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.

• Sarwar alias Ghulam Sarwar vs The State2018 MLD 193 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-15
  narcoticscriminal appealbenefit of the doubtcontradictions in evidencechemical examiner reportdaily diary entryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge (Narcotics), Dadu, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of police testimony, the failure to produce crucial documentary evidence such as the daily diary entry, unexplained delay in sending the narcotics sample for chemical analysis, and material contradictions between prosecution witnesses regarding the association of private witnesses and the movement of police officials. The Sindh High Court held that the cumulative effect of these serious infirmities and discrepancies created reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that the failure to produce vital corroborative documents, coupled with delayed sample transmission and material contradictions among witnesses, entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the daily diary entry showing police departure shatter the prosecution case?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in sending a narcotics sample to the chemical examiner creates doubt about safe custody?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt when material contradictions exist between police witnesses in a narcotics case?
  • Does the absence of independent private witnesses in a thickly populated area weaken the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwan Laghari vs Vice-Chancellor, LUMS and others2018 CLC 296 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-05Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali vs Province Sindh and others2018 SHC 989 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed vs National Testing Services & others2018 SHC 553 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Azad Khan and another vs The State2018 YLR 417 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-10
  post-arrest bailheroin recoverycontrol of narcotic substancesprevious convicttentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal misc. application seeks post-arrest bail for applicants Sardar Muhammad Azad Khan and Tariq Hussain, who were charged under sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after a huge quantity of heroin weighing 261 Kgs and 292 grams was recovered from a container shipped from Pakistan to Sri Lanka. The core legal question revolved around whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the massive recovery of narcotics and the previous conviction of applicant No. 1. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that sufficient material connected the applicants to the offense, that applicant No. 1 was a previous convict, and that narcotic trafficking activities tarnished the country's international reputation. The court laid down the principle that deep appreciation of evidence is not warranted at the bail stage where prima facie sufficient incriminating material exists, and prior convictions further disentitle an accused from the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused involved in the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does a previous conviction of an accused disentitle him from the concession of bail in subsequent narcotics cases?
  • Can deep appreciation of evidence and facts be undertaken by the court at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Alam vs The State2018 MLD 482 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-30
  post-arrest bailfirearm injuryattempt to commit qatl-i-amdfurther inquiryabsconding co-accusedprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sardar Alam, in relation to a criminal case registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of firearm injuries inflicted upon the complainant and others. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the incident. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, observing that the applicant and his accomplices had engaged in repeated firing with the intention to cause harm, resulting in injuries to the complainant party. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant's own pleadings admitted to the firing incident, and that other accomplices remained absconders. The Court affirmed that the case did not fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the prima facie evidence suggested the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a prohibition against bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the admission of a firing incident in a bail application preclude a claim that the case requires further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the alleged offence prima facie attracts the prohibition contained in Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the presence of absconding co-accused affect the court's discretion in granting post-arrest bail to the applicant?
  Read full judgment →
• Samin Textile Limited through authorized Representative vs Muhammad2018 CLC 328 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-03Read full judgment →
• Salman Aziz vs Federal Urdu University & others2019 PLD Sindh 500, 2018 SHC 624 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-16Read full judgment →
• Salman alias Lamba and another vs The State2018 YLR 1092 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-05
  extortionbhattaanti-terrorism court jurisdictionbenefit of the doubtunlicensed weaponsexplosive substancescriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under various provisions relating to illegal arms, explosives, extortion, and anti-terrorism laws. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the recovery of illicit weapons and SIM cards, and whether the alleged offence of extortion (bhatta) constituted an act of terrorism attracting the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges due to major evidentiary infirmities, lack of private witnesses, unverified recovery of SIM cards, and failure to prove that the demand for extortion created a generalized sense of fear, panic, or terror among the public as required under anti-terrorism legislation. The court ruled that mere allegations of extortion do not automatically fall within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Consequently, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the basis of the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere allegation of demanding extortion money (bhatta) attract the provisions of section 6(2)(k) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 without proof of widespread fear and panic?
  • Whether an Anti-Terrorism Court has jurisdiction to try a case of extortion where the offence lacks elements of terrorism as contemplated under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad vs Mst. Rahima Bai and others2018 CLC 443 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-15Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain and others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 53 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-14Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 KLR Labour & Service Cases 53, 2019 PLC (C.S) 1324, 2018 SHC 462 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-14
  up-gradationpromotionconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory rulesservice mattersperson-specific up-gradationPort Qasim Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an office order issued by the Port Qasim Authority (PQA) that imposed a "person-specific" condition on the up-gradation of the petitioners' posts from BPS-15 to BPS-17. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the petition regarding service matters and the legal distinction between "up-gradation" and "promotion," specifically whether up-gradation can be restricted to an individual rather than the post. The Court held that the petition was maintainable because the PQA Employees Service Regulations constitute statutory rules. On the merits, the Court ruled that up-gradation is distinct from promotion and must be restricted to the post, not the person occupying it. It emphasized that up-gradation requires departmental restructuring or exigencies of service and cannot be used to benefit specific individuals. Consequently, the Court declared the condition imposed by the office order dated 11.02.2009, which made the up-gradation person-specific and subject to reversion upon retirement, to be without lawful justification. The petition was partly allowed, setting aside the restrictive condition.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations, 2011 considered statutory rules?
  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction to hear service matters involving the Port Qasim Authority?
  • Is up-gradation of a post legally distinct from promotion?
  • Can an authority legally impose a person-specific condition on the up-gradation of a post?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad alias Sajju and others vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1064 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-08
  criminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubtinjured witnessanti-terrorismappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerned whether the identification of unknown accused persons, conducted solely in court without a prior test identification parade, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, particularly given the incident occurred at night. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that identification of unknown culprits in court, without a prior test identification parade, is legally unsafe and lacks evidentiary value. Furthermore, the court reiterated that while an injured witness is a significant piece of evidence, their testimony is not ipso facto reliable and must be scrutinized for trustworthiness. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that weak identification evidence and lack of corroboration necessitate acquittal in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is identification of an accused in court sufficient for conviction when no test identification parade was conducted?
  • Does the status of an injured witness automatically render their testimony credible?
  • What is the evidentiary value of identification of unknown culprits made during night-time incidents under artificial light?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali vs The State2018 MLD 991 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-10
  confession to policedying declarationattempt to murderhonour killingArticle 38 Qanun-e-ShahadatArticle 40 Qanun-e-ShahadatSection 161 CrPC statementacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, convicting the appellant under Sections 324, 337-F(vi), and 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant confessed to a police officer at the police station that he had fired at his stepmother under the pretext of honour ('Kari'). The core legal questions pertained to the admissibility of an extra-judicial confession made to a police officer under Articles 38 and 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and whether an injured person's statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could be treated as a dying declaration when death occurred weeks later from unrelated causes. The High Court held that the confession to the police officer was inadmissible under Article 38 and not saved by Article 40, as the appellant was not in custody nor was any fact discovered. The Section 161 statement could not operate as a dying declaration, no weapon was recovered, and medical evidence established the victim died of cardio-respiratory failure rather than firearm injuries. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can an extra-judicial confession made by an accused to a police officer prior to being taken into custody be admitted under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does leading a police officer to a public gathering at the victim's house constitute a 'discovery of a fact' within the meaning of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as a dying declaration when the maker dies weeks later from causes unrelated to the inflicted injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Khan vs Viith Additional District and Sessions Judge (East), Karachi and 7 others2018 P Cr. L J 145 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-04
  stay of criminal proceedingscivil and criminal litigationfraud and forgeryinherent powerscriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under section 561-A read with section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the order of the Additional District Judge upholding the Judicial Magistrate's order, which had dismissed the applicant's request to stay criminal proceedings in a case involving fraud and forgery pending the outcome of related civil litigation. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be stayed on the ground that civil litigation between the parties is pending. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that civil suits and criminal cases must be decided on their own individual merits, evidence from one cannot be used in the other, and criminal proceedings cannot be stayed merely due to pending civil litigation. The Court laid down the principle that civil and criminal proceedings operate independently under different laws, and there is no legal provision requiring the stay of criminal proceedings pending the decision of a civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether criminal proceedings can be stayed solely on the ground that civil litigation between the parties is pending?
  • Are judgments in civil suits binding on criminal cases arising out of the same transaction?
  • Can a court dealing with a civil suit stay proceedings in a criminal matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeedul Haque alias Abdullah and another vs The State2018 YLR 242 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-04
  murderbenefit of doubtidentification paradeeyewitness credibilitymedical evidence contradictiondishonest improvementsrecovery of weaponsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction and a revision application seeking sentence enhancement arising from a murder trial under Sections 302, 392, 397, 216, and 34, PPC. The trial court had sentenced the appellants to 15 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 302(c), PPC. The High Court considered whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in light of unexplained delays in recording witness statements, contradictions between ocular and medical testimony, failure to conduct an identification parade, and the lack of reliable recovery evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious infirmities, including belated introduction of alleged eyewitnesses, dishonest improvements, contradiction by medical evidence regarding the time and nature of death, failure to hold an identification parade, and acquittal of the main accused in the off-shoot weapon recovery case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions, acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of doubt, and dismissed the complainant's revision application.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be convicted solely on the basis of dock identification made for the first time during trial without a prior test identification parade?
  • What is the evidentiary value of eyewitness testimony when it is contradicted by medical evidence and marked by unexplained delays in recording police statements?
  • Whether dishonest and deliberate improvements made by prosecution witnesses during trial render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs Prime Minister of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 1170 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-10Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Khan vs The State2018 MLD 371 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-13
  criminal appealrapebenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencehostile witnesssole testimonyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the alleged offence of rape. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the conviction rested solely on the testimony of the complainant. The court found that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent, lacked independent corroboration, and was contradicted by medical evidence and the testimony of her mother, who was declared hostile. The trial court's reliance on the assumption that a daughter would not falsely accuse her father was deemed legally unsustainable and based on conjecture rather than evidence. The court held that where prosecution evidence is inconsistent and fails to inspire confidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming the principle that conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and that any substantial doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a complainant when that testimony is contradicted by medical evidence and other prosecution witnesses?
  • Does the rule of benefit of doubt apply when prosecution evidence is inconsistent and fails to inspire confidence?
  • Is a trial court permitted to base a conviction on conjectures regarding the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the accused rather than on evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadia Jabbar vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 PTD 1746 · Sindh High Court · 2011-02-28
  customs valuevaluation rulingsCustoms Act, 1969constitutional petitionsWTO Valuation Agreementsequential applicationpre-determination of valueretrospective effectcategory of goodsultra viresstatutory interpretationimport dutiesunder-invoicing
  Summary & questions settled

  The Sindh High Court, in a common judgment disposing of connected constitutional petitions, addressed the proper interpretation, application, and interaction of sections 25 and 25A of the Customs Act, 1969, concerning the determination of customs value for imported goods. The petitioners, importers, challenged various "valuation rulings" issued under section 25A. The Court held that section 25A permits a predetermination of customs value for goods yet to be imported, thereby overriding the primary transaction value method mandated by section 25 and the WTO Valuation Agreement. While the methods laid down in section 25 must be followed, the strict sequential application (stopping at the first applicable method) is no longer mandatory for section 25A determinations post-2007 amendment. However, the concerned officer must consider all applicable methods, provide reasons for choosing a later method over preceding ones, and ensure the ruling is a speaking order. The Court further ruled that valuation rulings under section 25A cannot have retrospective effect, must relate to specific PCT headings, and are ordinarily valid for 90 days. Section 25A is an enabling provision, not a substitute for section 25, and cannot be used for wholesale value fixation. All impugned valuation rulings were quashed as ultra vires section 25A for various non-compliances.

  Read full judgment →
• Sadam Hussain vs The State2018 YLR 86 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-30
  double murderdeath sentenceocular evidenceinterested witnessprompt FIRballistic evidencecriminal appealTazir
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court upon the appellant for the double murder of his parents-in-law. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eye-witness testimony from close relatives, the validity of the motive, and whether the death sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The High Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular evidence corroborated by medical reports, ballistic expert findings, and the recovery of the murder weapon. The Court held that mere relationship does not render witnesses "interested" absent established enmity, and a promptly lodged FIR negates the theory of chance witnesses. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that death is the normal penalty for murder, and in the absence of mitigating circumstances, the sentence must be maintained. The Court modified the conviction from Section 302(a) to Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, confirming the death sentence as Tazir, while adjusting the default imprisonment for non-payment of compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship between prosecution witnesses and the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable or interested?
  • Does the prompt registration of an FIR negate the defense of chance witnesses?
  • Is the death sentence the normal penalty for murder in the absence of mitigating circumstances?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be legally modified to Section 302(b) on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 SHC 705 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-23
  quo warrantopublic officeillegal appointmentsPort Qasim Authorityservice regulationsconstitutional jurisdictionsecurity inspector
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto against private respondents holding the public office of Inspector Security (BS-15) in the Port Qasim Authority, alleging they were appointed without meeting the requisite qualifications, experience, and legal formalities, and in violation of Supreme Court orders. The core legal questions involved whether the private respondents held public offices amenable to quo warranto, whether their appointments complied with the Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations 2011, and whether they possessed the mandatory four years of relevant security experience. The Sindh High Court held that employees of the Port Qasim Authority governed by statutory service regulations hold a public office amenable to its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, and found that the private respondents lacked the mandatory relevant security experience required by the rules and were appointed irregularly. The court declared the initial appointments of the private respondents null and void and directed the Port Qasim Authority to fill the posts anew in accordance with the applicable service regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Port Qasim Authority governed by statutory service regulations hold a public office amenable to a writ of quo warranto under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Do candidates appointed as Inspector Security (BS-15) in the Port Qasim Authority fulfill the mandatory qualification and experience requirements under the Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations 2011 if they lack the prescribed four years of relevant security experience?
  • Can a constitutional petition seeking a writ of quo warranto be maintained against appointees whose selection process bypassed mandatory legal criteria and statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadabad Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd through Secretary vs Ghulam Rasool Bhatti and others2018 CLC 1972 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-28Read full judgment →
• S.M Suleman vs PTCL and ORs2019 PLC (C.S) 1381, 2018 SHC 977 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-18
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityPTCLmisconductlocal bodies electionsremoval from servicemaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant constitutional petition was filed seeking to set aside an order dated 26.10.2016, whereby the petitioner, a transferred employee of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings for participating and winning in the Local Bodies Elections of 2015 while in service. The core legal questions examined by the court were the maintainability of a constitutional petition against PTCL under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and whether an employee's participation in local body elections constitutes misconduct under the applicable service rules. The Sindh High Court held that PTCL performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation and its employees whose terms and conditions are statutorily protected can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The court further held that participating in elections while remaining in service violates the applicable Government Servants (Conduct) Rules 1964 and amounts to misconduct justifying removal from service. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL)?
  • Does participation in local bodies elections by an employee of a statutory corporation or body owned by the government constitute misconduct?
  • Whether the terms and conditions of service of transferred employees of PTCL are statutory in nature allowing them to invoke writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Royal Rice Millers Limited through CEO and 5 others vs Habib2018 CLD 933 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali vs Government of Sindh & others2018 SHC 898 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-06Read full judgment →
• Roche Pakistan Limited through Authorized Attorney vs Pakistan through Secretary and 3 others2018 PLD Sindh 222 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-12
  drug registrationsimilar biotherapeutic productsWHO guidelinesDRAP Actinjunctionpublic interestbiological drugsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenged the registration of 'Reditux' injection as a Similar Biotherapeutic Product (SBP) by the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP). The plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, argued that the registration violated the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012, and the WHO Guidelines, specifically contending that the defendant failed to conduct required prospective clinical trials and bio-similarity studies. The core legal question was whether the WHO Guidelines on the evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products are mandatory for the registration of biological drugs under the relevant Pakistani statutes. The court held that the WHO Guidelines are directory rather than mandatory, as no express provision in the Drugs Act, 1976 or the DRAP Act, 2012 makes them a mandatory prerequisite for registration. The court found that the DRAP, through its expert committees, had duly evaluated the safety, efficacy, and quality data of the product. Consequently, the court dismissed the injunction application, emphasizing that the balance of convenience favored public access to cost-effective, life-saving medication over the plaintiff's claims.

  Questions settled

  • Are the WHO Guidelines on the evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products mandatory for the registration of biological drugs under the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012?
  • Does the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 repeal the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Can a court grant an injunction against the registration of a life-saving drug based on the alleged non-compliance with directory guidelines?
  • Does the failure to comply with directory provisions in a statute render an administrative decision void?
  Read full judgment →
• Riffat Humayun vs P.T.v and Ors2018 SHC 589 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-02Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The State2018 YLR 2059 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-06
  abduction for ransombenefit of the doubtdelayed FIRhostile witnesspolice encountercapital punishment referencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for abduction for ransom and sentencing them to death and imprisonment for life respectively, alongside a reference for the confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of abduction and ransom beyond a reasonable doubt, considering significant delays, hostile testimony from the complainant, and glaring contradictions in police evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with serious doubts, including delayed FIR lodging, contradictions regarding the identity of the accused, doubtful police encounters and recoveries, and flawed investigations. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and answered the reference for confirmation of the death sentence in the negative. The key principle laid down is that when the prosecution evidence is riddled with material contradictions, delayed reporting, and doubtful recoveries, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case in an abduction for ransom trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the primary complainant fails to identify the accused during the trial?
  • Is a death sentence confirmation reference maintainable when the underlying conviction is based on doubtful and contradictory police evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of material contradictions between the testimonies of eyewitnesses and the recovery evidence presented by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman Sher vs The State2018 MLD 1971 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-13
  narcoticscharas recoverycontrol of narcotic substancescriminal appealtaxi transportprivate mashirsdriving seat liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge-II (CNS) Karachi, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine following the recovery of twenty kilograms of charas from a taxi driven by him. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of narcotics beyond reasonable doubt, whether the absence of private witnesses vitiated the recovery, and whether the driver of a vehicle can be held liable for narcotics found therein. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution fully established its case through consistent official testimony and corroborating chemical reports, that section 25 of the CNS Act excludes the application of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the person on the driving seat of a vehicle is presumed responsible for the transportation of narcotics found within it. The key principles laid down are that official witnesses are competent and reliable in narcotics cases absent proven enmity, that section 103 Cr.P.C. does not apply to recoveries under the CNS Act, and that a driver is legally responsible for contraband transported in the vehicle under their control.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of private witnesses at the time of recovery invalidates a narcotics case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is a person on the driving seat of a vehicle held responsible for the transportation of narcotics recovered from the vehicle?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 exclude the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the minimum punishment under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 when the quantity of recovered narcotics exceeds ten kilograms?
  Read full judgment →
• Razia Sultana Tahir vs Fed. of Pakista and Ors2018 SHC 1102 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-07Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali Memon vs Chief Secretary, through Government of Sindh &2019 PLC (C.S.) 1245, 2018 SHC 488 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-26
  regularization of servicecontract employeesdoctrine of lachesconstitutional jurisdictiondiscriminatory treatmentequitable reliefservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the regularization of the petitioner's service in the Live Stock & Fisheries Department, Government of Sindh. The petitioner, initially appointed on a contract basis, sought regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, alleging discriminatory treatment compared to colleagues whose services were regularized. The core legal questions were whether the petition was maintainable despite the doctrine of laches and whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization under the 2013 Act. The Court held that the petition was maintainable, rejecting the plea of laches as the issue of delay is subject to equitable principles and the facts of each case. Finding the petitioner's situation identical to that of his colleagues who had been regularized, the Court directed the respondent department to consider the petitioner's case for regularization without discrimination, subject to his eligibility and qualifications. The key principle laid down is that the government cannot engage in 'cherry-picking' by regularizing some employees while terminating others who are similarly placed, and that constitutional jurisdiction may be exercised to remedy manifest wrongs and ensure equal treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed solely on the ground of laches without considering the equitable circumstances of the case?
  • Is the government permitted to adopt a policy of cherry-picking by regularizing some contract employees while terminating others who are similarly placed?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to direct the regularization of contractual employees if the government has already regularized their similarly situated colleagues?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Rasheed vs The Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh &2018 SHC 460 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-13
  service record correctiondate of birthsuperannuationcivil servants rulesgrievance applicationlimitation periodconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the judgment of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which rejected the petitioner's grievance application seeking the correction of his date of birth in his service record. The petitioner, employed in 1974, sought to alter his recorded date of birth from 1952 to 1954 shortly before his retirement in 2012. The core legal question was whether a public servant can seek alteration of their date of birth near the verge of retirement and whether such relief can be obtained through a civil suit or a grievance application after significant delay. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's request was an afterthought and time-barred. The Court affirmed that the procedure for correcting a date of birth is strictly governed by Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, which mandates that such applications must be made within two years of the commencement of service. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that civil courts lack jurisdiction over service matters regarding such administrative entries, and that established principles preclude late-stage alterations to service records.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public servant seek alteration of their date of birth in their service record at the verge of retirement?
  • Is a civil suit the appropriate forum for a public servant to seek correction of their date of birth in their service record?
  • What is the limitation period for applying for the correction of a date of birth in a service record under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajib Ali Shah vs Chairman NAB and others2018 PLD Sindh 256 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-08Read full judgment →
• Rajab Ali vs The State2018 MLD 1979 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-07
  narcoticshashish recoveryinterested witnessbenefit of the doubtsampling of narcoticscriminal appealpolice animosityacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The prosecution's case was that the appellant abandoned a rickshaw during police patrolling and fled, leaving behind packets of hashish. The core legal questions involved the credibility of an interested police witness alleged to have prior animosity with the appellant, the legal sufficiency of identification based on seeing a fleeing suspect from behind, the failure to associate independent witnesses from a populated area, and the proper procedure for sampling narcotic substances. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies, lack of independent corroboration, improper sampling, and admitted enmity between the star witness and the appellant. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, laying down that the testimony of an interested witness with a motive for false implication must be scrutinized with extreme caution and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether identification in court by a witness who only saw the accused running from behind can be relied upon as direct evidence?
  • How should the testimony of a police witness who has an admitted motive for enmity against the accused be evaluated?
  • Is it mandatory for the prosecution to associate independent private witnesses from the locality when specific animosity against police officials is alleged in a populated area?
  • What is the effect of failing to take separate samples from each separate packet or container of recovered narcotic substances?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Sohaib Manzoor and others vs The Inspector General of Police &2018 SHC 1172 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-07
  service lawpolice recruitmentjudicial reviewservice tribunalSupreme Court precedentillegal appointmentreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought the implementation of a judgment from the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had ordered their reinstatement as Police Constables following their dismissal. The core legal question was whether the High Court could enforce this reinstatement order given that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had subsequently declared the entire recruitment process for the years 2012 to 2015 illegal and mandated a fresh recruitment procedure. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Supreme Court’s judgment superseded the tribunal’s order. The Court reasoned that the Supreme Court’s directive nullified the recruitment process under which the petitioners were originally appointed, rendering the tribunal's reinstatement order infructuous. Furthermore, the petitioners had participated in the court-mandated re-examination process but failed to qualify, thereby forfeiting any claim to the positions. The key principle established is that a Supreme Court judgment invalidating a recruitment process takes precedence over any prior tribunal orders, effectively nullifying the basis for reinstatement claims derived from the invalidated process.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Supreme Court judgment declaring a recruitment process illegal supersede a prior Service Tribunal order reinstating employees appointed under that process?
  • Can a High Court enforce a Service Tribunal order when the underlying recruitment process has been nullified by the Supreme Court?
  • Are employees who participated in a court-mandated re-examination process and failed entitled to claim reinstatement based on previous service?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheel Abbas vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1307 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoverycomplainant as investigating officerstudent bailcharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, after 2500 grams of charas was allegedly recovered from his possession. The core legal questions involved whether the recovery of narcotics by a police official who also acted as the investigating officer created grounds for further inquiry, and whether the student status and upcoming examinations of the accused warranted the grant of bail. The Sindh High Court held that since the case rested entirely on police evidence and the complainant had also conducted the investigation, the matter required deeper scrutiny at trial, and further noted that refusing bail would irreparably damage the academic career of the student accused. The court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, establishing that combined roles of complainant and investigator warrant further inquiry and that student status facing imminent examinations is a relevant consideration for tentative assessment in non-prohibitory or general bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the complainant himself acts as the investigating officer in a narcotics case?
  • Does the recovery of a large quantity of charas bar the grant of bail under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Whether the imminent academic examinations of an accused student constitute a ground for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Raga Hussain through legal representatives and others vs Muhammad2018 YLR 1053 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-15Read full judgment →
• Rafique vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others2018 MLD 579 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-10
  Exit Control ListECLFundamental rightsRight to travelNational Accountability OrdinanceConstitutional petitionNAB reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, an accused in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference, seeking the removal of his name from the Exit Control List (ECL). The petitioner, facing charges of cheating the public in a housing project scam, argued that the trial had been pending since 2014 and he wished to exercise his fundamental right to travel abroad for religious purposes. While the NAB opposed the request, fearing the petitioner might abscond given the magnitude of the alleged fraud, the Court noted that the petitioner had been on bail since 2015 without attempting to abscond or delay proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioner had deposited his share of the potential liability. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the right to travel abroad under Article 15 of the Constitution cannot be lightly restricted, even for an accused person. Consequently, the Court ordered the removal of the petitioner's name from the ECL, subject to the condition that he must obtain prior permission from the trial court for any travel and ensure his absence does not delay the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person's name be removed from the Exit Control List if they have deposited their share of potential liability and have not delayed trial proceedings?
  • Does the right to travel abroad under Article 15 of the Constitution apply to an accused person facing criminal charges?
  • Under what conditions may a court permit an accused person to travel abroad despite their name being on the Exit Control List?
  Read full judgment →
• Raees Iqbal and another vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home2018 MLD 1928 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-22Read full judgment →
• Qazi Mushtaq Ahmed vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau2018 YLR 134 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-20Read full judgment →
• Qamaruddin vs Imdad Hussain2019 YLR 498, 2018 SHC 980 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-14Read full judgment →
• Qamar Shahid Siddiqui vs The Province of Sindh & others2018 SHC 1192 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-18
  repatriation of civil servantappointment by transferpermanent absorptioncivil service cadredeputationistservice ruleshorizontal movement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant serving in the Provincial Institute of Teachers Education (PITE), challenged letters proposing his repatriation to his parent department, the Bureau of Curriculum and Extension Wing. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s 'appointment by transfer' to PITE constituted permanent absorption, thereby preventing his repatriation. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned repatriation was lawful and in compliance with Supreme Court precedents. The Court ruled that 'appointment by transfer' under the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974, does not confer permanent status or absorption into the transferee department. Such appointments are temporary, and upon the expiration of the term, the civil servant must return to their parent department. The judgment affirmed that horizontal movement between cadres is restricted and that the Rules cannot be utilized to bypass the scheme of the Act or to grant permanent absorption where none is legally provided. Consequently, the petitioner, as a deputationist, possessed no vested right to remain in the transferee department indefinitely.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appointment by transfer under the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974, confer permanent status or absorption in the transferee department?
  • Can a civil servant be permanently absorbed into a transferee department through horizontal movement between cadres?
  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to remain in a transferee department indefinitely?
  • Is the repatriation of a civil servant to their parent department lawful when the appointment in the transferee department was made by transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaim Ali Shahani vs Chief Minister Secretariat & others2018 SHC 715 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-25Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux Hajano vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 991 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-17
  murder referencedeath sentence confirmationcapital punishmentdecapitationocular evidencemedical corroborationstatutory compensationta'azir
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court of Sindh considered a criminal appeal along with a murder reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his sister-in-law. The prosecution alleged that after being released from jail in a prior zina case involving the deceased, the appellant attacked her in broad daylight with a hatchet, decapitated her, and fled with her severed head. The appellant contested the ocular testimony, motive, medical corroboration, and voluntary nature of his confession. The High Court held that the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt via consistent eyewitness testimonies, medical findings, positive chemical examiner reports, and recovered weapon evidence. Furthermore, decapitating the victim in a brutal manner for revenge eliminated grounds for leniency, justifying the death penalty as normal punishment. The court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the death sentence under Section 302(b), PPC, and directed payment of compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether brutal conduct such as decapitating a victim for revenge excludes the application of mitigating circumstances against a death sentence?
  • Is a trial court obligated under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to record written reasons if it fails to award compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased upon convicting the accused?
  • Can minor contradictions in eyewitness testimonies be disregarded when ocular evidence is consistently corroborated by medical and recovery evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Qabil Khan vs VTH Additional Sessions Judge South, Karachi and others2018 P Cr. L J 1027 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-09
  illegal dispossessionagreement to sellforcible dispossessionlawful ownercriminal revisionpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application impugns an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a criminal complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The applicant alleged that he entered into an agreement to sell for the subject property, paid the full consideration, obtained possession, and was subsequently forcibly dispossessed by the respondent, resulting in the death of his father during the incident. The core legal question was whether section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was attracted to the proceedings where the applicant claimed possession based on an agreement to sell. The court held that section 3 requires the complainant to be a lawful owner or occupier, and since the applicant failed to establish a valid, enforceable legal claim of possession or ownership under the circumstances, the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act were not attracted. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint, ruling that a mere agreement to sell without proper enforcement or lawful possession does not bring a dispute within the ambit of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is attracted when a claimant fails to establish lawful ownership or lawful possession of the subject property?
  • Can a transferee claim the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as a weapon when possession is not under a proper, legal, and enforceable contract?
  • Whether the revisional court can interfere with a trial court order dismissing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 when the complainant fails to prove initial lawful possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Jan Muhammad Memon vs Governor of Sindh and Ors2018 SHC 685 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-16Read full judgment →
• Premier Systems (Pvt.) Ltd. and Others vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2018 PTD 861, PTCL 2018 CL. 206 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-07
  regulatory dutyFederal CabinetMustafa Impexdelegated legislationultra viresFinance Act 2017Article 98Money Bill
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions were filed challenging the vires of an amendment made to Section 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 by the Finance Act, 2017, which substituted the 'Federal Government' with the 'Board, with approval of Federal Minister-in-charge', as well as the validity of SRO 1035(1)/2017 levying regulatory duties. The core legal question was whether delegated legislative functions, specifically the power to impose regulatory duties and taxes, can be statutory conferred upon subordinate authorities or an individual Minister instead of the Federal Government (the Cabinet) under Article 98 of the Constitution and the binding principles in Mustafa Impex. The High Court held that while Article 98 allows the conferment of executive functions on subordinate authorities, quasi-legislative powers such as levying tax cannot be delegated or conferred on any authority subordinate to the Federal Government. The Court declared the amendment to Section 18(3) and SRO 1035(1)/2017 ultra vires the Constitution and of no legal effect, ordering refunds or adjustments for duties paid thereunder.

  Questions settled

  • Can the statutory power to levy regulatory duties or taxes be conferred upon a subordinate authority or an individual Minister instead of the Federal Cabinet?
  • Does Article 98 of the Constitution permit the Parliament to transfer delegated legislative powers to officers or authorities subordinate to the Federal Government?
  • Is an amendment to fiscal provisions in the Customs Act through a Finance Act passed as a Money Bill constitutionally valid under Article 73 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Premier Systems (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 P.C.T.L.R. 883 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-15Read full judgment →
• Port Qasim Authority vs Industrial Management & Investment Company2018 SHC 1212, 2020 CLC 721 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Pir Kalimullah and another vs Province of Sindh and others2018 SHC 678 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-11Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux and 4 others vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 742 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-16
  criminal appealconvictionacquittalbenefit of doubtcontradictory evidencemedical evidencewater rotation dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Naushero Feroze, whereby the Appellants were convicted and sentenced under sections 148, 149, 337-F(i), 337-U, and 337-H(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case against the Appellants beyond a reasonable doubt in the face of major contradictions among eye-witnesses, unproved motive, and doubtful medical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the Appellants due to material contradictions regarding the incident, exaggeration in testimonies, lack of corroborative evidence, and unexplained flaws in the medical and police records. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the Appellants were acquitted of the charges. The key legal principle laid down is that where eye-witnesses contradict each other on basic facts, medical evidence is inconsistent, and motive remains unproved, the prosecution case becomes doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions among eye-witness testimonies regarding the core incident are sufficient to cast serious doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Does the failure to produce consistent and reliable medical evidence in assault cases weaken the prosecution?
  • Whether unproved motive and lack of corroborative evidence warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Petition for Grant of Letter of Administration to DR. Mohammad2018 SHC 509, 2018 CLC 639 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-23Read full judgment →
• Petition by Mst. Sultana Begum for Letters of Administration under2018 YLR 2685 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-14Read full judgment →
• Pervez Arshad & Muhammad Junaid Arshad vs Rauf Textile & Printing Mills2019 CLD 72, 2018 SHC 808 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-11Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Iqbal vs Faisal Akram2018 CLC 1239 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-30Read full judgment →
• Pehlwan Ali vs Sindh Appellate Tribunal and another2018 SHC 548 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-14
  labour lawfull and final settlementpayment of wagesconstitutional jurisdictiongratuityappellate tribunalworkmen's compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had modified a compensation award previously granted to the petitioner by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and upheld by the Labour Court. The petitioner, a former employee, sought unpaid legal dues including gratuity and bonuses. The core legal question was whether the Appellate Tribunal acted within its lawful authority in revising the award after finding that the petitioner had already received his dues and signed a full and final settlement receipt. The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal’s decision was legally sound and based on a proper appreciation of evidence regarding the payment of the decretal amount. The Court affirmed that it cannot interfere with factual findings arrived at by a competent forum in the absence of illegality, infirmity, or material irregularity. The principle laid down is that where an employee has received full and final settlement of dues, subsequent claims for compensation are unsustainable, and the High Court will not disturb factual determinations made by appellate labour forums under its constitutional jurisdiction absent clear legal error.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with factual findings of a Labour Appellate Tribunal in its constitutional jurisdiction absent material irregularity?
  • Does the receipt of a full and final settlement by an employee preclude subsequent claims for additional legal dues?
  • Is a Labour Appellate Tribunal authorized to modify a compensation award if evidence indicates the decretal amount has already been paid?
  Read full judgment →
• Papoo Khan vs Province of Sindh & others2018 SHC 912 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-05
  regularization of adhoc appointmentsuspension vacancyprisons departmentbasic educational qualificationpublic service commissionvested rightconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking a declaration that he was validly appointed as an Assistant Superintendent Prison on a regular basis under the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Adhoc Appointment) Act, 1989, or alternatively under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, along with related seniority and promotion benefits. The core legal questions involved whether an adhoc appointment made against a suspension vacancy without possessing the prescribed qualification of graduation for the upgraded post (BS-16) could be regularized retrospectively. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner's initial appointment was made irregularly against a temporary suspension vacancy without adhering to recruitment rules or possessing the mandatory graduation qualification for BS-16, and thus no vested right to regularization accrued. The court established that adhoc appointments made in violation of procedure and without requisite qualifications cannot be regularized, and posts in BS-16 must be filled through transparent competitive processes via the Public Service Commission as mandated by the Constitution. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an adhoc appointment made against a temporary suspension vacancy be regularized retrospectively?
  • Whether an employee who does not possess the prescribed educational qualification for an upgraded post can claim regularization as a matter of right?
  • Are appointments to posts in Basic Pay Scale 16 and above mandatory through the Public Service Commission under the Constitution?
  • Does an adhoc employee derive a vested right to regularization solely on the basis of continuous service without fulfilling statutory recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) through Chief Resident Representatives vs Messrs CCI-Ag, an Imi Company, Im Link-II and 2 others2018 MLD 82 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-18Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tibbi Pharmaceuticals Manufacturers vs Fed. of Pakistan and Ors2018 SHC 471, 2018 SHC 482 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-26Read full judgment →
• Qadratullah & Ors vs Prov of Sindh & Ors2018 SHC 879 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-09Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through authorized2018 PLC (C.S.) 510 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-31
  pensioninterim reliefinjunctionvoluntary separation schemeland disputecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge of the Sindh High Court, whereby applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were allowed, restraining the appellant Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) from stopping the pension of the respondent retired employees and directing the release of accumulated arrears and monthly pension. The core legal question was whether the employer could withhold or adjust rent from the retirees' pensions during the pendency of a civil suit concerning title and occupation of the residential quarters. The court held that pension is not a bounty but compensation for past services, and stopping it during the pendency of litigation causes grave financial distress, establishing a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the employees. The appellate court affirmed the interim injunction, holding that the single judge correctly applied the principles of interlocutory relief without prejudging the main suit, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer can withhold or adjust rent from the pension of retired employees during the pendency of a suit concerning property occupation?
  • Whether the stoppage of pension constitutes a valid interim measure in disputes involving retirement benefits?
  • Whether the principles for granting interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. are satisfied when pension payments are unilaterally stopped by an employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecom Mobile Ltd vs Muhammad Idrees Hadi and Ors2018 SHC 948 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-12
  workman statusresignation under duressreinstatementconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findingsindustrial relationsback benefitsburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition challenged the concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which reinstated the Respondent-employee and declared his resignation void. The Petitioner-Company contended that the Respondent voluntarily resigned following allegations of misconduct and that he did not qualify as a "workman" due to his administrative duties. The core legal questions were whether the resignation was obtained under duress and whether the Respondent fell within the definition of a "workman." The Court held that the resignation was indeed obtained under duress and coercion, rendering it void ab initio. Regarding the status of the employee, the Court affirmed that the nature of duties performed, rather than mere designation or salary, determines whether an individual is a "workman." Since the Respondent performed manual duties without supervisory authority, he qualified as a workman. Furthermore, the Court ruled that it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by competent fora in its constitutional jurisdiction absent material irregularity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the reinstatement order and the finding that the resignation was not voluntary.

  Questions settled

  • Does the designation of an employee determine their status as a 'workman' under labor laws?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the National Industrial Relations Commission in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a resignation obtained under duress and coercion legally valid?
  • What is the primary criterion for determining whether an employee falls within the definition of a 'workman' under labor legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. vs Messrs Gillani (Pvt.) Ltd. and another2018 MLD 1770 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited vs (1) M/s. Gillani (Private) Limited (2)2018 MLD 1770, 2018 SHC 665 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
• Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Regional Manager vs Miss Shazia Noor and another2018 MLD 209 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-05Read full judgment →
• Pak Leather Crafts Limited and others vs Al-Baraka Bank Limited2019 CLD 659, 2018 SHC 1076 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-19Read full judgment →
• Pahar Khoso and others vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 1240 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-02
  capital punishmentmurderbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRheadlight identificationinterested witnessesindependent corroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellants under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to death, alongside connected acquittal appeals and a death sentence confirmation reference. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony based on vehicle headlight identification at night, the consequences of an unexplained 48-hour delay in lodging the FIR, the effect of deep-seated civil and criminal land litigation between the parties creating a double-edged motive, and whether interested and inimical witnesses could sustain a capital conviction without independent corroboration. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, delayed reporting after consultation, weak identification evidence, and the acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt entitles them to the benefit of doubt as of right, and that disbelieved eyewitness testimony regarding co-accused cannot be relied upon against remaining accused without unimpeachable independent corroboration. The convictions and sentences were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether identification of accused persons under the headlight of a vehicle at night constitutes a reliable and sufficient source of identification without corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay of 48 hours in lodging the First Information Report, coupled with pre-existing litigation and consultation, render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Can eyewitness testimony that has been disbelieved with respect to certain co-accused be safely relied upon to convict other co-accused without independent corroboratory evidence?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Osman Yasin vs Defence Housing Authority through Administrator and 72018 YLR 3 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
• Opi Gas (Private) Limited through General Manager vs United Energy2018 CLC 279 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-10Read full judgment →
• Oil Industries Pakistan (Pvt) Limited vs (1) Abdul Rehman and others (2)2019 PLC 140, 2018 SHC 670 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-30
  labor disputeunlawful terminationdue processfair trialconstitutional petitionreinstatementcompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged judgments passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Sindh Labour Court, which had awarded compensation to the private respondents in lieu of reinstatement after finding their oral termination unlawful. The core legal questions involved whether the respondents were terminated without inquiry and due process, and whether the Labour Court's decisions were sustainable. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower forums regarding the unlawful termination of the respondents without holding a full-fledged inquiry or providing an opportunity of hearing were unexceptionable. The Court affirmed that right to a fair trial and due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution, and that an employer cannot terminate a permanent employee without establishing charges through proper proceedings. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petitions and maintained the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can be verbally terminated from service without holding a formal inquiry and providing a chance of personal hearing?
  • Can the High Court interfere in concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labor forums under its constitutional jurisdiction without showing any material irregularity?
  • Whether compensation in lieu of reinstatement can be awarded by the appellate tribunal where relations between the parties have become estranged?
  Read full judgment →
• NTL (Private) Limited vs TNT (U.A.E.), LLC2018 CLC 1437 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-23Read full judgment →
• Noman Junejo through Authorised Attorney and another vs Federal2018 PLD Sindh 1 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
• Nizam alias Nizamuddin vs The State2018 MLD 595 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-29
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencecontradictionsacquittalreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the conflicting ocular and medical evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing significant discrepancies between the medical report and the ocular testimony regarding the seat of injuries and the time of death. Furthermore, the court noted unexplained delays in recording witness statements, contradictions regarding the transportation of the deceased, and the failure to recover alleged stolen property or conduct forensic analysis on recovered items. Emphasizing that the prosecution’s case was riddled with doubt, the court laid down the principle that material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, coupled with a failure to prove the motive and the lack of forensic corroboration, entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt, necessitating an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a material contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the seat of injuries and time of death warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to recover the alleged stolen property and fails to provide forensic evidence to corroborate the ocular account?
  • Does an unexplained delay in recording the statements of eye-witnesses undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizam Ahmed Chaudhary through Attorney vs Defence Officers Housing2018 CLC 1009 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
• Nisra Ahmed Shaikh & Ors vs Province of Sindh & Others2018 SHC 1078 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-29Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed vs Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and another2018 PLC (C.S.) 166 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-16
  service appealprovident fundterminal benefitscompromise agreementrecovery suitKIBOR ratedelayed payment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a service dispute between an employee and the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation regarding the calculation of terminal benefits. Following a prior compromise agreement where the respondent agreed to pay all legal dues, including provident fund, by September 1, 2002, the appellant received the principal amount but initiated litigation claiming additional profit on the provident fund for the period between his resignation and the actual payment date. The trial court decreed a partial amount for gratuity and travel allowance but denied the claim for profit on the provident fund, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to profit on the provident fund amount for the period during which the payment was delayed beyond the agreed timeline. The High Court held that since the payment was delayed, the appellant was entitled to profit on the principal amount for the period of delay. The court allowed the appeal, directing the respondent to pay the calculated profit at a rate of ten percent per annum, plus interest at the KIBOR rate until realization.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee entitled to profit on provident fund amounts for the period during which payment was delayed beyond the agreed settlement date?
  • Can an appellate court entertain a claim for leave encashment if it was not pleaded before the lower appellate court?
  • What is the appropriate rate of profit to be applied on delayed terminal dues when the employer fails to pay within the agreed timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad Japanwala vs City District Government, Karachi through District Co-ordination Officer2018 YLR 1341 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-02Read full judgment →
• Nighat Munir vs Madam Humera & others2018 SHC 894 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-03Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali and 9 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary and 32018 YLR 1038 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-31Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed Soomro vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 SHC 1188 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-17Read full judgment →
• Nazia Khan vs Province Sindh and others2018 SHC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-18Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Khan vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 8 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 224 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-28
  departmental inquirypolice administrationsupersession of inquiry officerInspector General of PoliceChief Secretarygood governancediscretionary powers
  Summary & questions settled

  Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner challenged the notification whereby the Government of Sindh appointed a new inquiry officer to probe the conduct of certain police officials in connection with a criminal case, superseding an earlier inquiry officer appointed by the Inspector General of Police. The core legal question was whether the Chief Secretary could lawfully supersede an internal departmental inquiry officer appointed by the IGP without cogent reasons or a challenge to the IGP's competence. The High Court held that while superior authorities possess supervisory powers, administrative actions must be exercised reasonably, fairly, and with due regard to statutory domains. The court ruled that the impugned order of the Chief Secretary lacked legal justification and cogent reasons for replacing the IGP's nominee, particularly as the administration of the police vests in the IGP under the Police Act. The petition was disposed of by setting aside the unjustified supersession while preserving the authority of the Chief Secretary to intervene upon receipt of proper complaints regarding corruption or misuse of power.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Secretary can supersede an inquiry officer appointed by the Inspector General of Police without assigning cogent reasons?
  • Does the superiority of an administrative authority vest in it the power to interfere arbitrarily with internal departmental inquiries?
  • Is an administrative order passed without application of mind or legal justification sustainable under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed and 10 others vs Ahmed Khan and others2018 MLD 151 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed & another vs Karachi Port Trust & others2019 YLR 1985, 2018 SHC 1032 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-11Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and another vs The State2018 YLR 1455 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-08
  honour killingcircumstantial evidencehostile witnessbenefit of the doubtcriminal appeallast seen evidencestandard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for murder and destruction of evidence in an alleged honour killing case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where key prosecution witnesses turned hostile at trial, resiling from their earlier statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as there was no direct ocular evidence and the circumstantial evidence relied upon was insufficient to form an unbroken, reliable chain linking the appellants to the crime. The Court emphasized that evidence on oath given at trial supersedes earlier statements when witnesses resile. Furthermore, it reaffirmed that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature, excluding every hypothesis except the one proposed to be proved. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants, and extended them the benefit of the doubt, noting that mere suspicion cannot replace cogent, reliable evidence in a criminal trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does evidence on oath given at trial supersede earlier statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when witnesses resile?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of evidence?
  • What is the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  • Does the mere existence of a motive constitute sufficient evidence to uphold a conviction in the absence of direct or corroborative circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad alias Nazroo vs The State2018 YLR 1992 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-17
  narcoticscharas recoverysafe custodymalkhanachemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge (Narcotics) convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the reliability of police evidence regarding an unwitnessed arrest in a populated area, the effect of a two-day delay in transmitting narcotic samples to the chemical examiner without proving safe custody at the Malkhana, and the legal sufficiency of a chemical examiner's report lacking prescribed protocols. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish safe custody and transmission of the recovered contraband, noted material contradictions among police witnesses, and ruled that a defective chemical examiner's report combined with unverified chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution's case. The court laid down that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, setting aside the conviction and ordering the immediate release of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of two days in sending narcotic samples to the chemical examiner without proof of safe custody at the Malkhana vitiate the conviction?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained on the basis of a chemical examiner's report that lacks the prescribed protocol and details of analysis?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when police officials fail to associate private independent witnesses from a populated area during a recovery?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when material contradictions exist between the testimonies of the complainant and the mashirs regarding the recovery proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Nayab Ali vs Mst. Hameeda Bano and 6 others2018 MLD 1649 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-10Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Hussain vs The State2018 MLD 1552 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-06
  post-arrest bailattempted murderproperty disputecriminal trespasstentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising out of FIR No. 222/2017 registered under Sections 452, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ibrahim Hyderi, Karachi. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of an existing property dispute between the parties and contradictions in witness statements. The Sindh High Court held that since the accused was specifically nominated in the FIR, attributed a specific role, and corroborated by medical evidence showing a bullet injury to the injured victim, coupled with the fact that the trial is yet to commence and witness testimony is pending, the case warrants further inquiry at the trial stage rather than at pre-trial bail. The court laid down the principle that where an accused is specifically nominated with active roles in a heinous crime and trial is imminent, bail ought not to be granted prematurely merely on the existence of a prior civil dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is specifically nominated in the FIR with a distinct role in an attempted murder?
  • Does the existence of a prior civil property dispute between the parties automatically entitle an accused to bail in a criminal case?
  • Can bail be withheld on the ground that material prosecution witnesses have yet to be examined by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawal Kishore & another vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 937 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-11Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Sardar Ahmed Khan through Attorney vs Frontier Works2018 CLC 1744 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-12Read full judgment →
• Nawab Siraj Ali and another vs The State2018 YLR 2658 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-28
  Anti-terrorism lawJurisdictionPersonal vendettaCriminal appealDe novo trialStatutory interpretationPrivate revenge
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions rendered by a Special Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether a murder case, originating from a personal dispute and vendetta, fell within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, thereby justifying the jurisdiction of a Special Court. Relying on the precedent set in Waris Ali, the High Court held that crimes committed due to private revenge or traditional motives, regardless of their gruesome nature, do not constitute terrorism unless the primary objective is to create public alarm, dread, or a sense of insecurity. The court determined that the instant case lacked the essential element of terrorism and was improperly tried as such. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the ordinary Sessions Court for a de novo trial, granting the trial court authority to decide pending applications, including those regarding compromise. The judgment reinforces the principle that ordinary crimes should not be misclassified as terrorism, as doing so undermines the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts and violates the constitutional rights of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a murder committed out of personal vendetta constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can a case involving personal revenge be tried by a Special Anti-Terrorism Court if the element of public terror is absent?
  • What is the consequence of misclassifying an ordinary crime as an act of terrorism regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ghaibi Sardar Khan Chandio vs Election Commission of Pakistan and 2 others2018 PLD Sindh 263 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-11Read full judgment →
• Naved Alam Zubairi vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 PLJ Karachi 129, 2018 SHC 847 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-30
  Master and ServantManagement PrerogativeDisciplinary InquiryInterim InjunctionSuspensionService MatterDue Process
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenged the suspension and disciplinary inquiry initiated by the employer, Pakistan State Oil (PSO), against the plaintiff. The core legal question was whether an employer can reopen a disciplinary inquiry previously closed by the management, and whether the court should interfere with such proceedings under the Master-Servant relationship. The court held that the injunction application was meritless and dismissed it. It determined that the employer possesses the management prerogative to conduct disciplinary inquiries and that reopening an incomplete inquiry upon the discovery of new incriminating evidence is lawful. The court emphasized that it would not exercise supervisory jurisdiction over a premature disciplinary process where no final order of dismissal had been passed. The key principle laid down is that in a Master-Servant relationship, the employer has an inherent right to regulate its business and discipline employees, and courts should not interfere with internal disciplinary inquiries unless they are manifestly contrary to law or due process, particularly when the inquiry is ongoing and no final adverse action has been taken against the employee.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer reopen a disciplinary inquiry that was previously closed without a final determination?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to interfere in an ongoing internal disciplinary inquiry of a private or statutory entity?
  • Is the relationship between an employee and an organization without statutory service rules governed by the doctrine of Master and Servant?
  • Does the issuance of a show cause notice or the initiation of an inquiry constitute a justiciable cause of action before a final dismissal order is passed?
  Read full judgment →
• National Refinery Ltd. vs Mst. Farida Begum and others2018 PLC 232 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-20
  Workmen's CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipReview of OrderImpleading of PartiesJurisdiction of CommissionerConstitutional PetitionInterlocutory Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, which rectified a previous erroneous order that had deleted the petitioner from proceedings without a prayer to that effect. The core legal question concerned the Commissioner's authority to review and modify interlocutory orders, specifically regarding the impleading of parties and the deletion of a respondent in a claim for dues. The Court held that the initial order deleting the petitioner was passed without jurisdiction, as no such relief was sought. The Court affirmed that a judicial or quasi-judicial authority possesses the inherent power to rectify its own erroneous orders to prevent hardship and ensure compliance with the law. Relying on the principles regarding the employer-employee relationship established by the Supreme Court in Fauji Fertilizer Company Ltd. v. National Industrial Relations Commission, the Court emphasized that the determination of the actual employer requires a trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, maintaining the Commissioner's order that restored the petitioner to the proceedings, thereby allowing the trial to proceed to determine the true liability.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation have the authority to rectify an erroneous interlocutory order that deleted a party without a prayer for such relief?
  • Is an order deleting a party from proceedings without a legal basis subject to review by the issuing authority?
  • What criteria must be applied to determine the employer-employee relationship in cases involving contractors and companies?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an interlocutory order that does not determine substantial rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Nand Lal vs Askari Bank Ltd. and others2018 CLD 1167 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Nand Lal and another vs Askari Commercial Bank Limited and others2018 CLD 1320 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Naila Maqbool Laghari through next of kin, Maqbool Ahmed and 1362018 PLD Sindh 391 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-05
  medical admission testprovincial executive authorityfederal legislative competence18th Amendmentstatutory jurisdictionconstitutional petitionprofessional medical education
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the Sindh Provincial Government's decision to cancel the MBBS and BDS admission test held on October 22, 2017. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government or the Chief Minister possessed the jurisdiction to investigate and annul an admission test conducted under the MBBS and BDS (Admissions, House job and Internship) Regulations, 2016. The Court held that the cancellation notification was issued without lawful authority. It determined that professional medical education falls within the federal legislative competence of "legal, medical and other professions." Consequently, executive authority in this domain is exclusively federal, and the 2016 Regulations entrust the conduct and oversight of admission tests solely to the designated admission board and provincial committees, leaving no role for the provincial government. The Court affirmed that statutory bodies created by regulations possess exclusive jurisdiction over their mandates, precluding provincial executive interference. Furthermore, the Court found the factual allegations of test leakage and syllabus discrepancies unsubstantiated or insufficient to warrant cancellation, ultimately ordering the admission process to proceed based on the original test results.

  Questions settled

  • Does the provincial government have the authority to cancel an admission test conducted under the MBBS and BDS (Admissions, House job and Internship) Regulations, 2016?
  • Does professional medical education fall under federal or provincial legislative competence following the 18th Amendment?
  • Are the powers of the provincial committee constituted under the 2016 Regulations exclusive, or does the provincial government retain concurrent authority?
  • Can a court exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 to uphold an admission test despite allegations of syllabus discrepancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar and another vs Learned Civil Judge and Judicial2018 MLD 1173 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-07Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar alias Ali Haider and another vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 66 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-25
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaydelay in trialnarcotics recoveryControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged recovery of 100 kgs and subsequently 3213 kgs of Charas, registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The primary grounds urged for bail were statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial and non-compliance with earlier court directions to expedite the trial. The State opposed the bail, contending that the delay was attributable to the defense's tactical changes of counsel and failure to cross-examine available witnesses. The High Court held that the delay in the trial could not be entirely attributed to the prosecution, distinguishing the case from precedents where witnesses persistently failed to appear, and noted that non-compliance with a previous timeframe order does not ipso facto furnish a fresh ground for bail. Consequently, the court dismissed the post-arrest bail application while directing the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to conclude a trial within a previously stipulated timeframe create a fresh ground for the grant of bail?
  • Can bail be granted on the ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial when the delay is partly attributable to the conduct of the defense?
  • Whether the recovery of a massive quantity of narcotics disentitles an accused to post-arrest bail on statutory delay grounds under the circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Jan vs The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and 32018 MLD 6 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-20Read full judgment →