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.

• Abdullah Khan vs Province of Sindh and others2018 SHC 572 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Tauheed Khan vs The Federation of Pakistan & another2018 SHC 925 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs The State2018 SHC 732 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrapejactitation of marriagemarital disputecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Shakoor, who is accused of rape under Section 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the conflicting claims regarding the marital status of the alleged victim, Sania, and the existence of pending civil litigation concerning the validity of their alleged marriage. The Court observed that the victim had filed a suit for jactitation of marriage, and the applicant presented documentation supporting a prior marriage, creating a dispute over the marital relationship that required judicial determination by a Family Court. The Court held that because the allegation of rape was inextricably linked to the unresolved question of the parties' marital status, the case fell within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the applicant was admitted to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal allegation hinges on a disputed marital status currently under adjudication in civil proceedings, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pending suit for jactitation of marriage regarding the alleged victim constitute grounds for further inquiry in a rape case?
  • Can a case be brought within the purview of Section 497(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the criminal allegation depends on the adjudication of a civil claim?
  • Is the existence of conflicting documentation regarding a marital relationship sufficient to grant post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of rape?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State2018 YLR 1690 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryhatchet injuryItlaf-e-Salahiyat-e-Udwdelay in FIRcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Sattar, who was charged under sections 324, 336, 504, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing hatchet injuries to the complainant, PW Kelash. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry, considering the delay in the FIR, the alleged false implication, and the grant of bail to a co-accused. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant's case was distinguishable from the co-accused, who had only been attributed an ineffective firing role. The Court emphasized that the applicant was specifically named in the FIR with a direct role in causing a serious injury, classified as 'Itlaf-e-Salahiyat-e-Udw' (impairment of organs), which constitutes an offense under section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court established that delay in lodging an FIR is not, per se, a sufficient ground for bail if the accused is otherwise linked to the offense, and that bail proceedings do not permit a definitive determination of guilt or innocence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Is the grant of bail to a co-accused with a different role sufficient grounds for the grant of bail to the principal accused?
  • Can the court determine the innocence or guilt of an accused during the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs State2019 PLD Sindh 418, 2018 SHC 1210 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Rind and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and 9 others2018 CLC 472 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Fed. of Pakistan and Ors2018 SHC 450 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Mandokhel through Attorney and Executive Director vs Messrs Karachi Municipal Corporation through Administrator2018 PLD Sindh 122 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and another vs The State and 3 others2018 YLR 977 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sami Khan etc vs StatePLJ 2018 Cr.C. 819 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad and 3 others vs Habib Bank Limited through President and another2018 CLD 1203 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-02
  ex parte decreenullity of decreesuit against dead personbanking courtlegal heirsexecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order of the Banking Court dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question was whether a suit and subsequent decree passed against a party who was deceased at the time of the suit's institution are valid. The appellants, legal heirs of the deceased principal borrower, provided a death certificate proving the borrower died prior to the filing of the suit. The respondent bank failed to rebut this evidence. The Court held that a suit instituted against a dead person is a nullity, and consequently, any judgment or decree passed against such a person is void ab initio. The Court emphasized that a suit can only be maintained against a living person. Finding that the Banking Court failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the deceased's status and erroneously upheld the decree, the High Court set aside the impugned order and the ex parte decree against the deceased defendant, declaring the suit against him a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit filed against a person who is already deceased maintainable?
  • Does a decree passed against a person who was dead at the time of the institution of the suit constitute a nullity?
  • Is a court required to hold an inquiry when a party challenges a decree on the ground that the defendant was deceased at the time of the suit's filing?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The Chairman, Pakistan National Shipping Corporation &2018 SHC 1116 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and 3 others vs The State and another2018 MLD 663 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-01
  murder trialocular evidencemedical evidencecommon intentionsifting grain from chaffmotivecriminal appealballistic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of four appellants for the murder of the complainant's son under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony in the face of alleged discrepancies between medical and eyewitness accounts, the impact of the prosecution's failure to prove motive, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the specific roles of the accused. The Court upheld the conviction of the primary appellant, Abdul Rehman, finding his guilt established through consistent eyewitness testimony, recovery of the murder weapon, and a positive ballistic report. However, the Court acquitted the remaining three appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove their specific roles beyond a reasonable doubt, as no weapons were recovered from them and the alleged firing was unsupported by physical evidence. The Court affirmed the principle that a failure to prove motive does not invalidate the entire prosecution case if other evidence is credible, and emphasized the judicial duty to "sift grain from chaff" by separating reliable evidence from dubious portions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive in a murder case automatically result in the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a court rely on the testimony of eyewitnesses against one accused while rejecting it against co-accused in the same case?
  • Does a discrepancy between the estimated distance of firing provided by eyewitnesses and the medical evidence regarding blackening of the skin necessarily render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaque Umrani vs Province of SIndh and Ors2018 SHC 997 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State2018 YLR 1805 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-25
  post-arrest bailexplosive substancespointationrecovery by policeanti-terrorismtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Abdul Razzak, who was implicated in case FIR No. 169 of 2016 registered under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 at Police Station Bin Qasim, Karachi. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the recovery of dangerous explosive materials upon his pointation and positive forensic reports. The Sindh High Court held that prima facie, there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant committed the offence, noting that police officials are competent witnesses for recoveries made pursuant to an accused's pointation under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that possession of explosive substances is a grave offence undermining public order. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused pointing out the place of concealment and recovery of explosive substances is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Are police personnel competent witnesses for a recovery made pursuant to an accused's pointation without independent private witnesses?
  • Does possession of homemade explosive materials constitute a grave offence sufficient to disentitle an accused from bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq vs The State2018 MLD 552 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed Malah vs Federation of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 984 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26
  constructive res judicataservice terminationconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitySAS examinationreinstatementfinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging an order that denied his request for reinstatement as an Assistant Audit Officer. The petitioner, whose services were terminated in 2005 for failing the SAS examination, had previously litigated the termination up to the Supreme Court of Pakistan without success. He subsequently sought relief by comparing his case to a colleague, Sultan Mahmood, who received benefits under a prior court order. The respondents contended that the petitioner’s case was distinct because he had declined an offer of fresh appointment that the colleague had accepted. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could initiate a fresh round of litigation on the same cause of action after the matter had been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The court held that the petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner was attempting to re-litigate issues already settled. Applying the principle of constructive res judicata, the court dismissed the petition, affirming that a party cannot seek similar relief through subsequent legal proceedings once the matter has reached finality before the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner initiate fresh litigation on the same cause of action after the matter has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata bar a party from seeking relief in a subsequent petition when the underlying service dispute has already been decided?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when the petitioner seeks to re-agitate a service termination issue that has previously reached finality before the apex court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs The State2018 MLD 1821 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-01
  criminal appealrobberystolen propertybenefit of doubtsearch and seizuremandatory provisionsindependent mashirsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, whether mandatory provisions regarding search and seizure were complied with, and whether the alleged recovery of stolen property was legally sustainable. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious flaws, including a delayed FIR, material contradictions in the complainant's statements, lack of independent public mashirs for the arrest and recovery in violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and failure to link the recovered gold with the alleged stolen property. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the mandatory requirements of Section 103, Cr.P.C. must be strictly observed during recoveries from public places, and any reasonable doubt arising from defective investigations or missing links must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-association of independent public witnesses during an arrest and recovery from a public place vitiates the search under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt?
  • Whether the statement of a co-accused leading to the recovery of stolen property from a third party is admissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum Khaskheli vs Government of Sindh and another2018 SHC 1176 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs Province of Sindh through Home Secretary and 3 others2018 MLD 284 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Memon vs Shahid Umar2018 PLD Sindh 163 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Farooqui vs The Federal Ministry of Finance through Secretary Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others2018 CLC 758 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid & others vs Mrs.Nida Irfan & others2018 SHC 632 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Khan vs Federation of Province2018 SHC 1010 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed and others vs Tassaduq Ali and others2018 CLC 245 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Mughal vs Government of Sindh & others2018 SHC 867 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-16
  suspensiondisciplinary proceedingsconstitutional petitioncivil servantmisconductillegal appointments
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant working as an Education Officer (BS-19), challenged a suspension notification issued against him in connection with an inquiry into alleged illegal appointments in the Education and Literacy Department. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition against an order of suspension and whether suspension can be struck down on technical grounds while departmental inquiry proceedings are pending. The Sindh High Court held that suspension is not a punishment but a temporary intervening arrangement to prevent a delinquent official from influencing an inquiry, and constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to interfere with pending disciplinary proceedings where an adequate alternate remedy exists. The court established the principle that a civil servant cannot challenge a temporary suspension order as a void action when facing active charges of misconduct, and technical objections regarding suspension do not warrant judicial intervention to thwart an ongoing departmental inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a suspension order issued during pending disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is suspension considered a form of punishment or a temporary intervening arrangement under the law?
  • Can the High Court act as an executing court for the implementation of an administrative order of reinstatement passed by the Chief Minister?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Brohi vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2018 SHC 943 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim alias Patni and another vs The State2018 P Cr. L J 1358 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-02
  anti-terrorismunlicensed armsexplosive substancesbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalcontradictory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the appellants were apprehended following an encounter and search where unlicensed pistols and hand grenades were recovered. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, material contradictions in witness depositions, the absence of independent public witnesses, and discrepancies regarding weapon and explosive identification numbers. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting significant investigative flaws, material contradictions, and the fact that the appellants had already been acquitted in the main connected case. The court laid down the principle that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, and any reasonable doubt arising from contradictions and flawed investigation must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions in police testimonies regarding the recovery of arms and explosives are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of the accused?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to associate independent public witnesses from a populated crime scene affect the credibility of the investigation?
  • Whether discrepancies between initial arrest memos failing to record serial numbers and subsequent forensic reports identifying specific numbers undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Motiwala vs Ismail Abdul Shakoor Securities (Pvt.) Ltd. &2019 CLC 994, 2018 SHC 1159 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Solangi & others vs Government of Sindh & others2020 PLC (C.S.) 345, 2018 SHC 690 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-17
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityjurisdictionservice tribunalterms and conditions of servicesalary stoppagecivil servantsillegal appointments
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed as teaching and non-teaching staff in the Sindh Education Department, sought a declaration against an impugned notification issued by the School Education and Literacy Department that stopped their salaries following observations made by the Supreme Court regarding illegal appointments and ongoing National Accountability Bureau (NAB) references. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against actions taken in pursuance of Supreme Court directions and whether the Sindh Services Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the salaries of civil servants under Article 212. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was not maintainable under Article 199, as grievances against observations of the Supreme Court must be raised via review before the Supreme Court, and issues concerning salaries and terms and conditions of civil servants fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sindh Services Tribunal pursuant to the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable against a notification issued in consequence of observations and directions made by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Does the Sindh Services Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution to decide disputes relating to the non-payment of salaries of civil servants?
  • Whether matters concerning the withholding of a civil servant's salary form part of their terms and conditions of service so as to attract the constitutional bar under Article 212?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Ist Judicial Magistrate, Tando Adam and 3 others2018 P Cr. L J 1455 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-15
  exhumation of dead bodyDNA testingterritorial jurisdictionunidentified corpsecriminal investigationpolice dutymissing persons
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the exhumation of an unidentified dead body, previously buried by authorities, to conduct DNA testing for identification purposes, as the family suspected the deceased was their relative involved in a pending murder case. Lower courts had repeatedly dismissed the application, citing a lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that the lower courts failed to exercise their vested legal powers, noting that the identity of a deceased person is crucial for both criminal prosecution and the satisfaction of the victim's family. The Court clarified that Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers Magistrates to order the disinterment of corpses to discover the cause of death, which includes establishing identity. Consequently, the Court directed the Judicial Magistrate, Tando Adam, to supervise the exhumation and ordered the District Health Officer to constitute a medical board for DNA analysis. Furthermore, the Court issued mandatory directives to the Inspector General of Police to ensure proper preservation of DNA samples, maintenance of records for unidentified bodies, and the implementation of a public-facing digital mechanism for missing persons and unidentified remains.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the authority under Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order the exhumation of a body for DNA identification purposes?
  • Is the identity of an unknown dead body a material consideration for both criminal prosecution and the satisfaction of the deceased's family?
  • Are police officers legally obligated to preserve DNA samples when dealing with unidentified dead bodies?
  • Can a court decline an application for exhumation solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction when the statute provides the power to order such an examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari vs The State2018 YLR 376 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-16
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther statementprohibitory clausetentative assessmentcolumn 2 of challancriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Bari, who is charged with offences under sections 302, 506, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given that he was initially placed in column 2 of the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that co-accused had been granted bail. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application. The court held that the applicant was specifically attributed with the role of causing fatal knife injuries to the deceased, which was supported by medical evidence and witness statements. The court emphasized that the magistrate had rejected the police's initial recommendation to exclude the applicant from the charge sheet. Consequently, the court ruled that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was involved in the offence, bringing the case within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court affirmed that tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage does not support the applicant's release.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of an accused in column 2 of a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle the accused to bail?
  • Can a court grant bail when the accused is specifically attributed with a fatal role in a murder case supported by medical evidence?
  • Is the plea of previous enmity sufficient ground to grant bail in a non-bailable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• 5 Adoro alias Khursheed and another vs The State2018 MLD 614 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-04
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryattempt to commit murdermedico-legal reportdelay in FIRtentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application concerns the request for post-arrest bail by two applicants charged under sections 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii)/504, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the applicability of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court reasoned that the injuries were not on vital parts of the body, casting doubt on the intent to kill required for section 324, and noted that the injuries sustained were punishable by terms that rendered them bailable. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's evidence regarding the intent to commit murder is questionable due to the location of injuries and the overall circumstances, the case warrants further inquiry, entitling the accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of injuries on vital parts of the body negate the application of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the purpose of bail?
  • When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted when the injuries sustained are punishable by terms that are bailable under the schedule of offences?
  Read full judgment →
• (Engr) Muhammad Hashim Khan vs Chairman(SUPARCO) & Others2018 SHC 1060 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-23Read full judgment →
• (1) Zain Khan (2) Taj Roshan & another vs (1) Taj Roshan & another (2)2018 SHC 627 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-16Read full judgment →
• (1) Syeda Anisa Sughra Jafri (2) Mst. Nikhat Fatima (3) Mst. Itrat Fatima (4)2018 SHC 969 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-17Read full judgment →
• (1) Syed Jarrar Ahmed & others (2) Works Cooperative Housing Society vs Province of Sindh & others2018 SHC 922 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Sardar Muhammad Usman Almani (2) Syed Mureed Ali Shah & another2019 PLD Sindh 43, 2018 PLJ Karachi 138, 2018 SHC 814 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-05Read full judgment →
• (1) Rustam Ali & another (2) Jam Nafees Ali Khan (3) Muhammad Bux vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2019 PLJ Karachi 34, 2018 SHC 795 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Raza Muhammad Gorar & others (2) Syed Jalal Mehmood (3) Abdul2018 SHC 790 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-05Read full judgment →
• (1) Rauf (2) Akhtar Zaman vs The State2020 MLD 290, 2018 SHC 736 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-03
  robberyidentification paradebenefit of doubtIMEI identificationdelayed FIRocular evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses appeals filed by Rauf and Akhtar Zaman challenging their conviction and seven-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, originating from a robbery charge. The core legal questions involved whether the ocular evidence of natural witnesses could be relied upon despite significant material improvements, delay in lodging the FIR, lack of an identification parade, and failure to properly prove the identity and recovery of the robbed phone via IMEI. The Sindh High Court evaluated the evidence, noting substantial contradictions in the complainant's statements regarding whether the culprits were masked, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, omission of independent neighborhood witnesses, and failure to prove ownership or exact IMEI records of the allegedly recovered mobile phone. Finding that the ocular testimony lacked credibility and that direct evidence had failed, the Court reiterated that corroborative evidence alone cannot sustain a conviction. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and granted the benefit of the doubt to the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material improvements and self-contradictions by eye-witnesses regarding the identity of unmasked culprits render their testimony unreliable?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the recovery of a mobile phone via IMEI number if the prosecution fails to independently prove the victim's ownership and purchase details?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to hold a formal identification parade when suspects are initially unknown to the complainant?
  • Can corroborative piece of evidence alone form the basis of conviction when the primary ocular evidence fails to inspire confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) M/s.Rashid Silk Mills (2) M/s.Dairyland (Pvt.) Ltd. & another (3) M/s.Ismail2019 PLD Sindh 189, 2018 SHC 1035 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-12Read full judgment →
• (1) M/s. Marosh & 24 others (2) M/s. N.S. Brothers & 26 others (3) M/s.PTCL 2018 CL. 603, 2018 PTD 1787, 2018 SHC 647 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-23Read full judgment →
• (1) M/s. FGBC Limited & Another (2) M/s. Fateh Textile Mills & Others vs (1)2018 SHC 763 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-12Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Nasir & others (2) All Pakistan Postal DMO's Employee &2018 SHC 1038 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-15Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Asim Abbasi (2) Mujahid Hussain (3) Muhammad Ibrahim2018 SHC 584 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-30Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Arif Akhtar and others (2)Chairman and others vs The Federation of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 414 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-03
  Benazir Employees Stock Option SchemePrivatization Commissionconstitutional jurisdictionCouncil of Common Interestsstate owned entitiespublic moneyvested rightsdividends suspension
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by employees of Pakistan Petroleum Limited challenging the directives issued by the Privatization Commission suspending the disbursement of dividends and retirement payouts under the Benazir Employees Stock Option Scheme (BESOS). The core legal question was whether the suspension of the scheme and withholding of dividends were lawful, and whether the creation of the Pakistan Petroleum Employees Empowerment Trust and transfer of shares to employees violated constitutional provisions including Articles 154 and 173. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the creation of the trust and transfer of public shares to a selected group of employees without the approval of the Council of Common Interests were ultra vires the Constitution and caused loss to the public exchequer. The court ruled that the disbursement of public funds as additional benefits without statutory backing was impermissible, that policy matters do not warrant interference under Article 199, and that contractual obligations cannot be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that state-owned entity shares and public monies cannot be transferred to private employees as special benefits without strict compliance with constitutional mechanisms.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with policy matters regarding the suspension of state-owned entity employee stock schemes under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the transfer of shares of state-owned entities to a selected group of employees without approval from the Council of Common Interests violate the Constitution?
  • Can contractual obligations and trust-based monetary claims be enforced by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether the creation of employee empowerment trusts and distribution of dividends from public funds without proper statutory sanction constitute an unlawful use of public money?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Afzal Kousar (2) Hayat Khan & 4 others (3) Sabir Hussain &2019 PLC (C.S.) 1258, 2018 SHC 499 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-27
  constitutional petitionpublic employmentKarachi Port Trustrecruitment irregularitiesstatutory rules of servicewrit jurisdictionservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by candidates seeking appointment to the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector and Security Guard within the Karachi Port Trust (KPT). The petitioners alleged that the recruitment process initiated in 2012 was tainted by favoritism, nepotism, and the appointment of unqualified individuals, violating established recruitment rules. The core legal questions were whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked against the KPT and whether the petitioners were entitled to appointment despite the KPT's subsequent decision to scrap the entire recruitment process due to widespread irregularities. The Court held that the petitions were maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, as the KPT operates under statutory rules of service. However, on merits, the Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that because the entire recruitment process had been legally scrapped under government directives to address systemic irregularities, the petitioners had no valid claim to appointment. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is available against public authorities governed by statutory service rules, but such jurisdiction cannot compel appointments from a cancelled, irregular selection process.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the Karachi Port Trust regarding service matters?
  • Can a court compel the appointment of candidates from a recruitment process that has been officially scrapped due to irregularities?
  • Does an organization governed by statutory rules of service qualify as a 'person' for the purpose of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Mst. Jameela (2) Mst. Shushila Ramesh Kumar and others vs Province of Sindh and others2018 SHC 1118 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-13Read full judgment →
• (1) Mohsin Raza and Adnan Haider (2) Nazia vs The State2019 YLR 3, 2018 SHC 650 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-25
  kidnapping for ransombenefit of doubtinterested witnessjudicial confessionanti-terrorismreappraisal of evidencecriminal appealforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals filed by the appellants against their convictions for kidnapping for ransom and murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on circumstantial evidence, a confessional statement, and the testimony of allegedly interested witnesses. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the primary eyewitness testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration, the confessional statement was procedurally flawed and suspect, and forensic evidence was delayed and inconclusive. Furthermore, the court emphasized the failure to comply with mandatory search procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms the principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and that interested witness testimony requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to acquittal?
  • Is the testimony of an interested witness sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to comply with the mandatory search requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be based on a judicial confession if the accused was remanded to police custody after the confession was recorded?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif (2) Fayyaz Kaimkhani (3) Abdul2018 SHC 862, 2018 PLD Sindh 735, 2020 [M] C L R 1328 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-10Read full judgment →
• (1) Mazhar Hayat & 02 others (2) Muhammad Shahzad vs Province of Sindh& others2018 SHC 708 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-25
  constitutional petitionrecruitment policyfundamental rightsdiscriminatory conditionservice matterpolice recruitmenteducational qualification
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the rejection of their candidature for the post of Police Constable (BS-5) in the Sindh Police Department. Despite successfully passing the written test, physical test, and interview, the petitioners were disqualified because their Matriculation certificates were not issued by a Board of Secondary Education located in Sindh, a condition imposed by the recruitment policy. The core legal question was whether this regional qualification requirement was ultra vires the Constitution and the applicable recruitment rules. The Court held that while the government has the authority to frame recruitment policies, imposing a condition restricting educational qualifications to a specific region is discriminatory and violates fundamental rights, particularly Article 27 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination in public service appointments based on place of birth or residence. The Court emphasized that the right to education and the right to seek public employment cannot be curtailed by arbitrary regional restrictions. Consequently, the Court directed the Inspector General of Police, Sindh, to re-examine the petitioners' candidatures without the impugned discriminatory condition and process their appointments if they otherwise meet the merit criteria.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to hear a petition regarding the recruitment process of civil servants?
  • Can a government department impose a condition requiring educational certificates to be obtained only from institutions within a specific province for public service recruitment?
  • Does the imposition of a regional qualification requirement for government employment violate the constitutional prohibition against discrimination?
  • Is a petition seeking appointment to a government post barred by Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Major Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas (2) Mansoor Pasha vs Federation of Pakistan and others2020 PLC (C.S.) 67, 2018 SHC 550 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-12
  contractual employmentmaster and servantmaintainability of constitutional petitionnon-statutory rulesNADRAtermination of servicewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the termination of the petitioners' employment by the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA). The core legal questions involved whether the NADRA Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002 are statutory rules and whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable for service grievances of contractual employees of a statutory body governed by non-statutory rules. The Sindh High Court held that the NADRA service regulations are non-statutory rules framed for internal control, and consequently, contractual employees governed by them cannot invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, as their employment is regulated by the principle of 'Master and Servant' and they have no vested right to regularisation or reinstatement. The key principle laid down is that where a statutory body lacks statutory service rules, writ petitions by its employees for service grievances are not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Database and Registration Authority Employees (Service) Regulations, 2002 are statutory rules of service?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan be maintained by an employee of a statutory body having non-statutory rules of service?
  • Do contractual employees of a statutory organization have a vested right to seek regularisation or reinstatement upon termination?
  • Does the principle of 'Master and Servant' apply to the service disputes of contractual employees of NADRA?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Lal Badshah (2) Fida Muhammad Khan vs (1) The Chairman and one2019 PLC (C.S.) 1231, 2018 SHC 475 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-21
  pensionary benefitscost of living allowanceconstitutional petitiondiscriminatory treatmentArticle 25Karachi Port Trustservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by retired employees of the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) seeking the inclusion of a 7% Cost of Living Allowance (CLA) in their pensionable emoluments. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners were entitled to this inclusion based on relevant Finance Division Office Memorandums, and whether the denial of this benefit to the petitioners, while granting it to other similarly situated employees, constituted discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the petitioners, having met the requisite criteria—specifically, receiving the CLA at the time of retirement and not having availed the benefits of the Revised Pay Scales 2001—were entitled to the relief sought. The Court established that denying pensionary benefits to a specific class of retired employees while granting them to others similarly placed is discriminatory and violates the constitutional guarantee of equality. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned action illegal and remanded the matter to the KPT authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Are retired employees of the Karachi Port Trust entitled to the inclusion of a 7% Cost of Living Allowance in their pensionable emoluments if they meet the specified criteria?
  • Does the denial of pensionary benefits to a specific class of retired employees, while granting them to others similarly placed, violate Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 against a public statutory entity like the Karachi Port Trust?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) K. Electric Limited (2) Syed Irtaza Raza Naqvi vs Registrar of Trade Union2018 SHC 419 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-15
  trans-provincial establishmenttrade union registrationres judicatalocus standiconstitutional jurisdictionindustrial relationscollective bargaining agent
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the registration of the Respondent No. 2 Trade Union by the Registrar of Trade Unions (NIRC), arguing that the Petitioner (K-Electric Limited) is not a 'trans-provincial' establishment, the Registrar lacked jurisdiction, and the registration process violated constitutional and statutory requirements. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, whether the Petitioner constitutes a 'trans-provincial' establishment under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and the validity of the Registrar's actions. The Court held that the Petitioner failed to establish itself as an 'aggrieved party' with locus standi to challenge the registration. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Petitioner is a 'trans-provincial' establishment operating in both Sindh and Baluchistan, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the issues raised were already settled by previous judgments, rendering the current petition barred by the doctrine of res judicata and lacking merit.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer challenge the registration of a trade union under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does an establishment operating in more than one province qualify as a 'trans-provincial' establishment under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Is the Registrar of Trade Unions required to consult the Chief Justice of Pakistan when performing registration functions under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Does the doctrine of res judicata apply when the legal issues raised in a petition have been previously adjudicated by competent courts?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Jam Javed Ahmed Khan Dahar (2) Hussain Bux and another (3)2018 SHC 467 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ahad vs The State2018 SHC 560 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-01
  explosive substancesillicit armsbenefit of doubtfalse implicationsafe custody of case propertypolice witnessescriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal appeals filed by Abdul Ahad against his convictions and sentences under Section 7(ff) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, arising from allegations of possessing explosive substances and an illicit firearm. The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the reliability of police witness testimonies, and the validity of the defense's plea of false implication due to a prior dispute involving the illegal detention of the appellant's brother. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions, discrepancies in evidence, failure to associate independent witnesses from a populated area, and gaps in the safe custody and transmission of the recovered material. Laying down key principles, the court reiterated that if an element of reasonable doubt exists regarding the guilt of an accused, the benefit must be extended as a matter of right rather than grace, and police testimonies lacking reliability cannot sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contradictions among police witnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of an accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when the prosecution fails to prove safe custody and transmission of recovered case property?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials when no independent witnesses are associated despite availability?
  • Does a substantiated defense plea of false implication due to a prior police dispute discredit the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Ghulam Ali & others (2) Shahid Ali Bhutto & others vs Government of Sindh and others2018 SHC 675 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-08Read full judgment →
• (1) Capt. Abrar Arif (2) Capt. Hamid Khan Jadoon vs The Secretary2018 SHC 905 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Bushra Jabeen and others (2) Arshad Fawad and others (3) Faraz2018 MLD 2007, 2018 SHC 945 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-03
  private schoolsfee enhancementfundamental rightsArticle 18educational institutions regulationright to educationper incuriam
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by a larger bench of the Sindh High Court addresses constitutional petitions filed by students through their parents challenging the exorbitant, unilateral annual increase of tuition fees by private educational institutions in violation of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 2001 and the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2005. The core legal questions involve whether statutory provisions and rules placing an upper cap of 5% on annual fee increases and requiring government approval for fee structures violate the fundamental right to freedom of trade and business under Article 18 of the Constitution, and whether a previous divisional bench judgment declaring Rule 7(3) ultra vires was correct. The court held that the right under Article 18 is not absolute and is subject to lawful regulations and reasonable restrictions. It declared that Section 6 of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 2001 and Rule 7 of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2005 are intra vires the Constitution, overruled the contrary divisional bench decision as per incuriam, and held that annual fee enhancements exceeding 5% without prior approval are illegal, directing private schools to refund or adjust the excess amounts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right to carry on a trade, business, or profession under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is absolute or subject to reasonable restrictions and regulations?
  • Are Section 6 of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 2001 and Rule 7 of the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2005 intra vires the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether private educational institutions can increase their annual tuition fees beyond the 5% cap without the approval of the competent registering authority?
  • Does a judgment passed in disregard of binding precedents and existing statutory rules qualify as per incuriam?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Bahadur Ali & others (2) Syed Kazim Ali Shah (3) Munawar Ali Wasan vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2018 SHC 792 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Azizullah Khan Afridi (2) Muhammad Asif Khan (3) Abdul Aziz vs (_b1f2b0862019 CLC 170, 2019 [M] C.L.R. 1631, 2018 SHC 586 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-29Read full judgment →
• (1) Allana Mousa & 163 others (2) Sherbaz Khan Rind and 13 others (3)2018 SHC 702 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-23Read full judgment →
• (1) Abdul Qayoom Solangi (2) Muhammad Shafi Khaskheli vs (1) Province2018 SHC 426 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-25
  surplus employeeabsorptioncivil servantcadrerepatriationconstitutional petitiondefunct organization
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged an order of repatriation and cancellation of absorption issued against the petitioner, who was originally appointed in the defunct Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization (SASO) and subsequently absorbed in the Excise and Taxation Department under Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner's initial appointment was as a Junior Clerk (BPS-5) or Assistant (BPS-11), whether the absorption complied with Rule 9-A and the parameters set by the Supreme Court regarding surplus employees and civil servant status, and whether non-civil servants could be absorbed into a provincial cadre. The court held that the departmental record was disputed regarding the initial appointment and that non-civil servants from defunct autonomous bodies could not be absorbed into a regular departmental cadre in violation of established legal parameters. The court disposed of the petitions, directing the competent authority to determine the initial appointment status and pass an appropriate order in light of Rule 9-A and binding Supreme Court precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Can a non-civil servant from a defunct autonomous body be absorbed into a regular government department cadre under Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1974?
  • What are the parameters for appointing a surplus employee by transfer under Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1974?
  • Whether an employee's disputed initial appointment and designation require factual determination by the competent authority before regular absorption can be sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Baloch vs Parka SH and 2 others2017 YLR 888 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-08
  appeal against acquittalFederal Shariat Court jurisdictionOffences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinancespecial law versus general lawmaintainability of appealstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged an order of acquittal passed by the trial court under Sections 347, 504, 506(2), 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question for determination was whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 is maintainable before the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court. The Sindh High Court held that appeals against convictions or acquittals in cases tried under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 lie exclusively before the Federal Shariat Court pursuant to Section 24 of the Ordinance and Article 203DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principle laid down is that special laws governing hudood offences and their second provisos oust the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, ensuring that all related appeals regarding both the special law and associated penal provisions are adjudicated by the Federal Shariat Court to avoid conflicting judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 lies before the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court?
  • Does Section 24 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 exclude the application of Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the forum of appeal?
  • Whether the Federal Shariat Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases tried under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 including connected offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Khan through Superintendent Central PrisonI, Sukkur vs The State2017 YLR 1304 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-30Read full judgment →
• Zohaib Shakoor vs Mahwish Pirzada and others2017 SHC 184 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-06Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 939 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-21
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaydelay in trialright to fair trialmurderhardship bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, primarily on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question was whether an accused is entitled to bail on the statutory ground of inordinate delay in trial when the delay is not attributable to him and the trial has not concluded after four years of incarceration. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant made out a case for bail due to statutory delay, emphasizing that a timely and fair trial is a fundamental right and keeping an accused incarcerated indefinitely without trial conclusion violates the administration of justice. The court laid down the principle that inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial, not caused by the accused, brings the case within the beneficial ambit of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling the accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay when the trial has not concluded after four years of incarceration?
  • Does inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial, not attributable to the accused, amount to an abuse of the process of law?
  • Can an accused be deprived of the right to a timely disposal of a trial without plausible justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs The State2017 MLD 1076 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-23
  pre-arrest bailgas thefttampering with gas pipelinesprohibitory clausealternative punishmentdouble jeopardycriminal miscellaneous
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant/accused Zahir Shah seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 15 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, for allegedly tampering with a gas service line to steal gas at a hotel owned by him. The core legal questions involved whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the accused was entitled to bail as of right on the ground that the offence carried a punishment of fine alongside mandatory minimum rigorous imprisonment. The Sindh High Court held that since Section 15 prescribes a mandatory minimum rigorous imprisonment alongside a fine, rather than an alternative sentence of fine alone, the principle of bail as of right does not apply. Furthermore, the court held that gas theft constitutes a serious offence against society, and finding no malice or ulterior motive in the police or complainant's actions, dismissed the pre-arrest bail application and recalled the interim bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail as of right when an offence is punishable with imprisonment as well as a fine?
  • Does the offence under Section 15 of the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted in the absence of established malice or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or police?
  • Is gas theft considered an offence against society as a whole while assessing the concession of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Younus---Appellant in the matter of vs Mrs. Khair UN Nisa2017 PLD Sindh 555 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-05Read full judgment →
• Zafar Mahmood Khan vs Muhammad Ali Khan and another2017 MLD 1727 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-13Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology, Karachi through Registrar and 2 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 1376 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-08
  vice-chancellorregistraruniversity senateforced leavesuspensionstatutory dutieswrit jurisdictionremoval of difficulties
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the decisions of the 26th meeting of the Senate of the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology, Karachi, which sent the Vice-Chancellor on forced leave and suspended the Registrar, as well as the notice convening that meeting. The core legal questions concerned whether the Chancellor and the Senate could lawfully convene a meeting without strict adherence to internal notice rules and whether they possessed the authority to temporarily suspend or send administrative heads on leave amidst allegations of mismanagement and refusal to convene mandatory meetings. The Sindh High Court held that the Chancellor acted lawfully under the Federal University of Arts, Sciences and Technology Ordinance, 2002, to break a deadlock and prevent the Senate from becoming dysfunctional after the petitioners willfully failed to hold statutory meetings. The Court established that procedural notice rules lacking penal consequences are directory, not mandatory, and that the power to appoint inherently includes the power of temporary suspension or placement on leave pending inquiry under Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, provided natural justice is not violated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chancellor can direct the convening of a university senate meeting when the Vice-Chancellor fails to fulfill statutory obligations to hold meetings?
  • Are procedural notice rules for convening a university senate meeting mandatory or directory when no penal consequences are attached for non-compliance?
  • Does the authority possessing the power to appoint an officer also possess the implied power to suspend them under service law?
  • Whether placing a university officer on paid leave or temporary suspension pending inquiry constitutes a penal punishment requiring a formal show-cause notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs Mst. Muradan and another2017 P Cr. L J 1341 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-16
  exhumationpost-mortemmedical boardcriminal procedurecause of deathmurdermala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghotki, which refused to constitute a Medical Board for a fresh post-mortem of the deceased, Mst. Arbeli. The applicant, an accused in the murder case, contended that the deceased died of poisoning and that the initial post-mortem report, which cited throttling as the cause of death, was fabricated. The court examined the medical evidence, including the original post-mortem report and the contradictory certificate produced by the applicant, finding the latter to be unreliable and inconsistent with hospital records. The court held that the initial post-mortem was conducted properly and the cause of death was sufficiently established. Consequently, the court dismissed the application, ruling that the request for exhumation was mala fide and intended to harass the complainant. The court affirmed that while magistrates have the power to order exhumation under Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, this power must be exercised judiciously, respecting the sanctity of the dead body, and is unnecessary where the cause of death is already clearly determined.

  Questions settled

  • Is a magistrate obliged to order the exhumation of a dead body upon the mere request of an accused person?
  • Does the power to order exhumation under Section 176(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require the court to consider the sanctity of the dead body?
  • Can a court deny an application for a fresh post-mortem if the initial post-mortem report clearly establishes the cause of death?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ali Samoon vs The State through A.N.F.2017 MLD 754 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-11
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryconscious possessionco-accused statementcontrol of narcotic substancesfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, a police official, sought post-arrest bail in two FIRs registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, following the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle driven by a co-accused and subsequently from the applicant's office. The core legal questions involved whether the confessional statement of a co-accused before police and the duplication of recovery across two FIRs warranted bail in the first case, and whether exclusive possession of narcotics recovered from a locked office in the applicant's absence justified refusing bail in the second case. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant's involvement in the first FIR called for further inquiry due to the same recovery being used in two FIRs and reliance on a co-accused's statement, thereby granting bail in the first case. However, the court dismissed bail in the second case, holding that the recovery of a huge quantity of narcotics from the applicant's locked office established tentative conscious possession, and procedural objections under Section 21(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 could not be deeply appreciated at the bail stage. The key principles established relate to the evaluation of conscious possession, the tentative nature of evidentiary value of co-accused statements at the bail stage, and the non-interference with search procedures during preliminary bail hearings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the use of the same recovery in two separate FIRs against an accused warrants further inquiry for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Does the recovery of narcotics from a locked office in the absence of the accused establish tentative conscious possession for refusing bail?
  • Can the procedural violations of Section 21(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 be deeply appreciated at the bail stage?
  • Whether the statement of a co-accused made before police officials implicating the accused can serve as sole ground for denying bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Khan vs Muhammad Nazim and another2017 MLD 770 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-02Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Messrs Hyderabad Electronic Industries2017 CLD 1340 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-02Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chairman vs Amanullah Khan and another2017 CLC 588 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-22Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Haji Khuda Bux Amir2017 CLC 1387 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-16
  breach of contractback-to-back contractdamagesdischarge of promiseacquiescenceauthorization to sueexport agent
  Summary & questions settled

  The consolidated suits and cross-suits involved claims for damages for breach of contract and counter-claims for commission arising out of transactions for the export of raw cotton bales during the 1986-1987 crop year. The core legal questions revolved around whether a concluded contract or a back-to-back contract existed between the Trading Corporation of Pakistan and local export agents, whether the export agents committed a breach by withdrawing from the export orders due to rising market prices, and whether the suits were competently instituted without a valid board resolution. The Sindh High Court held that no concluded back-to-back contract came into existence as the export agents validly surrendered the foreign contracts and the corporation acquiesced by fulfilling the exports directly, discharging the performance under the law. Furthermore, the suits were not competently instituted due to the lack of proper authorization. The key principles laid down are that under Section 63 of the Contract Act 1872, a promisee can dispense with or remit the performance of a promise through conduct and acquiescence, and that the absence of a valid board resolution or authorization under Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for instituting a company suit is a fatal and incurable defect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a concluded contract comes into existence between a principal and an export agent in the absence of a mandatory back-to-back agreement?
  • Does the surrender of export contracts by an agent and their subsequent direct execution by the principal amount to a discharge of performance through acquiescence under Section 63 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can a claim for damages for breach of contract succeed without proving the extent of damages and prevailing market prices through competent evidence?
  • Is the absence of a valid board resolution or articles of association authorizing the institution of a company suit a curable defect?
  Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. vs Messrs Punjab Trading2017 PLD Sindh 276 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-28Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd vs Messrs Friends2017 PLD Sindh 678 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-31
  pecuniary jurisdictionreturn of plainttransfer of suitcivil procedureoriginal civil jurisdictionSindh Civil Courts OrdinanceHigh Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court appeal challenged an order transferring a civil suit for recovery of Rs 13.3 million from the High Court to a District Court. The core legal question was whether the High Court, lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, could transfer a suit under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or if it was obligated to return the plaint. The Court held that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suits valued below the statutory threshold of Rs 15 million. Consequently, it cannot exercise powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to transfer a suit, as that power presupposes the suit is pending in a competent court. The Court ruled that the only appropriate course of action when a court lacks jurisdiction is to return the plaint for presentation before the competent court. The key principle established is that Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a rule of procedure, not a source of jurisdiction, and cannot be invoked to bypass statutory pecuniary limits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the power to transfer a suit under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?
  • Is Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a source of jurisdiction or merely a rule of procedure?
  • What is the appropriate legal course of action for a court that lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a suit?
  • Does the High Court have original civil jurisdiction to entertain suits valued below fifteen million rupees under the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Toto vs The StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 316 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-13
  suspension of sentencepending appeallesser sentencepost-conviction bailarms act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking suspension of sentence and release on bail pending criminal appeal, against the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2016 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 23 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the execution of a lesser sentence should be suspended and the convict released on bail when the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future and the appellant has already served a substantial portion of the sentence. The court held that since the appellant had already undergone about one year of confinement out of the short sentence, the appeal had been admitted, preparation of the paper book and final disposal would take time, and the appellant had a good arguable case on merits, the sentence ought to be suspended. The key principle laid down is that in cases involving lesser sentences where the appeal cannot be heard promptly and the accused has already served a meaningful period of imprisonment, the sentence may be suspended pending appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended and bail granted under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the disposal of the appeal is likely to take time?
  • Whether the unserved portion of a lesser sentence constitutes a valid ground for suspension of sentence during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Is a convict entitled to suspension of sentence after serving a substantial portion of a short-term imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• The State/Anti Narcotics Force, Ministry of Interior Narcotics2017 PLD Sindh 140 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-08
  forfeiture of assetsControl of Narcotic Substances Actretrospective effectbenamidarreasonable groundslachescriminal appealdrug proceeds
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the dismissal of an application for the forfeiture of property under Section 40 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The appellant sought to forfeit property allegedly acquired by the respondent through drug proceeds, citing a foreign conviction. The core legal questions concerned whether the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 has retrospective effect, whether forfeiture under Section 40 requires proof that assets were derived from drug-related crimes, and whether the prosecution established reasonable grounds for forfeiture. The Court held that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 is prospective in nature and cannot apply to property transactions occurring in 1986-1987, well before the Act's 1997 enactment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that forfeiture under Section 40 requires a nexus to drug-related offenses and that the prosecution failed to provide evidence establishing the property was acquired through drug proceeds or held by a benamidar. The Court affirmed that reasonable grounds under Section 68 require more than suspicion and that forfeiture applications must be filed within a reasonable time, noting the appellant's excessive delay constituted laches. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 have retrospective effect regarding the forfeiture of assets?
  • Must assets be derived from drug-related offenses to be subject to forfeiture under Section 40 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • What constitutes 'reasonable grounds' for the presumption of assets being acquired through drug proceeds under Section 68 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is a forfeiture application under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 subject to the doctrine of laches if filed after an unreasonable delay?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Chairman National Accountability Bureau vs Manzoor2017 YLR 2516 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27
  appeal against acquittalcorruption chargesmisuse of authorityburden of proofappreciation of evidenceaccountability courtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the State through the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, challenging the judgment of the Accountability Court, Hyderabad, which acquitted the respondent, Manzoor Ahmed Bhutto, of corruption charges. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was based on a misreading or non-appraisal of evidence, and whether the prosecution successfully proved that the accused misused his official authority to tamper with telephone meters, thereby causing financial loss to the public exchequer. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to produce evidence showing that any tampering or malpractice was detected during the accused's tenure, nor was there proof of personal gain. The Court reaffirmed the established legal principle that in an appeal against acquittal, appellate interference is only warranted if the trial court's findings are perverse, arbitrary, or based on a gross misreading of evidence resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The burden remains on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and appellate courts must maintain a strict distinction between evaluating evidence in conviction appeals versus acquittal appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a judgment of acquittal?
  • Does the burden of proof in an appeal against acquittal differ from that in an appeal against conviction?
  • Is a finding of acquittal by a trial court sustainable if the prosecution fails to prove the accused gained personal benefit from the alleged misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue vs Tianshi International Pakistan Co2017 SHC 542 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-07Read full judgment →
• The Collector, Model Customs Collectorate and 2 others vs Messrs2017 PTD 2123 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-03
  customs dutycivil suit maintainabilitytax assessmentstatutory baroriginal civil jurisdictionspecialized appellate forumouster of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves High Court Appeals against judgments by a Single Judge of the Sindh High Court, who entertained suits challenging tax assessments and exemption claims under the Customs Act, 1969, and the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The core legal question was whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge such tax determinations, given the express bar under Section 217 of the Customs Act, 1969, and the existence of a comprehensive statutory appellate hierarchy. The Court held that such suits are not maintainable. It ruled that the Single Judge, exercising original civil jurisdiction, lacked the authority to entertain these matters as the Customs Act, 1969, provides a self-contained mechanism for dispute resolution. The Court established that Section 217 of the Customs Act, 1969, and Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, expressly bar civil courts from interfering in tax assessment matters. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgments, emphasizing that parties must exhaust statutory remedies rather than bypassing them through civil suits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil suit maintainable to challenge tax assessments or exemption claims under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does Section 217 of the Customs Act, 1969, bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters relating to tax assessment and levy?
  • Can a party bypass the statutory appellate hierarchy provided under the Customs Act, 1969, by filing a civil suit?
  • Does a Single Judge of the High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction have the authority to entertain suits regarding tax disputes excluded by special taxing statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• The Collector, Model Customs Collectorate & others vs M/s. Naveena2017 SHC 299 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-03Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Model Custom Collectorate, Hyderabad. vs Messrs Byco Petroleum (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 othersPTCL 2017 CL. 823 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-30Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Model Custom Collectorate, Hyderabad2017 PTD 1297 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-30Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector (Law) vs Messrs2017 PTD 2474 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-22
  provisional assessmentcustoms classificationmis-declarationredemption finestatutory limitationPCT headingcustoms duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application arises from a dispute regarding the classification of imported goods and the subsequent imposition of penalties. The applicant department challenged the Customs Appellate Tribunal's order, which had set aside the imposition of redemption fines and penalties on the respondent. The core legal questions concerned whether the goods were correctly classified under the proposed PCT heading and whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the goods were released under provisional assessment proceedings pursuant to Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969. The Court held that because the department failed to finalize the provisional assessment within the statutory period prescribed by Section 81(4) of the Customs Act, 1969, the provisional determination attained finality by operation of law. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the determination of PCT headings is the sole function of customs officers, and an importer's citation of a specific heading does not constitute mis-declaration under the Customs Act, 1969. Consequently, the Court dismissed the reference application, finding no evidence of mis-declaration to justify the penalties imposed by the department.

  Questions settled

  • Does the citation of a wrong PCT heading by an importer constitute an act of mis-declaration under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • What is the legal consequence if the customs department fails to finalize a provisional assessment within the period stipulated in Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Is the determination of a PCT heading the sole responsibility of customs officers or the importer?
  Read full judgment →
• Thal Ltd. through duly Authorized Attorney and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 PTD 1683 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• (1) Thal Limited and another (2) White Pearl Jute Mills Limited (3) Sargodha2017 SHC 142 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-08Read full judgment →
• Tayyab Javed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Defence, Ministry of Defence and 5 others2017 MLD 223 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-06Read full judgment →
• Tasawar Abbas Tanveer vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 SHC 100 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-11
  Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act 2010constitutional petitionreinstatementservice lawparity of treatmentvoluntary retirement scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought the reinstatement of the petitioner into the service of the Trading Corporation of Pakistan, along with back benefits, based on alleged discrimination compared to other employees reinstated under the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, appointed in 1989 and retired in 1998, satisfied the statutory criteria for relief under the Act and whether he was entitled to parity with a colleague who had been reinstated. The Court held that the petitioner did not qualify for relief because he failed to meet the mandatory, concurrent conditions regarding appointment and termination dates prescribed by the Act. Specifically, the petitioner’s appointment did not fall within the qualifying period of November 1, 1993, to November 30, 1996, unlike his colleague whose reappointment occurred within that window. The Court affirmed that the Act’s benefits are strictly limited to those meeting these specific temporal requirements. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is not to be exercised where substantial justice has already been served.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee qualify for reinstatement under the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act 2010 if their appointment date falls outside the statutory period of November 1, 1993, to November 30, 1996?
  • Can an employee claim parity with others reinstated under the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act 2010 if their employment history does not meet the Act's specific temporal criteria?
  • Is the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 exercisable when substantial justice has already been achieved through a Review Board?
  Read full judgment →
• Tarique Aziz Shaikh vs Habib Bank Limited through Attorney and another2017 CLD 406 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-23Read full judgment →
• Tarique Ahmed Solangi vs Province of Sindh through Secretary2017 MLD 2005 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-08Read full judgment →
• Tariq Saleem and others vs Sohail Shakil Faruqi and others2017 PLD Sindh 381 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-29Read full judgment →
• Tariq Durrani and another vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1054 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-27
  post-arrest bailheinous offencedeeper appreciation of evidencerule of consistencyhuman traffickingcomfort girlexpeditious trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a joint post-arrest bail application filed by two applicants, Tariq Durrani and Saquib Ali, who were charged under Sections 371-A, 371-B, 376, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of forcing the complainant to work as a 'comfort girl' in a guesthouse. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the principle of consistency, as the guesthouse owner had previously been granted bail. The Court held that the bail application should be declined. The Court reasoned that the allegations against the applicants were serious, heinous, and directly implicated them, distinguishing their case from that of the guesthouse owner, against whom no specific allegations were made. Furthermore, the Court established that arguments regarding the absence of other victims or customers at the scene constitute a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application but directed the trial court to expedite proceedings, specifically recording the complainant's statement within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of consistency apply to bail applications when the co-accused's role is distinguishable?
  • Is the absence of corroborative evidence, such as the recovery of other victims or customers, a ground for bail at the pre-trial stage?
  • Can a court engage in a deeper appreciation of evidence while deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Hidayatullah Hashmi and another vs Mst. Fozia Naheed and others2017 SHC 386 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-15Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs The State and 3 others2017 P Cr. L J 1559 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-02
  C-class reportpolice investigationspeaking ordermagisterial scrutinycriminal procedurefinal report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate, which accepted a police report classifying a case under 'C-class' (neither true nor maliciously false). The complainant alleged that his brother, a private employee of SEPCO, suffered serious injuries due to the negligence of SEPCO officials who directed him to work on a live 11,000 KV power line. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate's order accepting the police's C-class report was legally sustainable and whether it constituted a 'speaking order.' The High Court held that the Magistrate's order was proper and did not require interference. The Court affirmed that while a Magistrate is not bound by a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Magistrate is not required to pass an exhaustive, detailed judgment when agreeing with such a report, as they are not conducting a trial. The Court concluded that the incident, as narrated by the complainant, was implausible given the specialized nature of the work involved, and the Magistrate had sufficiently scrutinized the available material.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Magistrate required to write an exhaustive, detailed order when agreeing with a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a Magistrate bound by the findings of a police report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate accept a police report classifying a case as 'C-class' without conducting a full trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Syedah Imammah Ali and 5 others vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 3 others2017 MLD 806 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-20Read full judgment →