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.

• Syeda Sakina Riaz vs Federation of Pakistan and another2017 SHC 30 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Tahawar Husain Kazmi vs VIIth Addl: District Judge District South &Ors2017 SHC 118 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Shafqat Ali Qadri vs The State2017 MLD 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Sardar Alam Zaidi vs Pakistan Gum and Chemicals limited2017 SHC 121 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-30
  service contractsalary arrearsgratuitypensionindoor managementpleadingsnon-joinderemployee invention
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant company, filed a suit seeking recovery of outstanding dues on account of salary arrears, increment, differential in gratuity, pension, and compensation for developing a manufacturing process. The defendant contested the suit, raising preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and maintainability, and arguing that the claims lacked legal basis as the plaintiff had received a full and final settlement. The High Court of Sindh examined the modified service contract and the conduct of the parties. It held that the plaintiff's claims for salary arrears, increment, and gratuity differential were unsubstantiated because the option to demand them was not exercised during the contract's tenure, and the plaintiff had accepted his regular salary without protest. Regarding the pension claim, the court rejected the defendant's unpleaded defense of non-joinder of trustees and held that the plaintiff's entitlement was proved by the defendant's own calculation sheets. The claim for innovation compensation was dismissed as it lacked contractual or statutory basis. Consequently, the court partially decreed the suit only to the extent of the pension claim.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party introduce oral evidence at the trial stage regarding a defense that was not specifically raised in their written statement?
  • Whether a unilateral variation of an employment contract by an employer is binding if the employee continues to work without protest?
  • Can a third party enforce a contract entered into by a company's agent who lacked actual authority under the principle of indoor management?
  • Is an employee entitled to additional compensation for an innovation developed during the course of employment in the absence of a specific contractual or statutory framework?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Salahuddin vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law and another2017 YLR 2451 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajid Raza through Registered Attorney vs City District2017 YLR 2197 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Riaz Hussain Shah vs Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Housing2017 YLR 1422 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Rashid Hussain Rizvi vs Chairman, National Accountability2017 MLD 818 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Naveed Aziz Shah Noori and 68 others vs Province of Sindh2017 SHC 102, 2017 YLR 966 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Naveed Aziz Shah Noori & others vs Province of Sindh & others2017 SHC 102 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Mumtaz Ali & others vs Mst.Khatoon Begum,2017 SHC 150 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Sohaib (Shoaib) and others vs Federation of Pakistan2017 PLC (C.S.) 1020 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-15
  regularization of servicescontract employeesHadeed Welfare TrustPakistan Steel Millscabinet committee decisionwrit jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by teaching and non-teaching staff of the Pakistan Steel Cadet College and other educational institutions operated under the Hadeed Welfare Trust, seeking regularization of their services in line with previous judicial precedents and cabinet decisions. The core legal question revolved around whether contract and daily-wages employees, including those in officer grades, serving in institutions affiliated with Pakistan Steel Mills through the Hadeed Welfare Trust, were entitled to regularization pursuant to government office memorandums and cabinet committee decisions. The Sindh High Court held that Pakistan Steel Mills effectively controlled the Hadeed Welfare Trust and that the constitutional petitions were maintainable for the enforcement of cabinet decisions regarding regularization, notwithstanding the absence of statutory service rules. The court laid down the principle that public functionaries must act fairly and transparently in accordance with constitutional commands, and that employees whose contracts are repeatedly renewed for permanent posts are entitled to regularization of their services based on applicable cabinet sub-committee decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition for the enforcement of a cabinet decision regarding the regularization of contract employees is maintainable against an entity lacking statutory service rules?
  • Whether the Hadeed Welfare Trust functions as a subterfuge for Pakistan Steel Mills to evade employer responsibilities toward its educational staff?
  • Are contract and daily-wages employees serving in officer grades entitled to regularization under the cabinet sub-committee decisions when general office memorandums are restricted to lower grades?
  • Does the repeated renewal of employment contracts for permanent positions constitute mala fide conduct that entitles employees to regularization?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Shoaib & others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M_o Industries & Production, Islamabad and 2 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 1020, 2017 PLJ Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-15
  regularization of servicecontract employeeswrit jurisdictionpiercing the corporate veilpublic functionariesconstitutional petitionPakistan Steel Mills
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, contract employees at Pakistan Steel Cadet College, sought regularization of their services, contending that the Hadeed Welfare Trust, which administered the college, was a mere subterfuge for Pakistan Steel Mills. The core legal question was whether these employees were entitled to regularization under Cabinet Sub-Committee decisions, notwithstanding their employment grade or the Trust's purported independence. The Court held that the Hadeed Welfare Trust functioned as an instrument of Pakistan Steel Mills, and the Cabinet Sub-Committee decision dated 13.3.2013, read with the decision dated 7.2.2011, extended regularization benefits to contract employees of the Steel Mills' educational institutions, including those in BS-16 and above. Consequently, the Court directed the regularization of the petitioners' services. The judgment establishes that the 'Function Test' determines an entity's amenability to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and that courts may pierce the corporate veil where a trust is utilized to exploit employees or evade employment obligations, emphasizing the state's constitutional duty to ensure fair treatment and eliminate exploitation.

  Questions settled

  • Is an entity like the Hadeed Welfare Trust, which is controlled by a public body, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the 'Function Test' apply to determine if a private limited company or trust falls within the definition of a 'person' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the court pierce the corporate veil of a trust if it is found to be a subterfuge used by a public body to shirk employment responsibilities?
  • Are contract employees of educational institutions under the Pakistan Steel Mills entitled to regularization under the Cabinet Sub-Committee decision dated 13.3.2013, regardless of their pay scale?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohammad Ali Raza Zaidi vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 1083 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-15
  quashing of proceedingstaking cognizancesupplementary challanillegal gratificationanti-corruptionpolice reportinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to quash an impugned order joining the applicant as an accused and issuing non-bailable warrants in an anti-corruption case involving illegal gratification, misuse of official powers, and illegal confinement. The core legal question concerned whether the trial court could take cognizance against an accused whose name was omitted from the initial police report but implicated through material on record and a supplementary challan. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court is competent to take cognizance and summon a person as an accused if sufficient material exists on record, notwithstanding an incomplete or biased police report, and that extraordinary jurisdiction under section 561-A should not be used to abort an ongoing trial where an alternate remedy under section 249-A is available and a prima facie case is made out. The key principles laid down are that the police are not the final arbiters of a complaint, a magistrate is not bound by a police report under section 173, and criminal proceedings should ordinarily be permitted to take their regular course unless exceptional circumstances warrant quashment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can join a person as an accused who was omitted from the initial police report but implicated by the material on record?
  • Is a magistrate bound by the report submitted by the police under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to quash criminal proceedings when an alternate remedy under section 249-A is available?
  • Does the submission of an interim charge sheet restrict the competent court from taking cognizance against an un-charge-sheeted accused based on available evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Manzar Abbas vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau and 2 others2017 YLR 1793 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Kaleem Ahmed Naqvi & others vs Mst. Qaisar Naqvi & others2017 SHC 116 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Ikramullah vs Iqbal Ahmed Khan and 4 others2017 YLR 1443 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Ali Shah vs Messrs MCB Bank Limited and another2017 CLD 564 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Farukh Mazhar vs SGS Headquarters & others2017 SHC 161 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-17
  master and servant doctrinewrongful terminationinjunctive reliefprivate employmentspecific reliefcontempt of courtcorporate governance
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a former Managing Director of a private company, challenged his termination, seeking a declaration that the termination letters were void and requesting injunctive relief to suspend the termination and the filing of Form-29 with the SECP. The core legal question was whether an employee of a private entity can be granted an injunction for reinstatement or suspension of termination, and whether such employment is subject to constitutional protections akin to government service. The court held that the relationship between the parties is governed by the "Master and Servant" doctrine. Consequently, the court ruled that an employee of a private organization cannot be forced upon an unwilling employer through an injunction, as the appropriate remedy for wrongful termination is a claim for damages or compensation. The court further determined that constitutional provisions regarding fair trial do not alter the fundamental nature of private employment contracts. Accordingly, the court dismissed the applications for injunction and the related contempt proceedings against SECP officials, affirming that reinstatement is not a viable remedy in private sector employment disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee of a private company be granted an injunction for reinstatement against an unwilling employer?
  • Does the doctrine of 'Master and Servant' apply to employment disputes in private corporate entities?
  • Is an employee of a private company entitled to injunctive relief for wrongful termination under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Can a court grant an injunction that would force the performance of a continuous duty in an employment contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Fahimul Hassan vs Khawaja Mohsin Ali And 2 others2017 MLD 2074 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain Shah vs The State2017 MLD 1155 · Sindh High Court · 2016-07-04
  post-arrest bailrobberyrecovery from spotprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail after his bail plea was dismissed by the trial court in Crime No. 371 of 2016 registered under Sections 392, 398, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station KIA, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was arrested at the spot and the robbed mobile phone was recovered from his possession, but no cash or weapon was recovered from him, and the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as no weapon or cash was recovered from the applicant and the offense was not within the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety, laying down the principle that non-recovery of incriminating items coupled with an offense outside the prohibitory clause warrants the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when arrested at the spot for robbery but the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the non-recovery of a weapon and part of the alleged robbed items make out a case of further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Ghani Shah vs Syed Ali Akber Shah and 4 others2017 CLC 1379 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-17Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company-LPG Private Limited through Representative2017 PTD 2366 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-14Read full judgment →
• Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Ltd. through Senior Manager2017 PTD 1585 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-29
  amortizationgoodwillintangible assetsbusiness amalgamationIncome Tax Ordinance 2001Banking Companies Ordinancetax deduction
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner, a banking company, challenged orders denying the amortization of "goodwill" acquired during a business amalgamation under Section 24 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether goodwill qualifies as an "intangible" under Section 24(11) and if the Petitioner, having acquired a business as a going concern, was entitled to amortize this expenditure. The Court held that goodwill constitutes incorporeal property and qualifies as an "intangible" within the meaning of Section 24(11), relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Dr. M.B. Ankalsaria. The Court further determined that the amalgamation constituted the acquisition of a business as a whole, rather than a mere transfer of assets, thereby entitling the Petitioner to claim amortization. The judgment establishes that goodwill, when acquired as part of a going concern, is an amortizable intangible asset under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and that the tax treatment of such acquisitions must be viewed holistically rather than as isolated capital transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Is goodwill an intangible asset within the meaning of Section 24(11) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Whether a taxpayer who acquires a business as a going concern is entitled to amortize the goodwill associated with that business under Section 24 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the acquisition of shares followed by an amalgamation constitute the acquisition of a business as a going concern for the purposes of claiming amortization of goodwill?
  Read full judgment →
• Spectre Consulting Limited vs MT "Everrich 6" & others2017 SHC 330 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Kousar Abbas Shah and 2 others vs The State2017 YLR 2327 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-25Read full judgment →
• Sona Khan alias Sonhra vs The State2017 MLD 388 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-30
  murderdeath sentenceeye-witness testimonyrelated witnessesprompt FIRrecovery of weaponmedical corroborationmotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and death reference arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Sona Khan alias Sonhra, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Ghulam Fareed by stabbing him with a knife. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular testimony, prompt lodging of the First Information Report, recovery of the crime weapon at the spot, and medical corroboration, and whether the relationship of the eyewitnesses to the deceased rendered their testimony unreliable. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charge through consistent eyewitness accounts, prompt reporting, positive chemical examiner reports, and medical evidence establishing death by sharp-edged weapon injuries. The court reaffirmed that mere relationship of witnesses to a deceased does not make them interested witnesses unless animus is shown, and that direct ocular evidence corroborated by medical findings warrants upholding the conviction. The death sentence was confirmed as no mitigating circumstances were found.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased?
  • Does prompt lodging of the First Information Report exclude the chance of false implication in a murder trial?
  • What is the evidentiary value of motive when direct ocular evidence of the crime is available?
  • Whether the normal penalty of death is justifiable when an accused commits murder with a sharp-edged weapon in a cruel manner without mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Baig Noori vs High Court of Sindh through Registrar and 2 others2017 PLC (C.S.) 1142 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-30
  quo warrantopublic officeHigh Court establishmentcontractual appointmentupgradation of postconcurrence of Administration Committeere-employment of retired person
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition seeking a writ of quo warranto challenged the contractual appointment of respondent No. 2 as Chairman Inspection Team (BPS-22) in the Sindh High Court Establishment. The core legal questions were whether a writ of quo warranto lies against High Court employees despite the bar under Article 199(5) of the Constitution, whether the post constituted a public office, and whether the creation, upgradation, and contractual appointment complied with the Sindh High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006. The High Court held that the bar in Article 199(5) does not apply to quo warranto proceedings questioning whether a public office is held under valid legal authority. The court ruled that the office of Chairman Inspection Team performs duties of a public nature and constitutes a public office. Upgrading the post and changing its nomenclature amounted to creating a new BPS-22 post, which required mandatory concurrence from the Administration Committee under Rule 4, which was lacking. Furthermore, contractual hiring without demonstrating non-availability of other suitable candidates violated Rule 5 and settled Supreme Court dictums deprecating re-employment of retired persons. Consequently, the appointment notification was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ of quo warranto maintainable against an officer or employee of a High Court despite the bar contained under Article 199(5) of the Constitution?
  • Does the position of Chairman Inspection Team in a High Court establishment constitute a public office for the purpose of issuing a writ of quo warranto?
  • Can a post in BPS-16 or above be created or upgraded in the High Court establishment without the concurrence of the Administration Committee under Rule 4 of the 2006 Rules?
  • Can a retired officer be re-employed on a contract basis in the High Court establishment without establishing the non-availability of other suitable candidates under Rule 5 of the 2006 Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed and 7 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary and 22017 PLC (C.S.) 510 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-01
  judicial officersAdditional District and Sessions Judgeretrospective operationofficial gazettenotificationeligibility criteriaconstitutional petitionSindh Judicial Service Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was brought before the Sindh High Court by serving judicial officers challenging the rejection of their candidature for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. The core legal questions involved whether serving judicial officers were eligible to apply under the unamended rules prior to the official notification of an amendment barring them, and whether a statutory rule amendment can operate retrospectively prior to its notification and publication in the official gazette. The Court held that an amendment to rules cannot operate retrospectively to impair vested or existing rights before it is formally notified and published, and since the petitioners applied before the cut-off date and prior to the issuance and publication of the amendment, they were qualified and eligible to participate. The key principle laid down is that rules or notifications curtailing or extending rights take effect from the date of their issuance or publication in the official gazette, and cannot affect applications lawfully submitted under prior prevailing rules before such operational date.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amendment to the Sindh Judicial Service Rules excluding judicial officers from direct recruitment takes effect from the date of the Full Court recommendation or from the date of its notification and publication in the official gazette?
  • Does the submission of an application for a advertised post before the cut-off date create a valid right to participate in the selection process when rules are subsequently amended?
  • Can a notification curtailing or extending the rights of citizens operate with retrospective effect prior to its formal publication?
  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an administrative or consultative order of the High Court Establishment involving the violation of rules and infringement of fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed & others vs Province of Sindh & others2017 PLC (C.S.) 510, 2017 PLJ Karachi 7 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-01
  judicial service rulesretrospective effectofficial gazetteadministrative notificationdirect recruitmentjudicial revieweligibility criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the rejection of the petitioners' candidature for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. The petitioners, serving judicial officers, applied for the post before the cutoff date of July 15, 2016. Their applications were rejected based on an amendment to Rule 8(1)(d) of the Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994, which excluded serving judicial officers from direct recruitment. The core legal question was whether the amendment, notified on July 26, 2016, and published in the official gazette on September 22, 2016, could apply retrospectively to disqualify candidates who had applied before the amendment's notification. The Court held that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively to disqualify candidates who had already applied by the cutoff date. The Court affirmed that a notification takes effect from the date of its publication in the official gazette, not from the date of its signing or the date of a Full Court resolution. The key principle laid down is that administrative notifications curtailing or extending rights cannot operate retrospectively and only become effective upon publication in the official gazette.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative notification curtailing or extending rights be given retrospective effect?
  • Does a notification take effect from the date of its signing or the date of its publication in the official gazette?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an administrative order passed by the High Court administration involving the infringement of fundamental rights?
  • Does the submission of an application for a post before a rule amendment create a vested right to be considered under the unamended rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Adeeb Bachani and others vs The State though NAB and others2017 PLD Sindh 415 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-10Read full judgment →
• Sohail A. Salam Mughal---Petitioner vs VII Additional District Judge,2017 P Cr. L J 1619 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-05
  superdaricustody of vehicleregistered ownerconstitutional petitiontitle disputecriminal procedurerestoration of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition challenged the orders of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner's application for the restoration of a vehicle on superdari basis. The petitioner claimed ownership of the vehicle, which was registered in the name of his ex-wife, asserting that he was in possession of it at the time of seizure. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite not being the registered owner, was entitled to the custody of the vehicle under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts committed no illegality in granting custody to the registered owner. The Court affirmed the principle that while Section 523 empowers a Magistrate to grant custody to the person entitled to possession, the registered owner is generally considered the person entitled in the absence of contrary evidence. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that criminal courts are not the proper forum to adjudicate disputes regarding title or ownership of property, which must be resolved by a competent civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal court the appropriate forum to determine the title or ownership of a seized vehicle?
  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to grant the custody of a seized vehicle to the registered owner under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a person claim custody of a vehicle on superdari basis based on alleged ownership when the vehicle is registered in the name of another person?
  Read full judgment →
• Sinotec Co. Limited vs Province of Sindh & others2017 SHC 322 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-15Read full judgment →
• Sindh Rural Support Organization (Srso) through Authorised Attorney2017 PLD Sindh 79 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-24Read full judgment →
• Sindh Revenue Board through Assistant Commissioner vs Messrs2017 PTD 1225 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-23Read full judgment →
• Sindh Revenue Board through Assistant Commissioner vs Messrs Habib2017 PTD 1141 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-28Read full judgment →
• Sindh Revenue Board through Assistant Commissioner vs Askari Bank2017 PTD 2456 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-11Read full judgment →
• Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation through Authorized2017 PTD 603 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-06Read full judgment →
• Sikander Ali Solangi vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 971 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-05
  criminal appealmurder convictionreasonable doubtwitness credibilitymaterial contradictionsacquittalprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and compensation under Section 344-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the evidence presented. The High Court observed substantial contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant, eyewitnesses, and police officials regarding the timing of the incident, the arrival at the hospital, the post-mortem procedures, and the recovery of the weapon. The court held that the prosecution witnesses were dishonest and the case appeared tainted by malice, likely stemming from an existing enmity. Consequently, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reinforces the principle that where prosecution evidence is riddled with material contradictions and lacks credibility, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses warrant the acquittal of an accused in a murder case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution evidence is found to be tainted by malice and lacks corroboration?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution's case when the medical evidence and the testimonies of eyewitnesses regarding the timing and circumstances of a crime are in direct conflict?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikander Ali Qureshi vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau2017 P Cr. L J 269 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-29
  post-arrest bailmedical groundsNational Accountability Bureaucorruption and corrupt practicesSub-RegistrarCapital Value Taxfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 seeking the quashment of a pending inquiry, medical board constitution, and post-arrest bail. The petitioner, a Sub-Registrar, was accused by the National Accountability Bureau of registering 422 sale deeds with malafidely lesser amounts collected for Capital Value Tax, Stamp Duty, and Registration Fee, causing a loss to the government exchequer. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on merits and on medical grounds given his chronic illnesses and the documentary nature of the evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution prima facie failed to show a criminal act of a financial nature under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, considering clarification letters regarding tax collection procedures and delays in initiating action. The court ruled that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granted bail both on merits and due to the petitioner's acute sickness and need for specialized medical treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution's case is entirely based on documentary evidence already in the custody of investigative authorities?
  • Does a chronic and acute sickness requiring specialized medical treatment that cannot be provided within jail premises entitle an accused to bail on medical grounds?
  • Whether the failure of authorities to provide a plausible explanation for a prolonged delay in initiating inquiry proceedings constitutes a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali vs Principal Chandka Medical College, Larkana and 22017 PLC (C.S.) 562 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27
  constitutional petitionleave vacancytermination of serviceres judicatalachesservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking restoration and confirmation of his employment as a Chowkidar/Peon, along with back benefits, claiming he had been appointed on a temporary basis in 1982 and 1984. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose services were terminated in 1985 upon the return of regular employees from leave, could maintain a second petition for the same relief based on alleged discriminatory treatment compared to other employees. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It observed that the petitioner's previous petition for the same relief had already been dismissed. Furthermore, the Court held that an appointment made strictly on a leave vacancy basis creates no vested right to permanent employment or restoration. The key principle laid down is that a petition seeking relief previously denied in earlier proceedings is barred, and an employee appointed against a temporary leave vacancy cannot claim a legal right to continued service or regularization once the regular incumbent returns.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee appointed against a leave vacancy claim a right to permanent restoration?
  • Is a second constitutional petition maintainable for the same relief previously dismissed by the Court?
  • Does a news report regarding other employees provide a valid legal basis for claiming restoration of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali vs Ali Akber2017 CLD 508 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Warsi and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 PLD Sindh 243 · Sindh High Court · 2016-07-01
  post-arrest bailillegal arrestillegal detentionNAB OrdinanceAnti-Terrorism Actconstitutional petitionauthorization of inquiryauthorization of investigationinordinate delay in trialmisuse of authoritycorruptionfundamental rightsfair trialdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns two constitutional petitions seeking post-arrest bail for petitioners Shoaib Warsi and Zuhair Siddiqui, former officials of SSGCL, who were arrested by Pakistan Rangers Sindh under Section 11EEEE(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and subsequently handed over to NAB authorities. The core legal questions revolved around the legality of their initial arrest and ninety-day detention without a court order, the validity of NAB's authorization for inquiry and investigation concerning Reference No. 19/2016, compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 10, and the impact of inordinate delay in the trial proceedings. The Sindh High Court granted bail, holding that the arrest and detention were patently illegal and without lawful authority, as there was no proper authorization for inquiry or investigation by the Chairman NAB specific to the allegations in Reference No. 19/2016 at the time of their arrest or transfer to NAB custody. The court found that the petitioners were not issued call-up notices under Section 19 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999, nor confronted with allegations, violating due process. Furthermore, the inordinate delay of over a year in the trial, with no charge framed or witnesses examined, coupled with the lack of specific incriminating material connecting the petitioners to the alleged corruption or personal benefit, constituted sufficient grounds for bail. The court emphasized that NAB authorities must act strictly in accordance with law, ensuring proper authorization, tangible evidence, and respect for fundamental rights to liberty and fair trial, and that undue haste or mala fide actions render proceedings dubious.

  Read full judgment →
• Sheraz vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 561 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-02
  post-arrest bailforeigners actforged passportnational statusfurther inquirydocumentary evidencepakistani citizenship
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Sheraz against the rejection of his earlier bail plea by the Sessions Judge, Malir at Karachi. The applicant was charged under sections 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sections 3(2), 13, and 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946, and rules 3 and 4 of the Foreigners Order 1951, after being offloaded from a flight on suspicion of holding a forged passport and disputing his Pakistani nationality. The core legal question concerned whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the prosecution's case rests on documentary evidence, when the applicant's nationality requires further inquiry, and when state functionaries involved have not been proceeded against. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that where a case depends on documentary evidence already in the prosecution's possession with no risk of tampering, where the applicant's nationality is supported by various official documents pending verification, and where no action is taken against potentially complicit state functionaries, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when a criminal case entirely depends on documentary evidence already in the possession of the prosecution?
  • Does a genuine dispute regarding the national status of an accused who produces official identity documents make the case one of further inquiry warranting bail?
  • Does the failure to investigate or take action against state functionaries allegedly involved in issuing disputed documents entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Hakeem vs The State2017 SHC 222 · Sindh High Court
  explosive substancesunlicensed armsbenefit of doubtcontradiction in recoverysection 342 statementanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant 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 core legal questions involved the reliability of the prosecution's evidence regarding the recovery of unlicensed weapons and explosives, material discrepancies in identifying the explosive device, and the legal effect of omitting to put material documents to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that glaring contradictions between the recovery memos and inspection reports—specifically confusing a hand grenade with a rifle grenade—alongside failures to confront the accused with crucial reports during his Section 342 statement, were fatal to the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that material discrepancies in identifying recovered items and omissions in recording a statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. create appreciable doubt, warranting the extension of the benefit of doubt and acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a discrepancy between the recovery memo describing a hand grenade and the inspection report examining a rifle grenade is fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the failure to confront an accused with material inspection reports during the recording of his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude such documents from being used as evidence?
  • Whether material contradictions regarding weapon and explosive descriptions warrant extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Limited through duly constituted AttorneyApplicant vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and 2 others2017 CLC 244 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-03Read full judgment →
• Shell Employees Union through General Secretary vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary and another2017 PLC 19 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-27
  Workers' Participation FundWorkers' Welfare FundTrade UnionCollective Bargaining AgentAccrued InterestLabour LawStatutory Interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a dispute between a trade union and a company regarding the distribution of interest and profits accrued on the Workers' Participation Fund (WPF). The core legal question was whether the interest accrued on investments made by the Board of Trustees from the surplus of the WPF should be distributed among the workers or transferred to the Workers' Welfare Fund (WWF). The Court held that the accrued interest and profits must be distributed among the workers. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that the scheme under the Companies Profits (Workers Participation) Act, 1968, mandates that the entire income of the fund, including capital gains and accrued interest, is intended for the workers. The Court rejected the contention that such interest should be transferred to the WWF, clarifying that only amounts remaining after unit allocation are transferred to the WWF. Consequently, the Court ordered that any interest previously credited to the government be refunded to the Board of Trustees for distribution to the workers, thereby affirming the workers' entitlement to the benefits derived from the fund's investments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the interest accrued on investments made by the Board of Trustees from the surplus of the Workers' Participation Fund belong to the workers?
  • Is a trade union an 'aggrieved person' for the purpose of challenging the distribution of funds under the Companies Profits (Workers Participation) Act, 1968?
  • Should the profit or markup accrued on the investment of the Workers' Participation Fund be transferred to the Workers' Welfare Fund or distributed among the workers?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Haroon Buksh vs Shaikh Tahir Buksh and 2 othersP D 2017 Sindh 563 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-10Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Nisar vs Federation of Pakistan & others2017 SHC 128 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-31Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Saleem Akhund vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited2017 PLC (C.S.) 659 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-22
  Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000disciplinary inquirynatural justiceenhancement of penaltycompetent authoritydue processback benefitsservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of removal from service issued against the petitioner by Pakistan Steel Mills under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The core legal questions concerned whether the disciplinary inquiry complied with the timeframes and procedural directions set by the Federal Service Tribunal and whether the competent authority could enhance the penalty recommended by the Inquiry Officer without providing specific reasons or notice. The Court held that while the inquiry was completed within the stipulated timeframe and the petitioner was generally afforded access to documents, the removal order was unsustainable. The Court ruled that a competent authority cannot arbitrarily enhance a penalty recommended by an Inquiry Officer without confronting the employee with the reasons for such departure and providing a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Court set aside the removal order, directing the respondents to either provide a reasoned justification and hearing for the enhanced penalty or grant the petitioner back benefits based on the original inquiry recommendation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority enhance a penalty recommended by an Inquiry Officer without providing reasons to the employee?
  • Does the failure to allow the cross-examination of a witness in a disciplinary inquiry constitute a violation of due process?
  • Is the competent authority bound by the recommendations of an Inquiry Officer in a disciplinary proceeding?
  • Does the issuance of a second show-cause notice require the competent authority to specify the intent to depart from the Inquiry Officer's recommendations?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Shaikh Muhammad Umar Shafique & others2017 SHC 92 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-06Read full judgment →
• Sharma and another vs Province of Sindh, through Secretary Home2017 MLD 1460 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-17Read full judgment →
• Shapes (Pvt) Limited vs Cantonment Board Clifton and another2017 SHC 241 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-12Read full judgment →
• Shamsheer Khan through L.Rs, and others vs Gul Khan and 2 others2017 MLD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-19Read full judgment →
• Shams vs Zulfiqar Hussain and another2017 YLR 2468 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-26Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhter and 6 others vs Chairman Eva.Cuee Trust Property2017 YLR 851 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
• Shakir Ali Siddiqui vs The Province of Sindh through Home Secretary2017 CLC 1484 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-28Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Shah---Applicant vs The State---Respondent2017 P Cr. L J 1658 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausefirearm injurynon-vital partdelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Shakeel Shah challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze, whereby his bail was declined in a case arising from FIR relating to firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considering that the injury was caused to a non-vital part of the body, no repetition of fire was made, and the offence prima facie fell under section 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than section 324. The Sindh High Court held that the case called for further inquiry within the meaning of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the injured sustained a single injury on a non-vital part, the applicant had not misused concession of bail earlier, and the trial had been delayed without examination of witnesses. The court laid down the principle that where an injury is sustained on a non-vital part without repetition of fire and falls outside the prohibitory clause, and the accused has spent a considerable period behind bars without progress in the trial, the case warrants the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence falling under section 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a single injury on a non-vital part of the body without repetition of fire warrant further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted on the ground of statutory delay when the prosecution fails to examine witnesses for several months?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed Shaikh vs Aga Khan University through Board of Governors and another2017 PLC (C.S.) 1080 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-18
  probationary employmentspecific performancepersonal service contractprivate employmenttermination of serviceinjunctiondamagesmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and damages filed by an employee against a private university following his termination during a probationary period. The core legal question was whether the termination of a probationary employee by a private organization without a show-cause notice is actionable, and whether such an employment contract can be specifically enforced. The High Court dismissed the application for an injunction, holding that the employer acted within the express terms of the employment contract, which permitted termination during probation upon payment of salary in lieu of notice. The court established that a contract for personal service cannot be specifically enforced under Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as a servant cannot be forced upon an unwilling master. Furthermore, the court distinguished private employment from statutory or government employment, ruling that public law principles, such as the requirement for due process or the maxim 'audi alteram partem,' do not apply to private probationary employment. The only available remedy for such a breach is a claim for damages.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract for personal service be specifically enforced against an employer?
  • Does the principle of 'audi alteram partem' apply to the termination of a private employee during a probationary period?
  • Is an employee of a private organization entitled to a show-cause notice before termination during probation?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for an employee whose contract of personal service is terminated in breach of contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Ayub vs Mst. Nasira Mushtaq and 5 others2017 MLD 1796 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-27Read full judgment →
• Shahzaibul Hassan Khan vs Mian Muhammad Ahmed and 2 others2017 CLC 1539 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-27Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Qamer Abbas vs Province of Sindh and others2017 SHC 316 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-02
  Deputy Prosecutor GeneralSindh Public Service Commissionpublic recruitmentage limit relaxationact of court prejudices no oneconstitutional petitionmoulding of relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges Consolidated Advertisement No. 1 of 2017 issued by the Sindh Public Service Commission for recruitment to various posts, specifically seeking to incorporate and give preference to the previous merit list and examination results from Advertisement No. 05 of 2011 for the post of Deputy Prosecutor General in which the petitioner had previously qualified the written test before the process was stalled due to litigation. The core legal question is whether a candidate who successfully cleared a written test under a prior advertisement, which was delayed due to court proceedings and subsequent age bar, is entitled to participate in the fresh recruitment process without being penalized by the intervening delay and age limits. The Sindh High Court held that while the impugned advertisement and ongoing selection process are lawful and contain no illegality, the petitioner cannot be prejudiced by acts of the court or delays beyond his control, invoking the legal maxims lex non cogit ad impossibilia and actus curiae neminem gravabit. The court accordingly moulded the relief, directing that the petitioner be permitted to participate in the current recruitment process from the stage of the interview onwards, having already cleared the written test in the earlier process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate who qualified a written test under a previous advertisement stalled by litigation can claim direct entry to interviews in a subsequent recruitment process?
  • Does the delay caused by court proceedings in a public recruitment process prejudice the accrued rights of a candidate regarding age limits?
  • Can the High Court mould the relief in a constitutional petition to allow a qualified candidate to participate in a restarted recruitment process?
  • Are appointments to posts in the Sindh Criminal Prosecution Service governed by the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh Shakeel Khan and 2 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief2017 PLD Sindh 198 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-07
  Private school feesFee hike regulationConstitutional petitionVires of legislationFreedom of commerceRight to educationRegulatory mechanismEnforcement of rulesWrit jurisdictionEducation department
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved multiple petitions concerning private schools' fee hikes and the provincial government's regulatory mechanism. The core legal questions revolved around the vires of sub-rule 7(3) of the Sindh Private Education Institutions (Regulations and Control) Rules, 2002, which limits annual fee increases to 5%, challenged under Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution, and the alleged failure of the Department of Education to enforce existing regulations. The Court dismissed petitions challenging the vires of sub-rule 7(3), holding that the grievance was about the quantum of increase (5%) rather than the mechanism itself, which requires factual determination beyond writ jurisdiction, and found no inherent violation of Article 25. Petitions by parents/students were allowed. The Court directed the Department of Education to strictly enforce the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulations and Control) Ordinance, 2001, and its Rules, ensuring compliance with the 5% annual fee increase limit and submitting quarterly audit reports. Schools are permitted to increase tuition fees by no more than 5% per annum from their registration date for three years, with no further increase permitted until re-registration if the period expires. Schools that exceeded the 5% increase in the last three years are barred from further enhancement until re-registration, after which increases must strictly comply with sub-rule 7(3).

  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Syed vs Total Parco Marketing Ltd. through Company Secretary2017 YLR 2006 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-18Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs Mohammad Younus Gondal and 2 others2017 CLC 656 · Sindh High Court · 2016-07-29Read full judgment →
• Shahid alias Punjabi vs The State2017 PLD Sindh 717 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-24
  murderbenefit of doubtcriminal appealcontradictions in evidencestatement of accusedcross-examinationappreciation of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether material contradictions in prosecution witness testimonies, lack of an identification parade, delayed forensic reports, and flawed examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the conviction, and whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies, uncorroborated testimonies, and failure to put incriminating evidence to the accused during his statement. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of any substantial doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, and that cross-examination is a vital and substantive right for testing witness veracity which cannot be treated as an empty formality. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to create reasonable doubt warranting the acquittal of an accused?
  • Can a piece of evidence not put to the accused person at the time of recording his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered against him?
  • Whether the benefit of doubt in a criminal case is granted to an accused as a matter of grace or as a matter of right?
  • What is the legal evidentiary value of a confessional statement made before a police officer without production before a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Air International Limited (Sail) and another vs Civil Aviation2017 YLR 2442 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-04Read full judgment →
• Shafique and Company, Hyderabad through Proprietor vs Federation of Islamic Re-Public of Pakistan through Ministry of Foreign Affairs Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others2017 MLD 272 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-16Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 299 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-12
  unlicensed weaponarms ordinancebenefit of doubtrecovery witnesscriminal appealacquittalballistic expert
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 13-A(i)(c) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 for possessing an unlicensed Kalashnikov. The core legal questions involve whether major contradictions in police testimony, lack of independent public witnesses, failure to seal the recovered weapon or send it to a ballistic expert, and non-production of departure entries create fatal doubts in the prosecution's case. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that even a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, and vital omissions such as failing to associate independent witnesses or properly handle recovered evidence render the prosecution case untrustworthy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to associate independent public witnesses from nearby houses during a recovery create a reasonable doubt?
  • Whether non-sealing of the recovered weapon at the spot and failure to send it to a ballistic expert weakens the prosecution case?
  • Does the non-production of the police departure diary entry create a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the police raid?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right even if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed Malik and another vs Chairman, NAB and others2017 MLD 200 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar Zulfiqar vs The State2017 YLR 674 · Sindh High Court · 2016-09-07
  discharge of accusedwithdrawal from prosecutionconviction in absentiaabscondencealteration of chargeanti-terrorism trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the judgment of the District and Sessions Judge/Judge Anti-terrorism Court Sukkur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the trial court could lawfully convict the appellant when he had previously been legally discharged from the case pursuant to an application under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which order had attained finality, and without fresh evidence or proper legal proceedings to rejoin him as an accused. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court erred by altering the discharge status to absconder and proceeding to convict the appellant in absentia without any legal foundation, as the presiding officer was not competent to override a final discharge order passed by a predecessor without fresh material. The court laid down the principle that once an accused is validly discharged upon the withdrawal of prosecution by the public prosecutor, they cease to be an accused before the court, and subsequent conviction without lawful rejoining of the accused based on evidence or statutory procedure is illegal and void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can legally convict an individual who was previously discharged from the case under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a presiding officer alter a predecessor's final discharge order to show the accused as an absconder without any fresh material or evidence on record?
  • Is a trial in absentia and subsequent conviction valid when the prosecution had been withdrawn against the accused and no legal proceedings were initiated to rejoin him as an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Ashraf Khan vs Province of Sindh through Provincial2017 YLR 288 · Sindh High Court · 2012-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah and 5 others vs Jan Muhammad and another2017 MLD 1008 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-22Read full judgment →
• Samiur Rehman and another vs IInd Adj South Karachi and another2017 SHC 90 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-03Read full judgment →
• Samiur Rehman and another vs Iind Additional District Judge, South2017 YLR 1873 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-03Read full judgment →
• Samandar alias Qurban and others vs The State2017 MLD 539 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-03
  police encounterunlicensed weaponsbenefit of doubtanti-terrorismabductionrecovery of weaponscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of three connected appeals against the conviction of appellants by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana. The appellants were convicted under Sections 324, 353, 148, and 149 of the PPC, Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and Section 23(i)(a) of the Sindh Arms Ordinance, following an alleged police encounter during a raid to recover two abductees. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt given the lack of independent witnesses and inconsistencies in the encounter narrative. The High Court observed that despite a five-minute shootout involving 100 police personnel, no injuries were sustained by either side, nor was any property damaged. Furthermore, the recovered abductees testified that the appellants were not their kidnappers and denied that weapons were recovered in their presence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence, noting the non-compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C. and the delay in ballistic testing. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the appellants.

  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad and 2 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary2017 YLR 1199 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajida Yousuf vs (1) Muhammad Zahid Khan (2) Mrs. Razia Yousuf (3)2017 SHC 22 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajid Plastic Factory through Sole Proprietor vs MSC Bahamas through Master_Chief Officer and 9 others2017 PLD Sindh 396 · Sindh High Court · 2014-06-11Read full judgment →
• Saifullah Khan and others vs Mst. Afshan and others2017 PLD Sindh 324 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-03
  suit for administrationpreliminary decreeOrder XX Rule 13 CPCremand of suitbenami propertyinheritance distributionMuslim Personal Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal arose from a single-judge common judgment and decree disposing of two consolidated administration suits regarding the estate of a deceased patriarch, Z.A. Khan. The suits involved claims between two sets of legal heirs concerning partition, declaration, Benami status of properties, and validity of alleged relinquish deeds and sales. The High Court analyzed the scope and procedural mandates of administration suits under Order XX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The Court held that passing a preliminary decree under Order XX, Rule 13 C.P.C. for accounts and inquiries is a mandatory statutory requirement prior to the final disposition of an administration suit. The failure of the trial court to pass such a preliminary decree and appoint an administrator/receiver at the outset constituted a material irregularity that vitiated the subsequent proceedings. Reaffirming established precedent, the Court set aside the impugned judgments, remanded both consolidated suits for fresh adjudication, and directed the trial court to issue a preliminary decree and appoint a commissioner to record evidence on the consolidated issues.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory under Order XX, Rule 13 C.P.C. to pass a preliminary decree before passing a final decree in a suit for administration?
  • Does the failure of a court to pass a preliminary decree in an administration suit constitute a material irregularity that vitiates the entire proceedings?
  • Can a court in an administration suit determine whether property held by a sharer forms part of the estate of the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifan-Uz-Zaman Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2017 PLD Sindh 559 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-03
  public interest litigationlocus standiprivate transactionright to liferight to informationforeign exchange regulationshare purchase agreementtax evasion
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner, an investigative journalist, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging a private Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) between EFG Hermes Frontier Holdings and Invest and Finance Securities Limited. The Petitioner contended that the acquisition of 51% capital contravened the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and the Foreign Exchange Manual, alleging potential tax evasion and money laundering. The core legal question was whether a private commercial transaction could be challenged through public interest litigation under the guise of protecting fundamental rights like the right to life (Article 9) and the right to information (Article 19-A). The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the matter fell within the private domain and was subject to existing statutory regulatory frameworks. The Court ruled that the 'right to life' and 'right to information' cannot be used to justify roving inquiries into private transactions by third parties where no direct nexus with public administration or public injury is established. Public interest litigation requires a fit case of public wrong, not mere curiosity about private commercial dealings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private share purchase agreement can be challenged through public interest litigation on the grounds of alleged tax evasion?
  • Does the right to information under Article 19-A extend to private commercial transactions that have no direct nexus with public administration?
  • Can the right to life under Article 9 be invoked to seek judicial scrutiny of private business deals on the theory that they might reduce public exchequer funds?
  • Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to investigate transactions already subject to statutory regulatory oversight by bodies like the CCP and SBP?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif-Uz-Zaman Khan vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2017 SHC 112 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-28Read full judgment →
• Sahibzadi Shah Bano vs Senior Member Board of Revenue & 5 others2017 SHC 129 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-27Read full judgment →
• Sahib Khan and anothers vs The State2017 MLD 859 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-17Read full judgment →
• Saeed Allahwala vs Zam Zam Corporation/Federation of Pakistan2017 MLD 249 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-07Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs The State2017 YLR 2179 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-28
  criminal appealoutraging modestyhouse trespasswithholding material witnessesadverse inferencebenefit of doubtconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 452 and 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core question before the court was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the failure to examine material eyewitnesses—the complainant's husband and brother—and the failure to produce and identify the case property during trial. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution's story was unnatural and improbable given that the male family members allegedly remained passive during the assault, and that withholding material eyewitnesses creates an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The court laid down the principle that while the prosecution has the prerogative not to examine all witnesses, withholding natural and material witnesses without justification leads to an adverse inference, and the prosecution must prove its case independently of any weaknesses in the defense.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-examination of natural and material eyewitnesses by the prosecution warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the statement of the complainant when material eyewitnesses and case property are withheld or unverified during trial?
  • Does the weakness of the defense relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Kalhoro vs The State2017 PLD Sindh 592 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-25
  probationfirst offenderreformationcommunity servicecriminal appealrehabilitationsentencing discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of one year imprisonment imposed by the trial court upon the appellant for the possession of an unlicensed weapon. The core legal question was whether a first-time offender, convicted of a non-heinous offense, should be incarcerated or granted the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance 1960. The Court held that the appellant, being a first offender with no prior criminal record, was a suitable candidate for reformation rather than incarceration. Emphasizing the reformative nature of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance 1960, the Court maintained the conviction but suspended the sentence, placing the appellant on probation for one year. The key principle laid down is that the probation system serves as a tool for rehabilitation, allowing offenders to remain within their social environment while contributing to society through community service. The Court mandated that the appellant perform community service at a local mosque, reinforcing the principle that probation can be integrated with community service to foster a sense of responsibility and social reintegration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order community service as a condition of probation for a first-time offender?
  • Does the Probation of Offenders Ordinance 1960 allow for the integration of community service into probation orders?
  • What criteria should a court consider when deciding whether to place a convicted offender on probation instead of incarceration?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed alias Saeed vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Karachi) 985 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-06
  pre-arrest bailconfirmation of bailstalled trial proceedingscriminal procedureinterest of justicecomplainant's non-appearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case arising from Crime No. 55/2015, registered under Sections 506/2, 337-A(ii), 147, 148, 149, and 337-A(1)F(1) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant, who had previously been granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail, sought confirmation of the same after the trial court effectively stayed proceedings due to the complainant's failure to appear and lack of interest in the prosecution. The core legal question was whether, under the specific circumstances where trial proceedings were stalled due to the complainant's conduct, the applicant's pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The Court held that, given the lack of probability of the trial continuing in the near future and the unusual procedural circumstances, the interest of justice necessitated the confirmation of the bail. The Court affirmed that even in the absence of specific allegations of mala fide, bail may be confirmed when the prosecution is effectively stalled by the complainant's own inaction, thereby ensuring the applicant is not prejudiced by indefinite delays.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the trial proceedings have been effectively stayed due to the complainant's failure to participate?
  • Is the presence of the complainant mandatory for the court to decide on the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the lack of specific allegations of mala fide prevent a court from confirming pre-arrest bail in unusual circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Saddam Hussain Shambozai Brohi and 2 otherss vs The State2017 YLR 1667 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-16Read full judgment →
• Saad Aslam Karimi vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 92017 CLC 966 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-15Read full judgment →
• S.M. Yousuf and 3 others vs The Secretary, Government of Pakistan2017 CLC 800 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-23Read full judgment →
• S. Nasim Ahmed Shah and 115 others vs State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and another2017 PTD 2029 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-13
  Golden Handshake Schemeincome tax deductiontaxability of salarystare decisisper incuriamcontempt of courtbinding precedentservice benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by former employees of the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) seeking the refund of income tax deducted at source from their benefits under the Golden Handshake Scheme (GHS). The petitioners relied on a statement allegedly made by an SBP representative before the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) promising reimbursement of the deducted tax. The core legal question was whether the SBP was legally obligated to refund this income tax, given the conflicting history of litigation, including previous contempt proceedings and the Supreme Court's subsequent clarification on the taxability of GHS payments. The Court held that the payments made under the GHS constituted 'salary' and were legally taxable under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Malik Muhammad Inam v. Federation of Pakistan. The Court ruled that the SBP was legally bound to deduct the tax at source and that the petitioners' claim for a refund could not be sustained. The Court emphasized that the binding precedent established by the Supreme Court regarding the taxability of such payments overrides previous inconsistent orders, and the petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioners to approach the income tax authorities for any potential refund claims regarding calculation inaccuracies.

  Questions settled

  • Are payments received under a Golden Handshake Scheme taxable as 'salary' under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a judgment rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent or inconsistent statutory provision qualify as a judgment per incuriam?
  • Is a statement made by a departmental representative before a tribunal regarding the reimbursement of tax legally binding if it contradicts statutory tax obligations?
  • Does the doctrine of stare decisis under Article 189 of the Constitution require lower courts to follow Supreme Court pronouncements on questions of law even if earlier, inconsistent orders exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Yahya vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and 4 others2017 CLC 1129 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-18Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Solangi vs The State2017 MLD 560 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-18
  post-arrest bailextortionbhattapolice encounterwrongful confinementanti-terrorismprohibitory clausedelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, a police official (DSP), facing charges of kidnapping, extortion (bhatta), wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The prosecution case alleges that the complainant was abducted by police officials, confined in a police station, tortured, and forced to pay a massive extortion amount which was subsequently received in the presence of the applicant. The core legal question is whether a police official involved in acts of terror, extortion, and wrongful confinement from within a police station is entitled to post-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that the case of an accused police official who abuses official authority cannot be placed on the same pedestal as an ordinary accused, and given the prima facie connection to terrorist acts under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, the recovery of extortion money, and the gravity of the offense falling within the prohibitory clause, bail must be refused. The key principles laid down are that police officials committing acts that generate public terror and insecurity forfeit leniency, that delayed FIRs are excusable when victims are terrorized by law enforcement, and that recovery of substantial extortion money strongly corroborates the tentative assessment against the accused at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police official charged with extortion and kidnapping from a police station is entitled to be treated on the same pedestal as an ordinary accused for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the misuse of official authority by law enforcement personnel to commit acts of extortion fall within the scope of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Whether the recovery of substantial extortion money from an accused during investigation constitutes a sufficient ground to deny post-arrest bail under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can delay in lodging the FIR be considered fatal to the prosecution case when the accused are police officials and the victim family was subjected to continuous fear and coercion?
  Read full judgment →
• Roche Pakistan Limited vs Pakistan & others2017 SHC 333 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-12Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ahmed Qureshi and others---Appellants vs The State and others-2017 PLD Sindh 653 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-17
  extortionhostile witnessreasonable doubtanti-terrorismrevisional jurisdictionacquittalpolice encountercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for extortion, illegal possession of firearms, and engaging in a police encounter. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when the complainant turned hostile and denied the prosecution's narrative regarding the arrest and recovery of weapons. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the complainant’s testimony exonerated the appellants and the police evidence was contradictory and unreliable. Furthermore, the absence of an identification parade and the lack of forensic evidence regarding the extortion demands created significant doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. Additionally, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, the Court extended the benefit of acquittal to a co-accused who had not filed an appeal, as he was convicted on the same flawed evidence. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of a hostile complainant who denies the prosecution's version of events entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Can a High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction to acquit a co-accused who did not file an appeal when the conviction is based on the same flawed evidence?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused in a criminal case?
  • Does the failure to conduct an identification parade when the accused are unknown to the complainant create a fatal defect in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ali vs Sessions Judge and Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Hyderabad2017 P Cr. L J 92 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-27
  Ex-Officio Justice of the Peaceregistration of FIRcognizable offencenon-cognizable offencedirect complaintconstitutional petitionalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace/Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which declined to direct the police to register an FIR regarding a dispute over a shop and instead advised the petitioner to file a direct complaint. The core legal question was whether the Justice of the Peace erred in refusing to order FIR registration under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, when the police had already recorded the information as a non-cognizable report. The High Court held that the impugned order was lawful. The Court reasoned that the police had correctly recorded the information as a non-cognizable report because the facts disclosed did not constitute a cognizable offence. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is conditional upon the absence of other adequate remedies. Since the petitioner had an alternative remedy via a direct complaint, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The judgment affirms that the Justice of the Peace's authority to direct FIR registration is contingent upon the prima facie existence of a cognizable offence.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace direct the registration of an FIR if the information provided does not disclose a cognizable offence?
  • Is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan maintainable when an alternative remedy like a direct complaint is available?
  • What is the duty of an officer in-charge of a police station when information regarding a non-cognizable offence is provided?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ali Leghari vs The State2017 MLD 449 · Sindh High Court · 2016-07-27
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilitymurdertentative assessmentcommon intentionfacilitation of crimecriminal bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, charged under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the accused, alleged to have held the deceased while a co-accused inflicted fatal dagger wounds, was entitled to bail, given the defense's argument regarding conflicting versions of the incident and the alleged innocence of the accused. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the accused was prima facie connected to the crime. The court emphasized that at the bail stage, the judiciary must rely on the prosecution’s material, including the FIR and statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, for a tentative assessment. The court affirmed that an accused who actively facilitates a murder by restraining the victim can be held vicariously liable. Consequently, the court ruled that the accused’s involvement was sufficiently established to deny bail, noting that deeper appreciation of evidence is reserved for the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused who facilitates a murder by holding the deceased be held vicariously liable at the bail stage?
  • Does the existence of conflicting versions of an incident automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Should statements of defense witnesses be considered during the tentative assessment of a bail application?
  • What is the scope of judicial review regarding evidence during the determination of a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed and 2 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2017 MLD 507 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-22
  Section 12(2) CPCcivil servantscadre mergerservice rulesmisrepresentationfraudprovincial management service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an application filed under Section 12(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside a previous judgment of the High Court that had directed the official respondents to notify the draft Sindh Civil Servants (Provincial Management Service) Rules, 2006. The applicants, belonging to the Ex-PCS cadre, contended that the judgment was obtained through misrepresentation and without impleading them, and that the merger of cadres through administrative action was impermissible. The core legal questions revolved around whether the applicants established a case of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction to warrant setting aside the judgment under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether an application under Section 12(2) is maintainable merely on the ground of non-joinder of parties without proof of specific fraud or misrepresentation. The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any specific instance of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction, and that non-joinder alone does not vitiate a judgment on those grounds. The court laid down the principle that a challenge under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires specific, substantiated allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction, and cannot be used as a premature substitute for challenging statutory rules before they are formally notified.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be maintained on the sole ground of non-joinder of parties without establishing specific fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction?
  • Can a judgment directing the notification of draft service rules be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the applicants fail to substantiate allegations of misrepresentation with material particulars?
  • Whether affected civil servants have a lawful cause to challenge a judgment or draft service rules under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 prior to the formal notification of such rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Reliance Petrochem Industries (Pvt.) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2017 P.C.T.L.R. 461 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-27Read full judgment →