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.

• Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate High Court vs Federation of Pakistan through Chairman, NAB, Islamabad and 2 others2018 YLR 2107 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-14Read full judgment →
• Captain Saifuddin vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others2018 SHC 617 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-13
  constitutional petitionmaster and servantstatutory rulesterms and conditions of servicemaintainabilitywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former Captain of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation seeking to set aside his dismissal from service and for reinstatement with consequential benefits. The core legal questions involved whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, and whether its service rules are statutory in nature so as to warrant judicial intervention under writ jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that while the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation is a statutory body and a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, its service rules are non-statutory and merely constitute internal instructions governing the relationship of master and servant. The court concluded that terms and conditions of service of its employees cannot be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ can be issued against the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Are the service rules of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation statutory in nature?
  • Does the principle of master and servant govern the relationship between the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and its employees?
  • Can the terms and conditions of service of employees of a non-statutory body be enforced through a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Burkat Hussain vs Province of Sindh & others2018 SHC 896 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-06Read full judgment →
• Budho and 2 others vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1393 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-05
  narcotic traffickingconscious possessioncriminal appealpolice witness credibilityburden of proofControl of Narcotic Substances Actfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of three appellants sentenced to life imprisonment for the transportation of 50 kilograms of charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellants contended that the case was a result of political enmity and false implication, alleging that the recovery was foisted upon them. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of police witnesses, the validity of an investigation conducted by the complainant, the effect of minor procedural delays in chemical analysis, and the liability of passengers in a vehicle carrying narcotics. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular testimony and positive chemical reports. The Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses, that a complainant may investigate the case absent proof of mala fide, and that procedural rules regarding sample transmission are directory rather than mandatory. Furthermore, the Court established that occupants of a vehicle are liable for narcotics found therein when they fail to provide a satisfactory account for their presence and possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police officer who acts as the complainant also investigate the case?
  • Does a delay in sending narcotic samples to a forensic laboratory automatically vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Are passengers in a vehicle carrying narcotics jointly liable for the possession of the contraband?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely on the ground of their employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Trustees through Chairman vs Muhammad Iqbal2018 PTD 712 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-15Read full judgment →
• Board of Trustees of Port of Karachi vs Muhammad Iqbal2018 PTD 712, PTCL 2018 CL. 629 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-15Read full judgment →
• Board of Secondary Education vs Province of Sindh and Others2019 CLC 1531, 2018 SHC 1204 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Bilal Mehmood vs The State2018 MLD 1559, 2018 SHC 555 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-08
  post-arrest bailpolice encounterfurther inquirytentative assessmentpersonal libertyfirearms recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from bail applications filed by the applicant Bilal Mehmood seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIRs registered under provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, following an alleged police encounter where the applicant and his co-accused were arrested and allegedly recovered with illicit weapons. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail when doubts exist regarding the probability of the prosecution's firing narrative, absence of injuries to the police party despite an exchange of gunfire, lack of forensic matching of weapon empties, and the fact that all prosecution witnesses are police officials. The Sindh High Court held that the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, granting bail to the applicant. The key principles laid down include that tentative assessment of material is to be made at the bail stage without deeper appreciation, that the improbability of a police encounter without injuries warrants further inquiry, and that personal liberty is a precious right not to be denied lightly where reasonable doubt affects the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an alleged police encounter results in no injuries to either side despite cross-firing?
  • Is the absence of forensic matching of recovered weapons and empties a ground for further inquiry under criminal law?
  • Whether an accused person should be admitted to bail when the prosecution witnesses are exclusively police officials and no independent corroboration is sought in a populated area?
  Read full judgment →
• Bibi Hajra vs The Trustees of the Port of Karachi & Ors2018 SHC 874, 2019 PLC 233 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-15
  date of birth correctionretirementservice recordlabour appellate tribunalconstitutional petitionbelated claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh, which set aside the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the petitioner employee's grievance petition concerning the correction of her date of birth and subsequent retirement. The core legal question was whether an employee can seek alteration of a recorded date of birth at the verge of retirement after consciously accepting it upon appointment, and whether such a belated change warrants interference under constitutional jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that a date of birth recorded in service records upon recruitment and accepted by the employee cannot be permitted to be changed near retirement on the basis of manipulated certificates obtained years later, particularly when the request suffers from inordinate delay and no sufficient cause is shown. The court established the principle that belated attempts to alter dates of birth without authentic contemporaneous proof are unsustainable, and constitutional petitions against concurrent findings of labour tribunals on such matters are liable to be dismissed, though an employee who actually worked during the pendency of interim orders is entitled to salary for the period served.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee seek correction of a recorded date of birth at or near the time of retirement after accepting it upon joining service?
  • Whether a birth certificate obtained from a Union Council decades after entering service carries sufficient evidential value to override an originally recorded date of birth?
  • Is an employee entitled to receive salary for the period worked pursuant to interim orders of a labour court even if the substantive claim for service extension is dismissed?
  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan can be invoked against concurrent findings of labour tribunals regarding disputed dates of birth?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Halepoto vs Election Commission of Pakistan, through Chief Election Commission, Islamabad and 2 others2018 PLD Sindh 346 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-22Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed & 18 others vs Province of Sindh and others2018 SHC 472 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-09
  regularisation of servicecontract employeesmaintainability of constitutional petitionmaster and servantSindh Judicial Academyvested rightsalary parity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, low-grade temporary and contractual employees of the Sindh Judicial Academy, filed a constitutional petition seeking regularisation of their services with retrospective effect, parity in salary and allowances with staff of the Federal Judicial Academy and other provincial academies, and the status of civil servants. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the petition under Article 199, the applicability of the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, and whether contract employees have a vested right to regularisation and parity in service benefits. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the employees of the Academy are not civil servants, the regulations are non-statutory, and contractual employees governed by the principle of master and servant cannot invoke writ jurisdiction. The court further held that the 2013 Act does not apply to the Academy's employees and that appointments cannot be made retrospectively. The key principle laid down is that contractual employees of statutory bodies lacking statutory service rules have no vested right to regularisation or retrospective appointment, and parity in salary cannot be claimed across different provincial institutions with varying financial resources.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of the Sindh Judicial Academy are civil servants capable of invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 apply to the employees of the Sindh Judicial Academy?
  • Can contract employees claim a vested right to the regularisation of their services with retrospective effect?
  • Whether employees of a provincial judicial academy can claim salary parity with the staff of the Federal Judicial Academy and other provincial academies?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharatullah Khan vs Station House Officer, 'IV Section Latifabad, Unit No.6, Hyderabad and others2018 P Cr. L J 40 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-09
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peaceregistration of FIRC-class reportfinality of orderssuccessive applicationscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 22-A and B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought the registration of an FIR regarding allegations of forgery, despite a previous FIR on the same subject having been disposed of as 'C' class by a Magistrate, an order the petitioner failed to challenge. The core legal question was whether a second application under Section 22-A and B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable when a prior application on the same grievance had already been adjudicated and the resulting investigation/proceedings had attained finality. The Court held that the petition was incompetent and not maintainable. It reasoned that while the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace has jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR, this power cannot be invoked repeatedly for the same grievance once the initial process has been exhausted. The Court established that a petitioner cannot use Section 22-A and B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to circumvent the finality of a Magistrate's order or to address alleged defects in investigation, for which other legal remedies are provided.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second application under Section 22-A and B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 maintainable when a prior application on the same grievance has already been adjudicated?
  • Can a petitioner invoke the jurisdiction of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to challenge an investigation report that has already attained finality?
  • Does the failure to challenge a Magistrate's order disposing of an FIR as 'C' class preclude the complainant from filing a fresh application under Section 22-A and B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the same grievance?
  Read full judgment →
• Barbara Helena Philomina through attorney Debbie vs Marina Caroline2019 PLD Sindh 330, 2018 SHC 1071 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-18Read full judgment →
• Baqar Shah vs The State2018 YLR 1422 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-22
  criminal appealmurder convictionreasonable doubtocular evidencecontradictory testimonyacquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given substantial contradictions in the ocular evidence, the shifting motive, and the timeline of events. The court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies: the complainant drastically altered the version of the incident, the motive, and the location of the crime between the FIR and the trial. Furthermore, the medical evidence failed to corroborate the ocular version, and there were unexplained delays in recording witness statements. Relying on the principle that prosecution witnesses disbelieved regarding co-accused cannot be relied upon against the remaining accused without independent, unimpeachable corroboration, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release, emphasizing that the benefit of reasonable doubt must always be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of prosecution witnesses be relied upon against an accused if those same witnesses were disbelieved regarding the acquittal of co-accused, in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Does a significant delay in recording the statements of eye-witnesses under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the reliability of the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution's ocular evidence is fundamentally contradicted by the medical evidence regarding the time of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Ali and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan through Secretary and others2019 PLJ Karachi 28, 2018 PLD Sindh 636 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-04Read full judgment →
• Bahadar Khan and another vs Abdul Khaliq and 2 others2018 MLD 298 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-07Read full judgment →
• Badal and another vs The State and another2018 SHC 407 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-23
  murderretracted confessionocular testimonyrelated witnessesbenefit of doubtballistic matchcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 302, 114, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related eyewitness testimony, the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession, and the requirement of corroboratory circumstantial evidence for specific overt acts like aerial firing and instigation. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the first appellant based on prompt FIR lodging, consistent eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, a voluntary retracted confessional statement corroborated by forensic ballistics matching the recovered crime weapon, but found the case against the second appellant doubtful due to missing corroborative recovery of the alleged weapon and corresponding spent empties. The key legal principles laid down are that related witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely due to consanguinity in the absence of enmity, and that a retracted judicial confession can form the basis of a conviction if found voluntary and corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted confessional statement be made the basis for a conviction under Pakistani law?
  • Does the mere relationship of prosecution eyewitnesses to the deceased render their testimony unreliable?
  • Whether the absence of corroborative physical recovery can create a reasonable doubt requiring the acquittal of an accused charged with instigation and aerial firing?
  • Is prompt lodging of a First Information Report effective in ruling out the possibility of substitution and false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar Jameel vs The State2018 SHC 609 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-07
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancespsychotropic substancesDiazepamfresh grounds for bailtrial delaychemical examination report
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the smuggling of Diazepam tablets, charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The applicant contended that the recovered substance was a registered medicine containing only 1-2% narcotic content, arguing it did not fall under the prohibition of the Act. The court noted that the applicant's previous bail applications had been dismissed on merits, with the court having previously determined that Diazepam constitutes a psychotropic substance under the Act. The court held that once a bail application is declined on merit, a contrary view cannot be taken absent fresh grounds. The court emphasized that the applicant failed to substantiate claims of false implication or that the substance fell under legal exceptions. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, reiterating that the determination of whether the substance's narcotic weight warrants the charges is a matter for trial. The court directed the trial court to expedite the recording of evidence within two months, granting the applicant liberty to file a fresh bail application thereafter if warranted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bail application be granted when the applicant has previously had a bail application dismissed on merits without presenting new grounds?
  • Does the possession of Diazepam tablets constitute an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the determination of whether a substance qualifies as a narcotic based on its chemical composition a matter for the bail stage or the trial stage?
  • What is the appropriate remedy when a trial court fails to comply with a High Court direction to conclude evidence within a stipulated period?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ur Rahman vs Rashid Ahmed (Late) through L.Rs. and others2018 CLC 1524 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ayub Raza vs M/s Bank Al-Falah Limited2018 SHC 1214 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-06
  ex-parte decreeservice of summonsfinancial institutions recoverysetting aside decreebank finance facilitycorrect address disclosurecost of funds
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order of the Banking Court dismissing an application under Section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, for setting aside an ex-parte decree. The core legal questions involve whether a plaintiff bank can deliberately withhold a defendant's known updated address to obtain an ex-parte decree, and whether proper service was effected in terms of Section 9(5) of the Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that a bank, being a single legal entity, is bound by knowledge acquired by any of its departments and must disclose a defendant's latest address; furthermore, mandatory requirements for service of summons under Section 9(5) were not met. The court ruled that an ex-parte decree passed without proper service and due to deliberate withholding of a correct address must be set aside under Section 12 of the Ordinance, and clarified that the merits of the case cannot be evaluated during such an application. The appeal was consequently allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a financial institution is legally bound to disclose a defendant's latest known address in a recovery suit despite different departments maintaining separate records?
  • Does the failure to issue summons at the defendant's correct and latest address vitiate the service under Section 9(5) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can the merits of a case or admissions by a defendant be considered while deciding an application under Section 12 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • From which date should the cost of funds be granted under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah Khan Chandio vs Federation of Pakistan and another2019 PLC (C.S) 1157, 2018 SHC 422 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-26
  Police Service of Pakistanantedated seniorityencadrementregular promotionacting chargecivil servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to issue a notification for the petitioner's regular promotion to BPS-19 in the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) with effect from the date his junior was promoted. The core legal question was whether a provincial police officer encadered in the PSP is entitled to retrospective or antedated seniority and regular promotion from the date of the occurrence of a vacancy or from the date of actual encadrement following the pronouncement of the Supreme Court. The court held that, in light of the Supreme Court's binding judgments, appointments and encadrements of provincial police officers into the PSP are prospective in nature, and seniority must be reckoned strictly from the date of the notification of encadrement rather than the date of vacancy or retrospective dates. Consequently, acting charge appointments do not confer a vested right to regular promotion, and the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether provincial police officers encadered in the Police Service of Pakistan are entitled to antedated seniority from the date of the occurrence of a vacancy?
  • Does an acting charge promotion in BPS-19 confer a vested right for regular promotion from the date of such temporary appointment?
  • How is seniority and encadrement of provincial police officers into the Police Service of Pakistan determined under the relevant rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Atif Hussain vs The Secretary Ministry of Textile Industry and other2019 PLC (C.S) 791, 2018 SHC 430 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-31
  contractual employmenttermination of serviceforgerymisconductinquiry proceedingscontractual obligationsservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his termination from a contractual position at the Pak-Korea Garments Technology Institute, alleging the order was unlawful. The core legal question was whether the respondent organization acted within its authority in terminating the petitioner's contract following allegations of fraud and forgery. The court found that the petitioner had been accused of forging a letter from the Ministry of Textile Industry to secure an illegal pay raise. An inquiry was conducted, providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard, during which the forgery was established. The court held that the termination was lawful, as the respondent followed the terms of the employment contract, specifically Clause 13, and the petitioner failed to rebut the evidence of misconduct. The court affirmed that contractual employees involved in acts of fraud and forgery, which constitute gross misconduct, are subject to termination. Furthermore, the court noted that the project itself had concluded, rendering the petitioner's continued employment moot. The petition was dismissed, as no illegality or malice was found in the respondent's actions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractual employee be terminated for misconduct involving forgery of official documents?
  • Is an employer required to provide a personal hearing before terminating a contract based on established findings of fraud?
  • Does the conclusion of a project justify the termination of contractual employees?
  • Can a court interfere with a termination order where the employer has followed the terms of the employment contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Association of Builders and Developers of Pakistan vs Province of Sindh and othersPTCL 2018 CL. 270, 2018 PTD 1487 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-23
  Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act 2011taxable serviceproperty developersconstruction servicesagreement to sellTransfer of Property Act 1882dominant intention testshow-cause noticesSindh Revenue Board
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions were filed in the High Court of Sindh by property builders, developers, and their association (ABAD) challenging show-cause notices and orders issued by the Sindh Revenue Board (SRB) seeking sales tax registration and recovery of tax under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011. The petitioners contended that their activity during construction and allotment under an agreement to sell constitutes a sale of immovable property rather than a provision of taxable services. The core legal questions pertained to the interpretation of tariff headings 9807.0000, 9814.3000, and 9824.0000, the relationship between the First and Second Schedules, and whether constructing units or developing land under an agreement to sell creates a taxable service provider-recipient relationship under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The High Court quashed the impugned notices and orders, holding that an agreement to sell creates no interest in immovable property, meaning construction activities prior to a registered sale deed do not constitute rendering services to the purchaser under the Act. The court established key principles regarding the reconciliation of overlapping tariff headings and the applicability of the dominant intention test to mixed contracts.

  Questions settled

  • How are overlapping descriptions between the First Schedule and Second Schedule of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 to be reconciled?
  • Does the construction of a building by a developer under an agreement to sell constitute a taxable service provided to the purchaser prior to the execution of a registered sale deed?
  • Does a contract for the sale of immovable property create any interest or right in the property that would bring the activity within the definition of economic activity under sales tax law?
  • When can the dominant intention test be applied to determine whether a mixed or multi-dimensional contract constitutes a provision of construction services under tariff heading 9824.0000?
  Read full judgment →
• Association Building & Developer of Pakistan. vs Province of Sindh & Others.PTCL 2018 CL. 270 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-23Read full judgment →
• Associated Textile Consultants (Pvt.) Ltd. and Others_ In the matter of vs Not2018 CLD 716 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-22Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah and others vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-14
  police encounterbenefit of doubtcontradictions in evidenceanti-terrorismillicit weaponscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the common judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following an alleged police encounter and subsequent recoveries of weapons and explosives. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the reliability of police testimony marked by material contradictions, and the effect of failing to produce crucial medical and expert witnesses. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charges due to significant contradictions among witnesses, lack of independent public witnesses in a populated area, unexplained delays and ambiguities in weapon and explosive recoveries, and the withholding of key medical evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants on the basis of benefit of the doubt, laying down the principle that the prosecution must prove its case without relying solely on the heinousness of the offence and that material discrepancies and missing independent corroboration vitiate conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's failure to produce the medical officer who examined the injured accused creates a fatal dent in the prosecution case?
  • Does the absence of independent public witnesses from a populated locality during an alleged encounter render the arrest and recovery doubtful?
  • Whether material contradictions between the testimony of the complainant and the investigating officer are sufficient to discard the prosecution case?
  • Is mere heinousness of the offence sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited vs DCD Services Limited and 3 others2018 CLD 799 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-11
  leave to defendrecovery suitstatement of accountscertified copyBankers' Books Evidence ActElectronic Transactions Ordinancespecial law versus general lawFinancial Institutions Recovery of Finances Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil matter arising from two applications filed by the defendants seeking leave to defend a recovery suit instituted by the plaintiff bank under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (F.I.O., 2001). The core legal question revolved around whether the bank's failure to annex a properly certified statement of accounts—as mandated by section 9(2) of the F.I.O., 2001 read with section 2(8) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891—could be cured by invoking the provisions of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, or if it warranted the grant of unconditional leave to defend. The Sindh High Court held that the special provisions of the F.I.O., 2001 prevail over general laws, and the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 does not dispense with the mandatory requirement of certification of bank statements under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff's failure to submit a properly certified statement of account established a substantial question of law and fact, entitling the defendants to unconditional leave to defend the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a financial institution to annex a properly certified statement of account with a recovery suit under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 entitle the defendant to unconditional leave to defend?
  • Do the provisions of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 dispense with the mandatory requirement of certification of bank statements under section 2(8) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 read with section 9(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 override general enactments in the event of an inconsistency by virtue of its non-obstante clause under section 4?
  • Are the requirements of attestation and certification under banking and evidence laws distinct legal concepts with different implications?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Seemab Sindhu vs Administrator Pakistan Defence Officers Housing2019 MLD 1295, 2018 SHC 928 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-10Read full judgment →
• Asif Khan vs The State2018 YLR 661 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-08
  anti-terrorismexplosive substancesrecovery of hand grenadebenefit of the doubtcontradictory evidencepolice encounteracquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The captioned appeals under section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 challenge the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under section 4 and section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act 1908, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of hand grenades and the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, given various procedural discrepancies and evidentiary gaps. The Sindh High Court held that material contradictions in police depositions, overwriting on the arrest memo, absence of independent witnesses despite a populated area, lack of initial descriptions of the explosives in the FIR or recovery memo, and the fact that the recovered items lacked detonators created serious doubt regarding the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, laying down the principle that irreconcilable discrepancies in recovery evidence and failure to associate independent witnesses must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between police depositions and recovery memos are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a thickly populated area affect the credibility of a police recovery?
  • Whether the failure to record identifying marks of recovered explosive devices in the initial FIR and recovery memo renders the recovery doubtful?
  • Can a conviction under the Explosive Substance Act 1908 be sustained when the recovered items are found to be without detonators and subject to irreconcilable discrepancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Hussain vs The Federation of Pakistan & others2020 PLC (C.S.) 204, 2018 SHC 575 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-15
  quo-warrantoconstitutional petitionpublic serviceservice regulationspolicy decisiondepartmental promotionstatutory authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan challenging the appointment of private respondents as Electricians (onboard ship) (BS-15) by the Port Qasim Authority (PQA), alleging violations of the Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations 2011 (PQAESR-2011). The core legal question was whether the PQA Board and competent authority could relax service rules to fill vacant posts through departmental promotion instead of direct recruitment, and whether such policy decisions warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that the petition in the nature of quo-warranto was maintainable; however, on merits, the PQA Board acted within its statutory powers under Section 50 of the Port Qasim Authority Act 1973 and relevant regulations to fill the vacancies through departmental candidates. The Court laid down the principle that courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in the policy-making and administrative domain of the executive regarding recruitment criteria and relaxation of rules in public sector organizations, absent mala fides or illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition in the nature of quo-warranto is maintainable against the appointment of persons holding public office in a statutory authority?
  • Can a statutory authority or board relax its service regulations to fill vacant posts through departmental promotion instead of direct recruitment?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere in the policy-making and administrative decisions of the executive regarding appointment criteria in public sector organizations?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Jatoi vs Station House Officer, Police Station Qasimabad, Hyderabad and 2 others2018 YLR 318 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-21Read full judgment →
• Asif Abbasi vs N.E.D University & others2018 SHC 602 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-05
  service lawconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionmaster and servantdisciplinary proceedingsstatutory bodynatural justicepublic sector university
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of an Assistant Professor from the N.E.D. University of Engineering & Technology. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted under the university's internal statutes rather than the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance 2000, and that the university failed to comply with prior court directions regarding reinstatement and inquiry procedures. The core legal question was whether the university's internal statutes could supersede the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance 2000 and whether the dismissal was valid given the procedural irregularities. The Court held that the petition was maintainable as the university is a statutory body performing public functions. It further held that the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance 2000 has an overriding effect on other laws, rendering the proceedings under the university's internal statutes illegal. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal order, directed the petitioner's immediate reinstatement, and ordered a fresh, impartial inquiry to be conducted in strict compliance with the law and previous court mandates.

  Questions settled

  • Is a public sector university a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance 2000 have an overriding effect over the internal disciplinary statutes of a public sector university?
  • Can disciplinary proceedings initiated against a university employee under internal statutes be sustained after the promulgation of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashraf and another vs The State2018 MLD 1685 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-21
  post-arrest bailfurther enquirydelayed FIRhonour killingfacilitation of murdertentative assessmentSection 161 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns two applicants seeking post-arrest bail for their alleged involvement in a murder case registered under sections 302, 311, 34, 342, 506/2, 120-A, and 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given that they were not named in the initial FIR, their names were disclosed by witnesses three days later, and the FIR itself was lodged with a 36-hour delay. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, determining that the case against them required further enquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the unexplained delay in naming the accused, combined with the fact that their alleged role was limited to facilitating the main accused by holding the deceased, raised sufficient doubt to warrant relief. The key principle laid down is that at the bail stage, the court must perform a tentative assessment rather than a deeper appreciation of evidence, and where the prosecution’s case relies on delayed witness statements that suggest consultation, the matter necessitates further enquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to name an accused in the FIR, coupled with a delayed disclosure in Section 161 statements, constitute grounds for further enquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused person charged only with facilitating a murder by holding the deceased entitled to bail pending trial?
  • To what extent can a court evaluate evidence during the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali Shaikh vs Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh Secretariat and others2018 SHC 662 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-27
  regularization of servicecontractual employeemaster and servantconstitutional petitioneligibility criteriascrutiny committeevested right
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought regularization of his service as a Director (Architect and Planner) in the Peoples Housing Cell, Government of Sindh, invoking the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, after his employment was terminated. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications for the post, whether the Act of 2013 applied to his specific contractual appointment, and whether he held a vested right to regularization. The Court held that the petition was meritless and dismissed it. It found that the petitioner failed to meet the mandatory educational and experience requirements stipulated in the initial advertisement. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Act of 2013 was inapplicable because the post was temporary, lacked proper budgetary allocation, and the petitioner’s performance was deemed unsatisfactory due to pending National Accountability Bureau references. The Court reaffirmed the principle that contractual employees governed by the 'Master and Servant' doctrine possess no vested right to regularization or reinstatement, and that appointments to BPS-17 and above require a competitive process, which was not followed in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contractual employee have a vested right to regularization of service under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013?
  • Can a court interfere with the findings of a Scrutiny Committee regarding the eligibility of a candidate for government service?
  • Is the principle of 'Master and Servant' applicable to the termination of a contract employee in government service?
  • Can a post in government service be regularized without adherence to recruitment rules and budgetary allocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State2018 MLD 129 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-08
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharas recoverydelay in chemical reportprivate mashirsfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Asghar Ali in Crime No.35/2016 registered under sections 9(c), 14, and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station ANF Hyderabad. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the facts and circumstances of the case, including the quantity of contraband and the nature of the evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the scale tilts in favor of the applicant for the grant of bail, noting the non-association of private witnesses despite prior information, delay in sending the sample for chemical examination, lack of previous criminal record, and continuous detention of over nine months without the necessity of further investigation. The key principle laid down is that where statutory conditions and surrounding circumstances like delayed chemical reports, absence of independent corroboration, and prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion exist, the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, justifying the release of the accused on bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of private mashirs despite prior spy information create a ground for further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether delay in sending a contraband sample for chemical examination makes a case fit for further probe under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can continuous detention of an accused for nine months without conclusion of trial form a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
  • Does the fact that all prosecution witnesses are police officials affect the likelihood of tampering with evidence while considering a bail plea?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Tanveer vs Sindh Industrial Trading Estates (Guarantee)2018 YLR 1206 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-05Read full judgment →
• Arshad Noor Khan vs Government of Sindh through Secretary Finance2020 PLC (C.S.) 360, 2018 SHC 655 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-25
  constitutional petitionleave encashmentpost-retirement benefitsrecovery of public amountup-gradation of postpremature increment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a retired District and Sessions Judge seeking the implementation of a Supreme Court judgment regarding financial benefits upon the up-gradation of his post and challenging the recovery of certain amounts from his leave encashment bill pursuant to an Office Memorandum issued by the Finance Department, Government of Sindh. The core legal question revolved around the legality of recovering alleged overpayments from a retired government employee's post-retirement benefits and the proper implementation of a policy decision regarding pre-mature increments on up-gradation. The Sindh High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Secretary Finance Department, Government of Sindh, to consider the petitioner's case afresh in accordance with the relevant law, rules, and regulations, keeping in view the Supreme Court judgment, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The key principle laid down is that matters involving disputed financial implications and recovery from retirement benefits pursuant to a policy instrument ought to be examined and decided afresh by the competent administrative authority after affording a hearing to the affected employee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government can recover alleged overpayments from the leave encashment bill of a retired judicial officer?
  • Can the High Court resolve disputed financial implications and conflicting claims regarding salary arrears in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether an Office Memorandum regulating financial benefits and arrears upon up-gradation can be applied to restrict payments prior to a specified date?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Noor Khan vs Government of Sindh through Home Secretary and others2018 SHC 480 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-09Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mehmood and another vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 549 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-21
  acquittalSection 249-A Cr.P.C.dishonoured chequecriminal revisiontrial on meritsprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by the trial court and the subsequent dismissal of a revision application by the Additional Sessions Judge. The applicants, charged under Sections 406, 420, and 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, contended that the ingredients of the offence under Section 489-F were absent because the cheque in question was not issued to the complainant, and that the complainant had executed an affidavit supporting their release. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to acquit the accused under Section 249-A when evidence was already being recorded. The High Court held that the trial court and the appellate court correctly exercised their discretion in dismissing the application. The Court affirmed that criminal matters should generally be decided on their merits after the full recording of prosecution evidence, the accused's statement, and final arguments, rather than through premature acquittal, especially when the complainant has already testified on oath supporting the prosecution's version.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the complainant has already testified on oath supporting the prosecution's case?
  • Is a criminal trial required to be concluded on merits after recording evidence and statements of the accused rather than being terminated prematurely?
  • Does the execution of an affidavit by a complainant regarding the release of an accused automatically entitle the accused to acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Arsalan vs The State2018 MLD 894 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-25
  extortionanti-terrorismsentence reductionfirst-time offendercriminal appealrehabilitationquantum of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction by an Anti-Terrorism Court, where the appellant was found guilty of extortion-related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The appellant challenged the conviction but subsequently did not press the appeal on merits, focusing instead on a plea for sentence reduction. The core legal question concerned the appropriateness of the seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence in light of the appellant's status as a first-time offender and his personal circumstances. The court, upon reviewing the evidence, found the conviction sound but exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence. The holding establishes that while courts generally adhere to prescribed sentencing norms, they may depart from them to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation, particularly when the accused is a first-time offender with no prior criminal record. The court reduced the sentence from seven years to five years, maintaining the fine, citing the need to allow the appellant a chance to reform and lead a law-abiding life.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence based on the appellant's status as a first-time offender?
  • Is a court permitted to depart from standard sentencing norms if it records specific reasons for doing so?
  • Does the failure to press an appeal on merits preclude the court from modifying the sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Aroma Travel Services (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director and 4 others vs Faisal2018 PLD Sindh 414 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-03Read full judgment →
• Aroma Travel Services (Pvt.) Ltd. & others vs Faisal Al Abdullah Al Faisal Al-2018 PLD Sindh 414, 2018 SHC 596 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-03Read full judgment →
• Ark Garment Industry through Chief Executive vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and another2018 CLC 155 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-20Read full judgment →
• Arham Khan & others vs Managing Director Karachi Water & Sewerage2018 SHC 1130 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
• Arbelo alias Papoo vs The State2018 YLR 120 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-21
  murderbenefit of the doubtsole eye-witnesshangingsuicideappellate jurisdictionacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Umerkot, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 308, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentenced to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment along with payment of Diyat for the murder of his wife by hanging. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant murdered the deceased or whether she had committed suicide, and whether the testimony of the sole, related eye-witness was confidence-inspiring. The Sindh High Court held that the testimony of the sole eye-witness suffered from unnatural conduct, major contradictions, and was untrustworthy, rendering the hearsay corroboration of other witnesses insufficient. The Court ruled that where the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and a single reasonable doubt arises regarding the occurrence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a sole eye-witness who is a close relative can be considered confidence-inspiring without natural corroboration of intervention?
  • Does a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on hearsay testimony and weak medical evidence indicating death by hanging?
  • Whether unnatural conduct of an alleged eye-witness in failing to rescue the victim renders the testimony untrustworthy?
  Read full judgment →
• Aqal Nawab S/O Ameer Nawab vs The State2018 SHC 960 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-07
  explosive substancesillegal armsalteration of convictionreduction of sentencesuspicious possessionanti-terrorismcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of an offence under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, specifically the intent to endanger life or property, or whether the evidence merely substantiates an offence under section 5 for suspicious possession. The Sindh High Court held that while mere possession of explosive substances and unlicensed arms was duly proven by the consistent testimony of police witnesses and recovery mashirs, the prosecution failed to establish the specific intent or the element of terror required under section 4 and the Anti-Terrorism Act. Consequently, the court altered the conviction from section 4 to section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and, taking into account mitigating circumstances, reduced the substantive sentences while maintaining the conviction and reduced sentence under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere possession of an explosive substance without proof of intent to endanger life or property falls under Section 4 or Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction from a graver section to a lesser section under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a separate appeal against acquittal?
  • Whether the absence of proof regarding the element of terror warrants the setting aside of a conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Shamim Jafri vs M/s. Gulf Air Company and another2018 PLJ Karachi 117 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-04Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali vs The State and 5 others2018 P Cr. L J 443 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-05
  transfer of casecross-casesconflicting judgmentsanti-terrorism courtfair trialends of justicesame occurrence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal transfer application seeking to move a Sessions case pending before an Additional District and Sessions Judge to an Anti-Terrorism Court. The applicant alleged that his son was abducted and murdered by police officials, leading to the registration of an FIR against them. Conversely, police claimed the deceased was a terrorist killed during an encounter, forming the basis of a separate FIR pending before an Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether these cross-cases, arising from the same incident but presenting conflicting versions, should be consolidated for trial in the same court to prevent inconsistent judgments. The Court held that to ensure the ends of justice and avoid conflicting verdicts, the Sessions case should be transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Court where the related case was already pending. The Court affirmed the established legal principle that when cross-cases present different versions of the same incident, they must be tried simultaneously by the same court to ensure a fair and consistent administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Should cross-cases presenting different versions of the same incident be tried by the same court?
  • Does an Anti-Terrorism Court have the jurisdiction to try non-scheduled offences when it is already trying a scheduled offence?
  • Can the High Court transfer a case to ensure the ends of justice and avoid conflicting judgments?
  • Is it permissible for an ordinary criminal court to take cognizance of an offence mentioned in the Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Ansar-ul-Haq & others vs Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation & others2018 SHC 695 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-18Read full judgment →
• Ansar Ali vs Altaf Ahmed and others2018 SHC 860 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-09Read full judgment →
• Anees Vayyani vs Mst. Zarina Vayani and 6 others2018 CLC 390 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-15Read full judgment →
• Ammaduddin vs the State2018 SHC 434 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-30
  extortionbhattaillegal armsbenefit of doubtanti-terrorismcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the consolidated judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 7(1)(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 for extortion and illegal arms possession. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt given multiple evidentiary infirmities, including the failure to recover the SIM cards used for extortion calls, lack of private witnesses for a public arrest, unexplained delay in sending the recovered weapon for forensic analysis, and the absence of forensic expert testimony. The Sindh High Court held that numerous glaring discrepancies and lacunas in the prosecution's evidence created serious, reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt. Applying the established principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right?
  • Is the failure to recover the SIM cards used in alleged extortion phone calls fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to associate private witnesses during an arrest and recovery conducted at a public place?
  • Does an unexplained delay in dispatching a recovered weapon for forensic analysis create doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad vs The State2018 MLD 1541 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-27
  illegal weaponsSindh Arms Actunlicensed pistolballistic reportcriminal appealreduction of sentenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine. The core legal question revolves around the legality and validity of the conviction based on the recovery of an unlicensed weapon and the reliability of the supporting prosecution evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent testimonies of witnesses that remained unchallenged during cross-examination, and that an acquittal or stoppage of proceedings in a connected robbery case does not automatically warrant acquittal in a separate firearms possession case. The court laid down the principle that each criminal case must be decided independently on its own merits and available evidence, and while upholding the conviction, the High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment and fine considering the appellant's young age and clean criminal record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal or stoppage of proceedings in a connected robbery case constitutes a valid ground for acquittal in a separate trial for illegal possession of a weapon?
  • Can unassailed testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of an unlicensed weapon sustain a conviction under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013?
  • Does a positive ballistic examination report of a recovered weapon corroborate the prosecution's case for illegal arms possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali and another vs The State2018 MLD 57 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-24
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtdelayed FIRappreciation of evidenceacquittalItlaf-e-Salahiyyat-e-Udwhostile witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellants for causing injuries under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the twenty-one-day delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of corroborative evidence, and inconsistencies between the FIR and the testimony provided at trial. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The court observed that the unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with significant improvements made by witnesses during trial regarding the weapons used, rendered the prosecution’s case unreliable. Furthermore, the medical evidence failed to substantiate the charge of Itlaf-e-Salahiyyat-e-Udw as defined under the law. Emphasizing that conviction must rest on unimpeachable evidence, the court reiterated that any reasonable doubt arising from the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned judgment, acquitted the appellants, and ordered their release, affirming that the rule of benefit of doubt is a fundamental principle of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an FIR render the prosecution's case unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when prosecution witnesses make material improvements to their testimony during trial?
  • Is the benefit of doubt applicable when medical evidence fails to support the specific charge of Itlaf-e-Salahiyyat-e-Udw?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to produce the alleged crime weapon during a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Jamil vs University of Karachi through Registrar and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 542 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-18
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitymaster and servantcontractual employeeforged degreetermination of serviceuniversity employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioner, a former contract employee of the University of Karachi, challenging his removal from service, the termination order, and seeking various writs including reinstatement and restraining the university from filling the post through a new recruitment process. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against a university governed by non-statutory service rules, the rights of a contract employee whose service is terminated on allegations of submitting a forged degree, and the applicability of the master-and-servant principle. The court held that the service rules and statutes of the University of Karachi framed under the University of Karachi Act, 1972 are non-statutory in nature, meaning constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked. Furthermore, the court held that a contractual employee has no vested right to regularisation or reinstatement, and the employment relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against the University of Karachi in service matters?
  • Does a contract employee have a vested right to seek reinstatement or regularisation of service?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to the employment contracts of university employees governed by non-statutory rules?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the submission of a forged degree be adjudicated in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Bashir vs Mst. Nosheen Fatima an another2018 MLD 574 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-08Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah vs 1ST Additional District and Sessions Judge and another2018 P Cr. L J 820 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-03
  surety forfeitureabsconding accusedproclaimed offenderbail bondcriminal miscellaneous applicationjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which imposed a penalty of 50% of the surety bond amount following the forfeiture of the applicant’s bond due to the abscondence of the accused. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s imposition of this penalty was excessive or legally flawed given the applicant's failure to produce the accused. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the impugned order was legally sound and did not warrant interference. The court reasoned that the applicant, as a surety, had a bounden duty to ensure the accused's presence, and having failed to do so despite sufficient latitude, the forfeiture was justified. Furthermore, the court observed that the trial court had already exercised leniency by reducing the penalty to 50% of the original bond amount. The judgment affirms the principle that where a surety fails to discharge the liability of producing an accused who subsequently becomes a proclaimed offender, the court’s decision to forfeit a portion of the bond amount is a valid exercise of judicial discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Is a surety liable for the forfeiture of a bond when the accused absconds and is declared a proclaimed offender?
  • Does a trial court have the discretion to reduce the penalty amount of a forfeited surety bond?
  • Can a surety challenge the quantum of a penalty imposed for the failure to produce an accused in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Aman Ellahi vs The Registrar of Trade Marks and another2018 SHC 394 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-12Read full judgment →
• Allahdino and others vs H.H. Shaikh Zaid Bin Sultan Al Nahyan and others2019 YLR 247, 2018 SHC 810 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-09Read full judgment →
• Allahdino alias Baboo vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. 716 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-17
  pauper accusedstate-funded defense counselright to fair trialdue processlegal aidcriminal courts practice and procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from criminal proceedings wherein the capability of a court-appointed counsel for a pauper accused was questioned, prompting the Sindh High Court to examine the mechanism for providing legal representation at State expense. The core legal question addressed is the proper procedure, authority, and standard for appointing and remunerating defense counsel for pauper accused persons to ensure constitutional guarantees of a fair trial and due process. The Court held that the appointment of defense counsel for indigent accused is an essential requirement under Articles 9 and 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and must be administered by the courts rather than the prosecution office to avoid prejudice. The key principles laid down include setting a comprehensive framework for District and Sessions Courts to maintain lists of consenting advocates, allowing accused persons to choose their counsel from such lists, establishing minimum fee standards per hearing, and ensuring prompt disbursement of legal fees through the Deputy Commissioner's office.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of defense counsel for a pauper accused falls within the domain of the court rather than the prosecution office?
  • Does the right to security of person and fair trial under the Constitution encompass the provision of competent legal representation at State expense for indigent accused?
  • What is the correct procedure and mechanism for maintaining a panel of willing advocates and fixing reasonable fees for representing pauper accused persons in criminal courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Jurio alias Jurio and 2 others vs The State2018 MLD 1661 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-19Read full judgment →
• Allah Dino vs The State2018 YLR 987 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-18
  criminal appealmurder convictiondelay in FIRbenefit of doubtocular evidenceprocedural lapseschemical analysis delayappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under sections 302 and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether alleged delays in lodging the FIR, recording witness statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and submitting chemical samples for analysis created sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that a delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal when adequately explained by the complainant's priority to save the victim. Furthermore, the Court established that minor procedural lapses in investigation and minor discrepancies in testimony, particularly when evidence is recorded years after the incident, do not automatically vitiate a conviction. The Court emphasized that evidence must be evaluated holistically, and that FIRs, while important, do not supersede oral testimony given under oath. The conviction was upheld based on consistent ocular evidence corroborated by medical and chemical reports.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically render the prosecution's case fatal?
  • Can minor procedural lapses in a police investigation vitiate a conviction if the prosecution's case is otherwise consistent?
  • Is an FIR considered substantive evidence that supersedes oral testimony given under oath?
  • Does a delay in sending blood-stained samples for chemical analysis necessarily create reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dino Khaskheli vs Mr. Zakir Mahmood, President, Habib Bank Limited, Karachi & others2019 PLC (C.S) 999, 2018 SHC 1174 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-10
  master and servantwrongful dismissaldamagesdomestic inquiryservice lawemployment contractcivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal challenged a judgment and decree dismissing the appellant's suit for damages following his dismissal from service by Habib Bank Limited. The appellant, initially seeking reinstatement, confined his arguments on appeal to claiming damages for wrongful dismissal. The core legal question was whether an employee under a 'master and servant' relationship could claim damages for wrongful dismissal without proving specific loss, and whether the court could interfere with the findings of a domestic inquiry. The Court held that the relationship between the parties was governed by the 'master and servant' doctrine, which precludes reinstatement as a remedy. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellant failed to substantiate his claim for damages, as he did not provide evidence of mental suffering or special damages. The Court affirmed that it cannot substitute its own findings for those of a domestic inquiry. The key principle laid down is that in a 'master and servant' relationship, an employee is not entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal unless they specifically plead and prove actual loss, and courts will not interfere with domestic disciplinary proceedings absent significant irregularity.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee governed by the 'master and servant' doctrine claim reinstatement in service?
  • Is an employee entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal without specific proof of actual loss or mental suffering?
  • Can a High Court substitute its own findings for the conclusions reached in a domestic disciplinary inquiry?
  • Does Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 grant a substantive right of action for wrongful dismissal in master-servant relationships?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dino and 2 others vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 200 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-31
  Anti-Terrorism ActCriminal Procedure CodeSection 342 statementSection 353 Cr.P.C.Fair trialRemandEvidence in absence of accusedConviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions concerned the legality of the trial court adopting prosecution evidence recorded in the absence of an accused after an amended charge was framed, and the validity of the accused's statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. when not all incriminating evidence was put to them. The High Court held that the trial court’s procedure was fundamentally flawed. It ruled that Section 353 Cr.P.C. is mandatory, requiring evidence to be recorded in the presence of the accused; thus, adopting evidence recorded in the accused's absence is illegal. Furthermore, the court emphasized that all incriminating evidence, including that emerging from cross-examination, must be put to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. to allow for explanation. Failure to adhere to these mandatory procedural safeguards vitiates the trial. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and remanded the case for a fresh trial in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court adopt evidence recorded in the absence of an accused after an amended charge is framed?
  • Is the requirement under Section 353 Cr.P.C. to record evidence in the presence of the accused mandatory?
  • Must all incriminating evidence, including that from cross-examination, be put to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C.?
  • Does the failure to put all incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. invalidate a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad Sangrah and another vs The State2018 YLR 2645 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-31
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtmedical corroborationocular testimonycontradictionschance witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 302(b), 148, 149, 34, and 337-H(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related and chance eye-witnesses, the corroborative value of medical and forensic evidence, and the benefit of reasonable doubt arising from material contradictions in the prosecution case. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to a complete lack of medical corroboration, dishonest and inconsistent ocular testimony, tainted investigation, unproved motive, and unconvincing recoveries. The key principle laid down is that where ocular testimony suffers from glaring contradictions and is irreconcilable with medical and forensic evidence, and the investigation is tainted with mala fides, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt resulting in an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence corroborating or contradicting ocular testimony affect the reliability of eye-witnesses in a murder trial?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when eye-witness statements are recorded with an unexplained and inordinate delay?
  • Can an accused be convicted when the ballistic and forensic evidence stands in complete contradiction to the prosecution story?
  • What is the evidentiary consequence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 when a material eye-witness is withheld and not examined at the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux and another vs The State2018 MLD 534 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-03
  criminal appealmurderocular evidenceinterested witnesscommon intentionrecovery of weaponbenefit of doubtsifting grain from chaff
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of two appellants for murder under Section 302(b) and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the evidentiary value of related witnesses and the applicability of the "interested witness" doctrine. The High Court held that the conviction of the primary appellant, who was identified as the shooter, was supported by consistent ocular testimony and medical evidence, and that the recovery of the weapon was valid despite challenges under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. However, the court acquitted the second appellant, who was merely holding a torch, finding that his role lacked sufficient overt acts to establish common intention, thereby creating reasonable doubt. The judgment reaffirmed that mere relationship with the deceased does not render a witness unreliable, and that courts must "sift the grain from the chaff" to determine guilt in cases involving multiple accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere relationship between a prosecution witness and the deceased render the witness 'interested' and unreliable?
  • Is Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable when an accused leads the police to the recovery of a crime weapon?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a solitary witness if it is corroborated by medical evidence?
  • Is it necessary to prove a specific motive to secure a conviction for a capital offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Zahir Jafri Petitioner vs Chairman Federal Board of Revenue & another2018 SHC 594, 2019 PTD 1765 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad Brohi vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. & others2018 SHC 1164 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-03
  maintainabilitydismissal from servicedomestic inquiryfake security documentsdepartmental appealnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former employee of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL) challenging his dismissal from service and the recovery of 50% of the outstanding loan amount. The petitioner was charged with recommending 81 loan cases against fake security documents, causing a multi-million rupee loss to the bank. An inquiry was conducted, finding him guilty, which led to his dismissal under the ZTBL Officers Service (Efficiency & Discipline) Regulations 1975. The petitioner argued that the inquiry was flawed, security documents were not properly scrutinized, and he was subjected to discriminatory treatment. The High Court first affirmed that a writ petition against ZTBL is maintainable. On the merits, the Court held that the petitioner was provided a fair opportunity of hearing, the domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with the law, and no malice or violation of rules was shown. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the dismissal order and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited?
  • Can a major penalty of dismissal from service be sustained if the employee was provided a full opportunity of hearing and the charges of financial negligence were established through a domestic inquiry?
  • Does the High Court have the mandate to interfere with the findings of a domestic inquiry in the absence of any violation of statutory rules, regulations, or natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and another vs The State2018 YLR 360 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-25
  surety bond forfeitureabsconding accusedbail bondcriminal revisionmitigating circumstancesproclaimed offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application impugns an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing an application under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and forfeiting the surety bond furnished by the applicant for an accused who subsequently absconded during trial. The core legal question revolves around the liability of a surety when the accused jumps bail and whether the entire surety amount is liable to be forfeited in the absence of mitigating circumstances. The Sindh High Court held that a surety is under a strict legal obligation to ensure the attendance of the accused on each and every date of hearing, and upon the accused absconding, the entire surety bond becomes liable to forfeiture unless valid mitigating circumstances are shown. The court affirmed that the trial court committed no illegality or irregularity in confiscating the surety and dismissing the application, thereby upholding the forfeiture and dismissing the revision application.

  Questions settled

  • What is the liability of a surety when an accused person absconds after being released on bail?
  • Whether the entire surety amount becomes liable to forfeiture upon the breach of bail conditions by the accused in the absence of mitigating circumstances?
  • Is a trial court justified in dismissing an application under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the surety fails to produce the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul Abro and another vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 858 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-02
  fair trialdying declarationde novo trialframing of chargefailure of justicecriminal appealmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for murder. The core legal questions concern whether the FIR lodged by the deceased could be treated as a dying declaration and whether the trial court's procedural errors—specifically the framing of charges and the recording of evidence—vitiated the trial and denied the appellants a fair trial. The Court held that the FIR did not qualify as a dying declaration under Article 46(1) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, as the deceased was not under an expectation of death at the time of lodging it. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial was fundamentally flawed because crucial prosecution evidence was recorded in the absence of a valid charge, leading to a failure of justice and a violation of the constitutional right to a fair trial. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the case for a de novo trial to be concluded within six months, while maintaining the appellants' bail status.

  Questions settled

  • Does an FIR lodged by a victim who later dies from their injuries automatically qualify as a dying declaration?
  • Can a trial proceed where material prosecution evidence is recorded before a valid charge is framed against the accused?
  • Does the failure to frame a proper charge constitute a failure of justice requiring a de novo trial?
  • Is a trial conducted without a valid charge a violation of the constitutional right to a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar vs Province of Sindh and others2018 CLC 1999 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-20
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictiontitle disputeimmovable propertyalternate remedyclean hands doctrineconcealment of factspending civil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was filed seeking declarations and injunctions regarding an alleged encroachment on a plot of land measuring 10 guntas situated in Sector 22, KDA Scheme No. 33, Karachi, and to set aside a revised layout plan. The core legal questions involved whether disputed questions of title and property boundaries could be adjudicated within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, and whether a petitioner who simultaneously pursues civil suits and conceals material litigation history is entitled to discretionary and equitable relief. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that questions of title and immovable property disputes involving factual controversies cannot be resolved under writ jurisdiction, especially when alternate remedies via pending civil suits have been invoked and the petitioner has engaged in forum shopping and concealment of facts. The court laid down the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is not meant for deciding title disputes or substituting ordinary civil remedies, and litigants seeking equity must approach the court with clean hands without splitting claims or abusing legal processes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disputed questions of title and ownership of immovable property can be adjudicated in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when the petitioner has already filed and is actively pursuing civil suits involving the same subject matter and cause of action?
  • Does the failure to disclose pending civil litigation and the simultaneous pursuit of multiple remedies disentitle a party from seeking discretionary and equitable relief?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a layout plan and alleged land encroachments where the petitioner lacks a clear, undisputed legal right and requires the recording of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed Lund vs The State through Chairman National Accountability2018 YLR 491 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-14Read full judgment →
• Aleemuddin vs Balban Hameed and 2 others2018 YLR 41 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-18
  Illegal Dispossession Actcivil disputedemarcation of propertycriminal revisionland grabbingcognizance of complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order by the Sessions Judge, Malir, which dismissed a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, regarding a property dispute over a plot in Karachi. The applicant alleged illegal encroachment by the respondents, seeking restoration of possession and criminal prosecution. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly declined to take cognizance of the complaint, given the nature of the dispute and the absence of essential ingredients for an offence under the Act. The High Court held that the dismissal was proper, noting that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, involving demarcation issues between adjacent plots. Furthermore, the Court observed that the complaint lacked essential allegations, such as the use of force for dispossession and a specific date of dispossession, and that the applicant had previously filed a similar complaint that was dismissed. The Court affirmed that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, cannot be invoked to resolve civil disputes where the basic ingredients of criminal dispossession are absent and where the complainant has failed to establish possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be invoked to resolve a civil dispute regarding property demarcation?
  • Is a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 maintainable if it fails to allege the use of force for dispossession?
  • Can a complainant file a fresh complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 on the same facts after a previous complaint has been dismissed?
  • Does the pendency of an application for interim relief under Section 7(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 prevent a court from deciding on the maintainability of the main complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhlaque Ahmed Sohail vs Muhammad Yahya2018 CLC 523 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-16Read full judgment →
• Akber vs Province of Sindh & Others2019 PLJ Karachi 47, 2018 SHC 734 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-10Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Dero vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 1001 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-28
  transfer and postingterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional jurisdictionbar of jurisdictionService Tribunalcivil servantvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant, a Post Master General, challenging his transfer and posting orders issued by the Respondent Directorate General, Pakistan Post. The core legal question is whether a civil servant can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution in respect of transfer and posting matters, given the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Sindh High Court held that matters relating to transfer and posting form part of the terms and conditions of service, which fall within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution and the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973, thereby ousting the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The Court laid down the principle that civil servants have no vested right to a particular post or place of posting, that general transfers made in the exigency of service are valid, and that transfer matters cannot be agitated through a constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition filed by a civil servant against his transfer and posting orders?
  • Does the expression 'terms and conditions of service' under Article 212 of the Constitution include matters of transfer and posting?
  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim posting at a particular place or for a specific tenure?
  • Whether general transfer and posting orders issued in the exigency of service are open to challenge through a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Hussain vs The State2018 MLD 1164 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-27Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali Shah & 16 others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 1186 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-12
  constitutional petitionquo-warrantodeputationabsorptionrepatriationfederal investigation agencycivil servantout-of-cadre transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves a batch of constitutional petitions challenging the basic absorption of private respondents from various departments into the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The core legal question concerns whether civil servants or officials from other departments can be permanently absorbed into the FIA under Rules 15 and 16 of the FIA (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1975, without fulfilling competitive selection criteria and in light of pronouncements by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Sindh High Court held that Rules 15 and 16 do not permit permanent absorption or horizontal movement of officers into cadre posts without statutory backing or fulfilling required qualifications, and that deputationists possess no vested right to remain in an organization indefinitely. The court laid down the principle that appointment by transfer on deputation must be for a fixed term, does not equate to absorption, and that unauthorized absorptions must be undone by repatriating such officials to their parent departments pursuant to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can issue a writ of quo-warranto under Article 199 of the Constitution against officials holding public posts in a statutory body like the FIA?
  • Do Rules 15 and 16 of the FIA (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1975 empower the authorities to permanently absorb deputationists from other departments into the FIA?
  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to remain on a post indefinitely or claim permanent absorption without fulfilling prescribed qualifications and statutory procedures?
  • Whether an administrative authority can bypass competitive processes to effect horizontal movement and absorption of civil servants from non-cadre posts to cadre posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsanullah Lakho vs Province of Sindh & others2018 SHC 522 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Saeed and others vs Province of Sindh, through the Secretary, Education Department and two others2018 SHC 537 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Khan and 2 others vs The State2018 YLR 1515 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-26
  murderbenefit of the doubtocular and medical discrepancyunnatural conduct of eyewitnessescriminal appealacquittalcontradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the credibility of eyewitness accounts, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, and the existence of an alternative motive. The Sindh High Court held that the eyewitnesses were related and interested, their conduct was unnatural, and there was a major contradiction between their testimony—alleging a gunshot injury to the deceased—and the medical evidence, which showed no bullet wounds. Furthermore, unexplained delays in forensic testing, suspicious police recoveries, and a plausible alternative defence regarding a marital dispute created reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, and major discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence destroy the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a major contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries render the eyewitness accounts untrustworthy?
  • Whether the unnatural conduct of eyewitnesses in failing to seek immediate medical assistance for a severely injured relative creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Does a single reasonable doubt arising from the totality of evidence entitle an accused person to an acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and an alternative defense is corroborated by defence witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Agro Trade Private Limited and another vs Karachi Port Trust through Chairman and 2 others2018 CLC 1140 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-24Read full judgment →
• Agha Shoaib Abbas & 10 others vs Province of Sindh & others2018 SHC 1025 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-11Read full judgment →
• Agha Imtiaz, Ali Khan Babar and 2 others vs The Federation of Pakistan2018 CLC 1376 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-31Read full judgment →
• Agha Imtiaz Ali Khan Babar and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan2018 CLC 1376, 2018 CLD 80 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-31Read full judgment →
• Aftab Muhammad Khan vs Federation of Pakistan & others2019 PLC (C.S.) 1483, 2018 SHC 605 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-09
  service mattertransfer and postingjurisdiction of High Courtcivil servantterms and conditions of serviceService TribunalArticle 212
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a BPS-19 civil servant, challenged a notification transferring him from his position as Registrar of Trade Marks and appointing a BPS-18 officer in his place, alleging the transfer was illegal, discriminatory, and violated established tenure rules and Supreme Court precedents regarding 'Own Pay & Scale' (OPS) postings. During the proceedings, the respondents issued a new notification posting the BPS-18 officer to a position commensurate with his grade, effectively rendering the petitioner's primary grievance moot. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute concerning the transfer and posting of a civil servant. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, ruling that matters concerning the terms and conditions of service, including transfer and posting, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973, bars the jurisdiction of the High Court in service-related matters, even where allegations of mala fide or lack of jurisdiction are raised.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute regarding the transfer and posting of a civil servant?
  • Do matters relating to the transfer and posting of a civil servant fall within the definition of 'terms and conditions of service' under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters even if the impugned order is alleged to be mala fide or without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Advocate General Sindh vs Islamic Education Trust and others2019 CLC 781, 2018 SHC 855 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-07Read full judgment →
• Adeel Shaban Hirani vs The State2018 YLR 1865 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-20
  post-arrest baildishonoured chequehabitual offenderfraudabscondencecriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was filed by the accused, Adeel Shaban Hirani, seeking post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following the dismissal of his application by the trial court. The accused was charged under Sections 489-F, 420, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for issuing dishonoured cheques in connection with an investment agreement. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the allegations of habitual fraud and the issuance of cheques from a closed account. The court observed that the accused did not deny issuing the cheques or the underlying agreement. Furthermore, the record indicated the accused had absconded for a significant period following the FIR and was allegedly involved in similar fraudulent activities against multiple parties, as evidenced by external documentation. The court held that the accused was not entitled to bail, concluding that the circumstances demonstrated a pattern of deceitful conduct. The principle laid down is that where an accused is shown to be a habitual offender in issuing dishonoured cheques and has evaded arrest, the discretion to grant bail should not be exercised in their favour.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when they have issued cheques from a closed account and have a history of similar fraudulent conduct?
  • Does the act of absconding after the registration of an FIR impact the court's discretion in granting bail?
  • Can the court consider evidence of an accused's habitual criminal conduct when deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Add Oil (Private) Limited and Another: In the matter of vs N/A2018 CLD 15 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-13Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan vs The State2018 MLD 1007 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-29
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirystrangulationcriminal conspiracycontradictory medical reporttentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by Adam Khan seeking release in crime number 95/2015 registered under sections 302, 34, and 338-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ranipur. The core legal question concerns whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the applicant is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or if his case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry due to contradictions between the FIR and medical evidence regarding the cause of death and timing, lack of specific role assignment, the improbable nature of four men jointly strangulating one victim leaving only a single bruise, and the grant of bail to similarly-placed co-accused. The court laid down the principle that where prosecution allegations are prima facie doubtful and tentative assessment points towards further inquiry, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail as a matter of right under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the prosecution story regarding joint assault by multiple accused requires further inquiry?
  • Does a contradiction between the time of death in the FIR and the post-mortem report create grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused with similar roles have already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Achar vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department, Sindh2018 YLR 1479 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-17Read full judgment →
• Abuzer Ghaffari Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. through Honourary2018 MLD 1806 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Abuzer Ghaffari Cooperative Housing Society Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan2018 MLD 1806, 2018 SHC 438 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar vs First Women Bank Ltd. and others2019 CLD 549, 2020 P C T L R 1088, 2018 SHC 1023 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-05Read full judgment →
• Absar Ahmed Siddiqui through legal heirs vs M/s. Union Bank Limited and 42020 YLR 871, 2018 SHC 933 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-06Read full judgment →
• Abrar Ali Khichi vs Chairman Sindh Public Service Commission through Secretary and 2 others2018 PLC (C.S.) 52 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-31
  public service commissionrecruitment processwritten competitive examinationtransparency in public appointmentseligibility criteriaconstitutional petitionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the recruitment process initiated by the Sindh Public Service Commission for the post of Additional Prosecutor General (BPS-19). The petitioner, an experienced government prosecutor, contested his exclusion and the Commission's decision to bypass a written competitive examination in favor of direct interviews. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner met the eligibility criteria and whether the Commission could legally dispense with a written test. The Court held that the Commission is legally mandated to conduct a written competitive examination before proceeding to interviews. It reasoned that the definition of 'test' under the Sindh Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1990, and the principles of transparency, require that written examinations be prioritized. The Court clarified that while the Commission has discretion, it cannot exclude the primary requirement of a written test. Consequently, the Court directed the Commission to hold a written competitive examination for the advertised posts, ensuring transparency, and declared the petitioner eligible for consideration in the recruitment process.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Sindh Public Service Commission conduct recruitment for BPS-19 posts without a written competitive examination?
  • Does the definition of 'test' under the Sindh Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1990, allow the Commission to prioritize interviews over written examinations?
  • Is a written competitive examination a mandatory requirement for transparency in public sector recruitment?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Wali Khoso and others vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB)2018 P Cr. L J 1607 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-15
  NAB referencepost-arrest bailpre-arrest bailembezzlementfurther inquiryquashment of proceedingsmisuse of authoritytrial delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for the quashment of proceedings and the grant of pre-arrest and post-arrest bail arising from a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference alleging embezzlement of government funds through fictitious vouchers and bogus works in Town Committee Manjhand. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given the evidentiary material and the pace of the trial. The Court held that while the request for quashment of the reference was unsustainable, the petitioners were entitled to bail. The ratio establishes that where a case rests on documentary evidence already in the possession of the prosecution, and there is no risk of tampering, the continued incarceration of the accused is unjustified. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that inordinate, unexplained delays in trial proceedings and the failure to examine key stakeholders necessitate the grant of bail under the principle of 'further inquiry.' The Court underscored that bail is not a punishment, and the prosecution must establish reasonable grounds for detention, which were lacking in this instance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of documentary evidence by the prosecution, with no risk of tampering, justify the grant of bail in NAB cases?
  • Can bail be granted on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in the conclusion of a trial?
  • Is the failure to examine all interlinked stakeholders in a corruption case a valid ground for the court to determine that the case requires 'further inquiry'?
  • Does the mere allegation of embezzlement of a large sum of money constitute a sufficient ground to refuse bail when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim A. Jafry vs Karachi Port Trust through Chairman and 22018 YLR 768 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-14Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rab alias Ali Akber and others vs The State and others2018 P Cr. L J 1313 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-31
  anti-terrorism jurisdictionterrorismpersonal enmitybhattaextortionpublic panictarget killingcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged an order by the Anti-Terrorism Court declining an application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, regarding the transfer of a murder case to an ordinary court. The core legal question was whether the alleged murder, stemming from a blood feud and extortion dispute, constituted "terrorism" under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or if it was merely a personal vendetta. The court held that the case fell within the Anti-Terrorism Court's jurisdiction. It affirmed that the existence of personal enmity does not automatically exclude an offence from the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The ratio established that courts must assess the "motivation, object, design, or purpose" behind the act, alongside the manner of commission—specifically, whether the accused chased the victims across cities and executed the crime in a public place to create fear, insecurity, or panic. The court concluded that the gruesome, planned nature of the execution, intended to send a message, brought the offence within the mischief of the Act, regardless of the underlying personal dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of personal enmity or a blood feud automatically exclude an offence from the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What criteria should a court use to determine if an offence falls within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Is the 'design' and 'manner' of committing a crime relevant in determining whether an act constitutes terrorism?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Mushtaq vs Province of Sindh and Ors2018 SHC 614 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-13Read full judgment →