• Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan vs M/s.Dadabhoy2018 CLD 993, 2018 SHC 746 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-31Read full judgment →
• Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan vs Adnan Faisal and Another2020 P C T L R 1340, 2018 SHC 852, 2019 CLD 242, 2019 P Cr. L J 504, PLD · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-02
  High Court Appealacquittal orderoriginal criminal jurisdictionmaintainabilityCompanies Ordinance 1984intra-court appealstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter concerns the maintainability of a High Court Appeal filed against an order of acquittal passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, who exercised original criminal jurisdiction under the Companies Ordinance 1984. The appellant sought to invoke Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 1980 to challenge the acquittal. The core legal question was whether such an appeal is maintainable against an acquittal order rendered by a High Court Judge. The Court held that the appeal is not maintainable. It reasoned that Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 1980 is restricted to interlocutory orders in civil jurisdiction, which does not apply here. Furthermore, the Court determined that Section 481 of the Companies Ordinance 1984, which governs appeals against acquittal, explicitly excludes orders passed by a High Court. Consequently, the Court affirmed that no statutory provision allows for an intra-court appeal against an acquittal order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in the exercise of original criminal jurisdiction under the Companies Ordinance 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Is a High Court Appeal maintainable against an order of acquittal passed by a Single Judge of the High Court exercising original criminal jurisdiction under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Does Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 1980 provide a right of appeal against an acquittal order passed in criminal proceedings?
  • Does Section 481 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 permit an appeal against an acquittal order passed by a High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Scherazade Jamali vs Hisham Gillani and others2018 PLD Sindh 377 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-27
  guardian and wardchild custodywelfare of the minorterritorial jurisdictionvisitation rightsrestriction of movementfamily courtsdual nationality
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a guardianship dispute between estranged parents who were Canadian nationals previously settled in Kuwait, concerning the custody and movement of their minor child. The mother challenged orders passed by the lower courts that dismissed her appeal and restricted the minor's movement within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court to protect the father's visitation rights, despite having dismissed the father's application for permanent custody. The core legal questions involved the territorial jurisdiction of family courts under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and whether restricting a child's movement to preserve visitation rights constitutes the child's paramount welfare. The Sindh High Court held that the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, regulates jurisdiction in guardianship matters with overriding effect, and that the mother had acquiesced to the jurisdiction. The Court further held that restricting a minor's movement solely to accommodate a parent's visitation rights does not equate to the welfare of the minor, which encompasses broader material, intellectual, and moral well-being. The Court set aside the restriction on movement, ordered the return of the passport, and laid down principles regulating the child's education and the father's visitation rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, have overriding effect over the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in determining territorial jurisdiction for guardianship matters?
  • Can a party who has acquiesced and surrendered to the territorial jurisdiction of a trial court subsequently challenge its jurisdiction?
  • Does restricting a minor's movement exclusively to facilitate a parent's visitation rights constitute the welfare of the minor?
  • What constitutes the comprehensive welfare of a minor in custody and guardianship adjudication?
  Read full judgment →