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.

• Sikander Teghani alias Muhammad Bux Teghani vs The State2016 YLR 1098 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-29
  AppealMurderQatl-e-amdOcular evidenceCircumstantial evidenceMotivePrompt FIRBallistic reportSection 342 Cr.P.C.Benefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment dated August 5, 2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, convicting the appellant for qatl-e-amd of a post office clerk by fire shot injuries. The core legal questions addressed the credibility of ocular and circumstantial evidence, the impact of a prompt FIR, the relevance of motive, the absence of a ballistic expert report, and the non-examination of a passerby injured during the appellant's apprehension. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant, along with an absconding accused, committed the murder. Key principles affirmed include that a chance witness's testimony is credible if their presence is reasonably explained and narration inspires confidence; prompt FIR and immediate apprehension lessen chances of false implication; motive is immaterial in the presence of ocular evidence; non-production of a ballistic report is not fatal if other direct evidence is strong and a genuine reason for its absence exists; and an accused's mere denial under Section 342 Cr.P.C. is insufficient when the prosecution has discharged its burden.

  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Zulqarnain vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. and 9 others2016 PLD Sindh 139 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-04
  investigation powersbank account detailssimultaneous civil and criminal proceedingsembezzlementcriminal breach of trustquashment of criminal proceedingspending civil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the State through the Investigating Officer under section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking directions against several respondent banks and tax authorities to provide complete account details and tax deductions pertaining to the accused persons in a pending criminal case registered for embezzlement, cheating, and criminal breach of trust. The core legal question was whether investigative powers to collect evidence and bank details under section 94 Cr.P.C. can be exercised while civil proceedings and arbitration regarding the business accounts are already pending between the parties. The Sindh High Court held that the pendency of civil proceedings or arbitration places no restriction or embargo upon the lodging of an FIR or the continuation of criminal investigation, and that both civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. The court allowed the application, granting permission under section 94(b) Cr.P.C. for the police to obtain the required bank account details to complete the investigation. The key principle laid down is that the existence of a civil dispute or pending civil suit does not bar criminal investigation or prosecution for fraud and misappropriation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the pendency of a civil suit or arbitration proceedings bars the continuation of a criminal investigation for embezzlement and fraud?
  • Can the High Court grant permission under section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct banks to provide account details during an ongoing criminal investigation?
  • Does the filing of an interim challan and framing of a charge restrict the Investigating Officer from collecting further evidence?
  • Can civil and criminal proceedings pertaining to the same subject matter continue simultaneously?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali Lashari vs The State and another2016 YLR 62 · Sindh High Court · 2015-06-22
  fair trialdue processdocumentary evidenceelectronic evidencesupply of documentscriminal revisionanti-terrorismdigital data
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an Anti-Terrorism Court order that refused to supply the applicant with copies of USB and CD data before the framing of charges. The core legal question was whether digital data stored on such devices constitutes a "document" under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby entitling the accused to receive copies as part of the right to a fair trial. The Sindh High Court held that USBs and CDs containing audio and visual data fall within the broad definition of "document" under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, directing the trial court to provide the requested copies. The ratio established is that the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 mandates that an accused must be provided with all evidentiary material, including digital records, to effectively prepare a defense and confront the prosecution's case, regardless of potential concerns regarding data manipulation.

  Questions settled

  • Does audio and video data stored on a USB or CD constitute a 'document' under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to receive copies of electronic evidence, such as USBs and CDs, before the commencement of the trial?
  • Does the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 require the prosecution to provide the accused with copies of digital evidence?
  • Can a trial court refuse to supply copies of digital evidence to an accused based on the apprehension of potential manipulation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shrimati Ghori vs 9TH Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad and2016 MLD 1155 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-11Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Khan vs Messrs Karachi Water and Sewerage Board through Managing Director and 5 others2016 YLR 2471 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-10Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Ahmed Shaikh and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and others2016 PLD Sindh 607 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-04Read full judgment →
• Shin Satellite Public Company Limited through Attorney---Plaintiff vs2016 YLR 2322 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-04Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad through Legal Heirs and 9 others vs Messrs Sui Southern2016 YLR 1321 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-10Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Sabir vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 717 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-26
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationinherent powersnon-bailable warrantsdefault of undertakingcondonation of absencedishonestly issuing cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant filed a criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order issued by the Additional District Judge, which directed the issuance of non-bailable warrants against him and his surety following his failure to appear and his filing of a vague application for condonation of absence. The applicant was previously granted pre-arrest bail in a case concerning offences under sections 489-F and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, subject to an undertaking to pay the outstanding cheque amount in monthly installments, which he subsequently defaulted upon. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in exercising its inherent powers, should interfere with the trial court's order issuing warrants and whether the applicant could bypass the trial court to challenge proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant abused the process of law by avoiding appearance and defaulting on his bail conditions, and it declined to interfere with the impugned order. The Court laid down that questions of jurisdiction and trial court proceedings must first be raised before the trial court itself, and it issued a notice under sections 561-A and 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the potential cancellation of the applicant's pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court examine grounds under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 that were not first raised before the trial court?
  • Whether an accused who defaults on a payment undertaking given for pre-arrest bail is liable to have his bail cancelled?
  • Is an application seeking indefinite condonation of personal appearance before a trial court maintainable when it lacks specific dates and medical justification?
  • Can an accused bypass the trial court to directly invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court against procedural orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed Khan vs The State and 4 others2016 P Cr. L J 1457 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-13
  Criminal RevisionAcquittalMaintainabilityIllegal Dispossession ActLimitationRight of AppealSection 265-K Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application challenged an order of acquittal passed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a Criminal Revision Application is maintainable against an order of acquittal when the statute provides a specific remedy of appeal. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that a revision is not competent against an acquittal order where an appeal remedy is available under Section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the principle that Section 439(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 expressly bars revision proceedings where an appeal is provided but not filed. The court further noted that the applicant attempted to use the revision process to circumvent the limitation period for filing an appeal, which had already expired. The court affirmed that the proper legal recourse for an acquittal order is an appeal, not a revision, and that procedural bars regarding limitation cannot be bypassed by mischaracterizing the nature of the challenge.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Criminal Revision Application maintainable against an order of acquittal when a remedy of appeal is available?
  • Does Section 439(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar revision proceedings where an appeal is provided but not filed?
  • Can a party bypass the limitation period for an appeal by filing a revision application against an acquittal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed and 5 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division and 2 others2016 PTD 577 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-20
  sales taxCNG stationsnatural gaspresumptive tax regimeretail priceconstitutional petitiontax collection mechanism
  Summary & questions settled

  In this case, the petitioners challenged the constitutional and legal validity of Section 3(8) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which provides for the collection of sales tax on natural gas supplied to CNG stations at the rate of seventeen percent of the value of supply to CNG consumers, as notified by the Board. The core legal question was whether charging sales tax under Section 3(8) at the purchase stage of natural gas based on the retail price of CNG constitutes an unlawful enhancement of the tax rate or contradicts Section 3(1) of the Act and previous judicial precedents. The Sindh High Court held that the levy of sales tax under Section 3(8) is valid, lawful, and does not exceed the statutory rate of seventeen percent, as it merely shifts the collection of tax from a two-stage process to a single convenient stage without increasing the tax burden on CNG station operators, who pass the incidence onto end consumers. The court established that collection mechanisms under the presumptive tax regime and single-stage recovery akin to Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Sales Tax Act are within the legislative competence of the State.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 3(8) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 is ultra vires the Constitution or Section 3(1) of the Act?
  • Can sales tax on natural gas supplied to CNG stations be charged at the purchase stage based on the retail price of CNG to end consumers?
  • Does the single-stage collection mechanism under Section 3(8) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 unlawfully enhance the statutory tax rate of seventeen percent?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Sultan Ahmed vs Iftikharuddin Paracha and 2 others2016 MLD 806 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-11Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Trade Links through Sole Proprietor, Karachi and another vs MTW2016 PLJ Karachi 8 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-18Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Trade Links through Sole Proprietor and another vs MTW Pak2016 PLJ Karachi 8, 2016 CLC 83 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-18
  interim injunctiondeclarationpermanent injunctionjoint venture agreementbreach of contractprima facie casebalance of convenienceirreparable lossspecific performanceagency contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs, a proprietorship concern and a joint venture company, sought to restrain defendants from entering into agreements for importing and assembling Belarus Tractors, alleging fraudulent incorporation of a competing company and breach of a Memorandum of Understanding and Joint Venture Agreement. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss necessary for injunctive relief, particularly given the absence of a concluded contract with the foreign manufacturer (defendant No.6) for exclusive agency rights. The court dismissed the injunction application, holding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy these prerequisites. It was found that no concluded contract existed between the plaintiffs and defendant No.6, and that monetary compensation would be an adequate remedy for any proven breach. The court emphasized that interim injunction is a discretionary equitable relief, not granted as a matter of right, and that irreparable loss implies a loss not calculable in money.

  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Masih and 2 others vs The State2016 YLR 1922 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-21
  kidnapping for ransomdeath sentence confirmationchild witness testimonyidentification paradeballistic reportrecovery of ransomanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and confirmation reference arise from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for kidnapping for ransom and murder under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution case was that the appellants kidnapped a schoolboy and his driver for ransom, during which the driver was shot dead and the boy was subsequently released upon payment of ransom. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular and child witness testimony, the evidentiary value of identification parades, and the proof of recoveries including ransom money and mobile SIM cards. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular evidence, medical reports, call data records, and reliable recoveries. The appeal was dismissed, and the death sentences were confirmed, establishing that child witness testimony, when scrutinized carefully and found intelligent and reliable, is fully admissible and sufficient to sustain a conviction in heinous capital offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a child witness of tender age can be relied upon for conviction in a capital case?
  • Does delay in lodging the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution case when plausibly explained?
  • Whether strict compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory in all circumstances of search and recovery?
  • Whether the uncorroborated defence plea of alibi shifts the onus onto the accused to prove it by cogent evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad and another vs Ivth Additional District Judge, Karachi (East)2016 PLD Sindh 26 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-23
  Constitutional PetitionOrder VII Rule 11 CPCRejection of plaintPublic nuisanceSection 91 CPCAdvocate-General's permissionCause of actionIndependent right to suePiecemeal rejection of plaintCivil Procedure Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition challenged the dismissal of an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., seeking rejection of a civil suit's plaint. The petitioners contended that the suit, alleging public nuisance due to the conversion of a residential property into a commercial car showroom, required the Advocate-General's permission under Section 91 C.P.C. and lacked a disclosed cause of action. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that subsection (2) of Section 91 C.P.C. provides an exception, allowing plaintiffs an independent right to sue for personal disturbance of peace, privacy, and security without the Advocate-General's consent. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that a plaint cannot be rejected in piecemeal under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C.; if even one prayer for relief is maintainable, the entire plaint cannot be rejected.

  Read full judgment →
• (1) Shahrukh Shakeel Khan & others (2) Generation?s School (Pvt.) Ltd (3)2016 SHC 10 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shahnawaz vs The State2016 NLR Criminal 270, 2016 YLR 2842 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-23Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Tariq,Azmatullah Kolachi vs The State2016 MLD 1475 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-01Read full judgment →
• Shahid Iqbal vs The State2016 MLD 230 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-29
  benefit of doubtunlicensed weaponappreciation of evidencepolice testimonycriminal appealrecovery of armsstandard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, who was found guilty by the trial court for the possession of an unlicensed weapon under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance solely on police testimony and the absence of independent witnesses in a populated area. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, citing the non-production of departure and arrival entries, the failure to secure independent mashirs despite the location being a populated area, and an unexplained inordinate delay in sending the weapon to the forensic expert. The Court emphasized that while police testimony is not inherently unreliable, the harsher the potential sentence, the stricter the standard of proof required. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, and ordered his immediate release, establishing that the safe administration of criminal justice necessitates minimum evidentiary standards to prevent miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-production of police station arrival and departure entries in a recovery case undermine the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of police officials sufficient for conviction in an arms recovery case where independent witnesses were available but not called?
  • Does an inordinate delay in sending a recovered weapon to a forensic expert create reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence?
  • What is the standard of proof required in criminal cases involving severe statutory penalties?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs NAB & Others2016 NLR Criminal 392 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ansari and another vs Soneri Bank Limited2016 CLD 2055 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-15Read full judgment →
• Shah Bali and another vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 549 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-31
  criminal appealmurdercommon intentionbenefit of doubtcontradictory evidencematrimonial disputecatching hold roleappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a fatal assault during a matrimonial dispute. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants shared a common intention with the principal absconding accused and actively participated in the murder by holding the deceased. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants. The Court held that the role attributed to the appellants of merely catching hold of the 70-year-old deceased was doubtful, uncorroborated by reliable or unimpeachable evidence, and fraught with material contradictions among partisan witnesses. The Court established that common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cannot be presumed without pre-concert or shared design, and that in capital cases, the benefit of any doubt arising from inconsistent testimonies or background matrimonial animosity must be resolved in favour of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the role of catching hold of a deceased person without inflicting any injury is sufficient to attract joint liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on the basis of contradictory and partisan eyewitness testimony without independent corroboration?
  • Does the existence of a prior matrimonial dispute between the families raise a strong probability of false implication requiring the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused?
  • What constitutes sufficient proof of pre-concert and common intention in a murder trial involving multiple accused with distinct roles?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi-Ud-Din and others vs National Industrial Relations2016 PLC 532 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-06
  unfair labour practicetrade union activitiestransfer of employeescollective bargaining agentindustrial disputeconstitutional jurisdictionNIRC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging an order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which upheld a Single Member's decision dismissing the petitioners' complaints regarding alleged unfair labour practices. The petitioners, office bearers of a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) union, claimed that their transfers were acts of victimization intended to crush trade union activities, violating the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The core legal question was whether the NIRC correctly dismissed the petitions without recording evidence, and whether the employer's right to transfer employees superseded the protections against unfair labour practice. The Court observed that the petitioners had already complied with the transfer orders and resumed duties at new locations. Holding that the NIRC's concurrent findings were based on the employer's operational requirements and the lack of substantive evidence of unfair labour practice, the Court declined to interfere. The judgment reaffirms that while trade union members are protected against victimization, an employer retains the inherent right to transfer employees, and mere allegations of unfair labour practice without supporting evidence do not warrant judicial intervention or the setting aside of administrative transfers.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employer have an inherent right to transfer employees despite their status as trade union office bearers?
  • Are mere allegations of unfair labour practice sufficient to require the recording of evidence by the NIRC?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of the NIRC in constitutional jurisdiction when the petitioners have already complied with transfer orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Khan and another vs Haji Abdul Latif Khan through L.Rs,2016 CLC 1790 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-29Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed alias Farhan Mulla---Applicant vs The State2016 YLR 2582 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-25
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseextra-judicial confessionheinous offencescriminal recorddiscretionary jurisdictionmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 72 of 2008 registered under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Landhi, Karachi. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail when he was implicated through a co-accused's statement, confessed during police interrogation while confined in another case, and had a history of involvement in multiple heinous criminal cases. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant failed to make out a case for bail, noting that his involvement in heinous crimes, coupled with the circumstances linking him to the offence under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranted withholding discretionary relief. The court laid down the principle that the right to bail in offences falling within the prohibitory clause is not absolute, and past criminal record along with confession and police interrogation can provide sufficient tentative grounds to decline bail pending the examination of eye-witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere non-mentioning of an accused's name in the FIR is sufficient to grant post-arrest bail?
  • Is the right to bail in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 absolute?
  • Can involvement in multiple heinous criminal cases be considered by a court to withhold the discretionary grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Seedat Chambers through Abdul Cadir Adam Seedat vs Wealth Tax2016 PTD 2625 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-12
  wealth taxassociation of personsconstitutional petitionalternate remedydouble taxationassessment ordervaluation of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court challenging assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, treating the co-owners of the building "Seedat Chambers" as an Association of Persons (AoP). The core legal questions involved the constitutional validity of charging wealth tax on an AoP, whether the assessment amounts to double taxation, the applicability of Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, and the availability of a constitutional remedy when statutory alternate remedies exist. The court held that the wealth tax on an AoP is intra vires, does not constitute double taxation as an AoP is a distinct legal entity for tax purposes, and that factual disputes regarding the method of assessment must be agitated through statutory appeals rather than invoking the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. The petition was accordingly disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeals with a recommendation for sympathetic consideration of the limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Association of Persons holding property can be assessed to wealth tax independently of the individual shares of its co-owners without amounting to double taxation?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against wealth tax assessment orders when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available?
  • Whether Rule 8(3) of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, is of a facilitative character providing methodology for calculating the net wealth of an assessee?
  • Whether an assessee is barred from calling in question the jurisdiction of a Wealth Tax Officer after having filed a return pursuant to a notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Scheme of Arrangement Between Jaffer Brothers (Pvt.) Limited and Jaffer Business Systems (Pvt) Limited_ In the matter of vs N_a2016 CLD 2271 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-23Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Ali and 8 others vs Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and 112016 CLC 1090 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed and another vs The Chairman National Accountability2016 P Cr. L J 79 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-04
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Ordinancesales tax refund fraudfurther inquirycorruption and corrupt practiceschain of commandFBR officials
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, a former Deputy Superintendent and a former Superintendent of the Federal Board of Revenue, sought post-arrest bail in NAB Reference No.18 of 2015, which alleged they processed and recommended fraudulent sales tax refund claims without verifying document genuineness, thereby committing corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' involvement in processing claims within a statutory hierarchy warranted their continued detention or attracted further inquiry under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the case called for further inquiry into the petitioners' exact role, especially given a multi-tiered chain of command under the Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002, the exoneration of higher supervisory officers, and the absence of any incriminating material showing personal unlawful gain or tainted assets. Consequently, the court confirmed the petitioners' post-arrest bail, establishing that where an accused operates within a hierarchical administrative framework and no tangible personal benefit is demonstrated at the pre-trial stage, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether subordinate officials who process or recommend sales tax refund claims within a regulatory hierarchy are entitled to post-arrest bail when higher authorities involved in the same process are exonerated?
  • Does the absence of incriminating material regarding personal unlawful gain or tainted assets attract the concept of further inquiry under bail jurisprudence?
  • Whether delay in concluding a trial under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 constitutes a valid ground for the grant of bail?
  • Whether processing refund claims without verifying the genuineness of documents prima facie establishes an offence under section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed and another vs Chairman National Accountability2016 P Cr. L J 79, 2016 PLJ Karachi 143 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-04
  post-arrest bailNAB referencesales tax refundcorruption and corrupt practicesfurther inquirychain of command
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, a Deputy Superintendent and a Superintendent (FBR), filed petitions seeking post-arrest bail in a NAB Reference concerning alleged fraudulent sales tax refunds obtained by fake companies through the processing and recommendation of bogus refund claims. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were directly culpable for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, or whether their roles within the statutory hierarchy and chain of command warranted further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioners' involvement called for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given that processing and recommending claims involved a multi-tiered hierarchy under the Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002, and the prosecution failed to show any unlawful personal gain, illegal gratification, or abnormal bank transactions attributable to the petitioners. The key principles laid down are that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of the material on record is undertaken, the object of pre-trial detention is not to punish an accused, and where an accused's exact culpability within a statutory chain of command requires deeper examination and trial delays are likely, they are entitled to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused public official involved in processing tax refund claims is entitled to post-arrest bail when the statutory hierarchy and chain of command raise questions requiring further inquiry?
  • Does the absence of incriminating material regarding unlawful personal gain or illegal gratification warrant the grant of bail in accountability cases?
  • Whether inordinate delay in concluding trials under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 constitutes a valid ground for enlarging an under-trial prisoner on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Farooqi vs The Regional Tax Officer III and others2016 P.C.T.L.R. 914 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-23Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ullah Khan vs The State2016 YLR 1344 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-16
  acquittalSection 265-K Cr.P.C.criminal revisionpremature acquittalappreciation of evidencewrongful confinementpolice official
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed by an ex-DIG challenging the trial court's order, which dismissed his application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant, accused of wrongful confinement and other offences, argued that the FIR was mala fide, politically motivated, and lacked sufficient evidence, further contending that the trial court should have exercised its discretion to acquit him before the framing of the charge. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly declined to exercise its power of acquittal at a premature stage. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, holding that the powers under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be exercised sparingly and only when there is no probability of conviction. The Court affirmed that where allegations involve heinous offences and require deeper appreciation of evidence, the trial court cannot be compelled to acquit the accused before the prosecution has had the opportunity to adduce evidence. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be acquitted under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the framing of a charge if the case requires deeper appreciation of evidence?
  • Is the power of the trial court under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to be exercised sparingly and only when there is no probability of conviction?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an FIR at its inception when the case involves serious allegations requiring evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Salamuddin vs S.H.O. P.S. Halani and another2016 YLR 2760 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-31Read full judgment →
• Saifullah vs Province of Sindh through Home Secretary and 3 others2016 YLR 2545 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-25Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Sethar vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and 2 others2016 PLC (C.S.) 589 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-07
  contract employeevested rightconstitutional petitionselection on merittermination of contractdepartmental selection committeeservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired government servant and former contract employee, challenged the termination of his contract as a Senior Consultant and the subsequent appointment of the respondent No.3 to the same post, seeking to declare the selection illegal and to have his own case reconsidered. The core legal questions involved whether a contract employee possesses a vested right to contract extension or re-employment, and whether the selection process conducted by the Departmental Selection Committee was open to judicial interference under constitutional jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that a contract employee has no vested right to extension or regularisation, that the mere floating of a summary for contract extension does not confer any legal right, and that the appointment of respondent No.3 made through a transparent selection process on merit provided no ground for interference. The court laid down the principle that contract employees do not acquire vested rights for continuation or renewal of their service, and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked against transparent merit-based selections where no fundamental rights have been infringed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract employee have a vested right to claim an extension of their contract or re-employment?
  • Does the mere floating or initiation of a summary for the extension of a contract confer any enforceable legal right on an employee?
  • Can a transparent, merit-based selection conducted by a departmental selection committee be challenged under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in the absence of infringement of fundamental rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Amin Rahman vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation2016 PLC 335 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-23
  master and servantnon-statutory service rulesdiscriminationpromotion boardworking agreementtransition trainingcivil suitpermanent injunctionproductive servicegood governance
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a senior pilot with Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction after his name was withdrawn from a Transition Training Course for B-777 aircraft. Despite being cleared by the Promotion Board, the defendants argued the plaintiff lacked the mandatory 24 months of 'productive service' required under Clause 5.3.11 of the PALPA-PIAC Working Agreement. The court observed that the delay in scheduling the training was attributable to the defendants and noted instances of discriminatory treatment where other pilots were accommodated despite similar shortfalls. The court held that while the relationship between PIAC and its employees is governed by the principle of 'master and servant' due to the absence of statutory service rules, the management cannot act arbitrarily or in violation of fundamental rights and the principle of good governance. Consequently, the court set aside the withdrawal letter and directed the defendants to send the plaintiff for training, while restraining the practice of 'ex-post facto' clearance for other pilots as a violation of the working agreement.

  Read full judgment →
• Saddam vs The State2016 MLD 1446 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-04
  post-arrest bailmurderunlawful assemblymedical corroborationfamily vendettacourt marriagefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, Saddam Gopang, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from the murder of Muhammad Ayoub Gopang. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly and fired straight at the deceased due to a family grudge over a court marriage. The applicant argued that the witnesses were closely related and interested, the FIR was delayed by eight hours, and no specific fatal injury was attributed to him. The High Court of Sindh observed that the applicant was assigned a specific role of firing at the deceased, which was corroborated by the post-mortem report showing three gunshot wounds, the recovery of a pistol from the applicant, and the recovery of empties from the crime scene. The Court held that at the bail stage, where accused persons act with common intention in pursuit of a vendetta, it is immaterial whose shot proved fatal. Finding no grounds for further inquiry, the Court dismissed the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a delay of eight hours in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution case at the bail stage if it is plausibly explained by the time taken for a post-mortem examination?
  • Is the relationship of the complainant and eyewitnesses to the deceased sufficient on its own to discard their testimony at the bail stage?
  • Can bail be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that it is not yet determined which of the multiple accused fired the fatal shot, where they are charged with common intention?
  Read full judgment →
• Sada Bux and another vs The State2016 YLR 463 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-02
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencecorroborationadverse inferencemurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for murder, arising from an incident involving two distinct parts. The trial court had convicted the appellants for the second part of the incident while acquitting co-accused involved in the first part, despite relying on the same set of witnesses for both. The core legal question was whether the appellants could be convicted on the testimony of witnesses whose evidence was already disbelieved regarding the first part of the incident, and whether the prosecution established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. It ruled that when the same witnesses are disbelieved for one part of an incident, their testimony regarding another part requires strong, independent corroboration, which was absent here. Furthermore, the court emphasized that medical evidence is merely corroborative and cannot substitute for credible ocular testimony. The court also drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for failing to examine natural, independent witnesses. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, extending them the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court convict an accused based on the same set of witnesses whose testimony was rejected regarding another part of the same incident?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an alleged motive necessitate the rejection of the prosecution's case?
  • What is the legal status of medical evidence in criminal proceedings regarding the connection of an accused to an offense?
  • Does the withholding of natural and independent witnesses by the prosecution warrant an adverse inference under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain and another vs The State2016 P Cr. LJ 1120 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-19
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailmurderinstigationinvestigating officer opinioncriminal trialbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns bail applications filed by two accused persons, Sabir Hussain and Abid Hussain, facing charges under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the wife of Abid Hussain. The core legal questions were whether the accused were entitled to bail before and after arrest given the evidence of instigation and direct involvement, and whether the investigating officer's opinion in the final report was binding on the court. The Court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offence, which is punishable by death or life imprisonment. Consequently, the Court dismissed both bail applications, noting that the investigating officer's opinion is not binding and that the plea of accidental death requires deeper appreciation of evidence by the trial court. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief requiring proof of ulterior motives and victimization, and it cannot be granted merely as a substitute for post-arrest bail or based on the investigating officer's favorable opinion.

  Questions settled

  • Is the opinion of an investigating officer regarding the innocence of an accused binding upon the court during bail proceedings?
  • What are the essential conditions that must be satisfied to obtain pre-arrest bail in a criminal case?
  • Can a plea of accidental death be considered a sufficient ground for the grant of bail before the conclusion of a trial?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabiha Jamil vs Messrs Uni Lever Pakistan Ltd. through Company2016 CLC 259 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-18Read full judgment →
• S.M. Yousuf and Others vs The Secretary Government of Pakistan and Others2016 SHC 85 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Solangi vs The State2016 SHC 29 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-18
  post-arrest bailextortionpolice misconductanti-terrorismdelayed FIRprohibitory clausekidnapping
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by a police official accused of kidnapping a businessman and extorting money under the threat of death. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the allegations of extortion, confinement in a police station, and the application of anti-terrorism laws. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, dismissing the application. The ratio established that police officials accused of heinous crimes, particularly those involving the misuse of official capacity to commit acts of terrorism or extortion, cannot be treated on the same pedestal as ordinary accused persons. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal to the prosecution's case when the delay is plausibly explained by the victim's fear of police retaliation. Finally, the recovery of substantial extortion money from the accused, in the absence of demonstrated mala fides, constitutes strong incriminating evidence sufficient to deny bail in offences falling within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police official accused of serious crimes be treated on the same pedestal as an ordinary accused when seeking bail?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case when the accused are police officials?
  • Does the recovery of substantial extortion money constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in offences falling under the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Rimsha Shaikhani vs Nixor College through Board of Directors/Governors2016 PLD Sindh 405 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-15
  No Tuition Policyfundamental right to educationdoctrine of proportionalityeducational institutionwithholding of resultsnatural justiceinternal policy
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a student, initiated a suit against her college for withholding her A-Level examination results and school leaving certificate following an alleged violation of the institution's 'No Tuition Policy.' The core legal question was whether an educational institution’s internal policy could justify withholding academic records and whether such a policy constitutes a binding legal restriction on a student’s fundamental right to education. The Court held that the college’s internal policy lacked the force of law and that the punitive action of withholding results was disproportionate and unauthorized by the policy itself. The Court ordered the immediate release of the plaintiff's results and documents. The key principles laid down include the distinction between legal and moral obligations, asserting that educational institutions cannot enforce moral duties through punitive measures that infringe upon a student's fundamental right to education. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the doctrine of proportionality, ruling that any disciplinary action taken by an institution must be reasonable, related to the gravity of the infraction, and consistent with the institution's own stated regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Can an educational institution's internal 'No Tuition Policy' be enforced as a legal duty to justify withholding a student's examination results?
  • Does the doctrine of proportionality apply to disciplinary actions taken by private educational institutions against students?
  • Is the right to seek private tuition a fundamental aspect of a student's right to education that cannot be arbitrarily restricted by an institution?
  • Can an educational institution impose punitive measures that are not explicitly provided for in its own internal policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan vs Star Trading Company2016 YLR 2109 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-18Read full judgment →
• Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan vs Muhammad Alam2016 CLC 1326, 2016 CLC 1573, 2016 CLD 2106, 2016 CLD 1551 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-01Read full judgment →
• Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan vs Mohammad Alam2016 CLC 1326 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-01Read full judgment →
• Riaz Muhammad vs Dildar Muhammad and 11 others2016 YLR 2798 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-11Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussan vs Vith Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karachi and 22016 PLC 201 · Sindh High Court · 2015-06-15
  industrial relationsunfair labor practiceeviction from residential accommodationinterim injunctionstanding ordersjurisdiction of magistrateNIRC
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, permanent workmen of the respondent power utility company whose services were terminated, approached the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, alleging unfair labor practices, and obtained interim orders directing the maintenance of status quo regarding their residential accommodation. Notwithstanding these orders, the respondent filed complaints under Standing Order 16 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, leading the magistrate to order the petitioners' eviction. The Sindh High Court examined whether the magistrate could proceed with eviction despite the NIRC's interim orders. The court held that recourse to Standing Order 16 is voluntary and optional for the employer, and where an in personam interim order restrains the employer from removing the employee from the residential premises, the employer cannot utilize the standing order, and the magistrate must stay proceedings. The court concluded that the magistrate erred in executing eviction orders while binding interim injunctions from the NIRC were operating against the employer, moulding relief accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer can invoke Standing Order 16 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 to evict an employee when an interim order in personam passed by the NIRC is in the field?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission possess the statutory power under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 to issue interim orders maintaining status quo regarding residential accommodation provided to a terminated employee?
  • What is the legal effect of a non-obstante clause in a federal enactment on a provincial statute enacted outside Parliament's legislative competence post-18th Amendment?
  • Whether proceedings under Standing Order 16 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are mandatory or purely permissive and voluntary at the option of the employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Gul and 5 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 36 others2016 PLC (C.S.) 350 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-27
  constitutional petitionstatutory rulesmaintainabilityrecruitment processfactual controversiesArticle 199public limited companyfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by candidates challenging the selection and appointment process for the post of Junior Engineer (BPS-17) conducted by Respondent No. 2 (a public limited company). The petitioners alleged nepotism, favoritism, and lack of transparency during interviews conducted by an improper selection committee, seeking orders to recommence the interview process and re-check test papers through independent sources. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, arguing that Respondent No. 2 lacked statutory rules, appointments were based on merit according to provincial quotas, and the petition raised disputed factual questions.

  The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that constitutional remedies under Article 199 are unavailable where employment terms and conditions are not governed by statutory rules. Additionally, the Court held that factual controversies based on disputed allegations cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction, and mere participation or selection in written/interview tests does not vest candidates with enforceable fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable under Article 199 against an entity whose service terms and conditions are not governed by statutory rules?
  • Can disputed factual controversies regarding recruitment and candidate selection be resolved under Article 199 constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does mere passing or selection in a written test and interview vest a candidate with an enforceable fundamental right to appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs The State2016 MLD 700 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
• Rhone Poulenc Rorer Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Chief Inspector of Stamps, Board of Revenue (KS & Ep) Wing2016 CLC 1594 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-16Read full judgment →
• Rehan and 4 otherss vs Bibi Jalo Shah alias Dada Sain and 6 otherss2016 MLD 1730 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-11Read full judgment →
• Redtone Telecommunications Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and another2016 YLR 345 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-30Read full judgment →
• Ray Shipping Enterprise Ltd. vs Assistant Collector of Customs and others2016 PTD 2760 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-19Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux and 2 others vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 767 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-29
  post-arrest baildacoitydelayed F.I.R.absconsioninterested witnessesland disputetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by three accused persons challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot, which had declined their bail in a case registered under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail despite being charged with dacoity, given the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on several factors: an unexplained 13-day delay in lodging the F.I.R., the existence of prior enmity between the parties over land disputes, the lack of recovery of the stolen property from the applicants, and the fact that the prosecution witnesses were closely related to the complainant. Additionally, the Court noted the advanced age of one applicant as a mitigating factor and affirmed that absconsion does not automatically bar the grant of bail if a prima facie case for bail is otherwise established. The Court emphasized that Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 provides for alternate punishments, allowing for the consideration of lesser sentences at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for granting bail?
  • Can absconsion alone prevent the grant of bail if a case for bail is otherwise made out?
  • Should the court consider the possibility of a lesser sentence under Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the bail stage?
  • Does the existence of prior enmity between parties over land disputes impact the assessment of a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Rana Bhagwandas: In the matter of(2) Mrs. Ratna Devi, W/o Justice2016 PLD Sindh 197 · Sindh High Court · 2015-06-25Read full judgment →
• Ramesh Kumar Ukrani vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2016 CLC 1152 · Sindh High Court · 2015-07-30
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitywrit jurisdictiongas supplyCNG stationOGRA licensemoratoriumstate instrumentality
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner approached the Sindh High Court through a constitutional petition seeking a direction to the respondents to commission the supply of gas to the petitioner's completed CNG station, for which a provisional license and subsequently a regular license were issued by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition under Article 199 against Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, and whether the petitioner was entitled to the commissioning of gas supply based on the priority categories following the lifting of a moratorium. The court examined rival contentions and conflicting precedents on whether public limited companies performing functions connected with the affairs of the federation are amenable to writ jurisdiction. The High Court held that gas utility companies, as state instrumentalities or agencies performing public functions and managing public resources, are subject to judicial review under Article 199, and that contractual actions carrying elements of public interest and state obligations are open to scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against Sui Southern Gas Company Limited?
  • Does a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance 1984 perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation so as to render it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether the issuance of a license by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority establishes an absolute right for a licensee to the allocation and supply of a particular quantity of natural gas?
  • Can a contract carrying an element of public interest concluded by a state-controlled corporate entity be subjected to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Raisuddin through Legal heirs vs Mst. Rabia Begum and 11 others2016 MLD 14 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-10Read full judgment →
• Rahimdad Mohammadani vs The StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 37, 2016 YLR 1642 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-11
  abduction for ransomconviction in absentiarule of consistencybenefit of doubtfair trialappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a trial court judgment that convicted the appellant in absentia for abduction for ransom. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained when the prosecution's evidence, specifically the testimony of the abductee, failed to implicate the accused, and when co-accused facing the same charges and evidence had already been acquitted. The High Court held that the conviction could not be maintained. The court reasoned that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof, as the star witness (the abductee) did not identify the accused, and the police testimony regarding identification was insufficient to overcome the resulting doubts. Furthermore, applying the rule of consistency, the court found the appellant entitled to the same acquittal granted to his co-accused. The court laid down the principle that where the prosecution's evidence is identical for multiple accused, and that evidence has been disbelieved or failed to implicate one, it cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction of another, as doing so would violate the principles of justice and the benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction in absentia be sustained when the same evidence has led to the acquittal of co-accused?
  • Does the failure of an abductee to identify the accused in court create a fatal dent in the prosecution's case for abduction?
  • Is a trial in absentia consistent with the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can evidence that has been disbelieved regarding one accused be relied upon to convict another accused in the same case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahimdad Mohammadani vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 37 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-11
  rule of consistencyabduction for ransombenefit of doubttrial in absentiacriminal appealpolice identification
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant in absentia for abduction for ransom under a trial involving multiple co-accused. The core legal question concerns whether the appellant is entitled to acquittal under the rule of consistency given that co-accused facing the same set of evidence and charges have already been acquitted by the appellate court, and whether police identification alone can sustain a conviction when the star witness (the abductee) fails to implicate the accused. The Sindh High Court held that since the primary evidence of the abductee did not support the prosecution's case and co-accused implicated on identical evidence had been acquitted, the appellant was entitled to the same legal treatment and benefit of the doubt. The court laid down the principle that the rule of consistency applies when co-accused are tried on the same evidence and that a conviction for abduction cannot safely rest solely on police identification when the victim does not identify the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused tried in absentia is entitled to acquittal under the rule of consistency when co-accused facing the same evidence have been acquitted?
  • Can a conviction for abduction be sustained on the testimony of police officials alone when the primary victim fails to identify the accused?
  • Does a trial in absentia violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Sodhar and 2 others vs The State2016 YLR 633 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-01
  double murderanti-terrorismbhatta extortionocular testimonyballistic reportcriminal appealunlawful assembly
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302(b) and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Naushehro Feroze. The prosecution case alleged that the appellants, along with absconding co-accused, formed an unlawful assembly, intercepted a car carrying the deceased individuals following a dispute over the demand for 'Bhatta', and committed a double murder through indiscriminate firing. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of the eyewitnesses, the corroboration of ocular testimony with medical and ballistic evidence, the establishment of motive, and the sustainability of the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts, corroborating medical reports, positive ballistic findings, and an unexplained firearm injury sustained by one of the appellants at the scene. The appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the relationship of eyewitnesses with the deceased is sufficient to discard their testimony in the absence of established hostility?
  • Does the failure of surviving eyewitnesses to sustain firearm injuries render their presence at the place of occurrence doubtful?
  • Whether an appellant's inability to explain his firearm injuries sustained during the incident constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance?
  • Whether minor contradictions in prosecution evidence affect the core merits of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Haji Usman vs Chairman NAB & Others2016 NLR Criminal 346 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-27Read full judgment →
• Rafat Malik Jamal vs Munawar Malik Jamal and 12 others2016 MLD 931 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-23Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs The State and 5 others2016 P Cr. L J 320 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-06
  illegal dispossessionland mafiacriminal revisionpossession disputerevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed against the order of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, which dismissed the applicant's complaint filed under Sections 3, 4, and 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005. The core legal issue was whether the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 apply to a longstanding civil land dispute where the respondents had been in possession of the property for nearly ten years. The High Court observed that revenue reports and the applicant's own legal notice established that the respondents had been in continuous possession of the subject land for several years. The court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 is intended to curb illegal dispossession by land mafias rather than to resolve long-standing civil or contractual possession disputes. Consequently, finding no illegality or impropriety in the trial court's order, the High Court dismissed the revision application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 applies to long-standing civil disputes over possession of land?
  • Can a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be maintained where the respondents have been in continuous possession for a decade?
  • Is the jurisdiction under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 intended for land mafias rather than civil property disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamaruddin and 4 others vs The State2016 MLD 877 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-28Read full judgment →
• Qaim vs Federation of Pakistan and others2016 PLD Sindh 1 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-27
  post-conviction benefitSection 382-B Cr.P.C.leave refusing orderbinding precedentPakistan Army Act 1952judicial disciplineconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions filed by convicts sentenced under Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, seeking the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the adjustment of pre-conviction custody against their sentences. The core legal question was whether such convicts are entitled to this benefit and whether a Supreme Court "leave refusing order" denying such relief constitutes a binding precedent under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is available to these petitioners. It ruled that a leave-refusing order of the Supreme Court does not constitute a binding judgment under Article 189, though it may be highly persuasive. The Court determined that the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Shah Hussain established the governing principle for post-conviction benefits, which overrides earlier, inconsistent leave-refusing orders. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the principles in Shah Hussain must be applied, and the petitioners are entitled to the recalculation of their sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Is a leave-refusing order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan a binding precedent under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are convicts sentenced under Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952 entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances does a subsequent Supreme Court judgment override an earlier leave-refusing order of the same Court?
  • Does the rule in Multiline Associates regarding the constitution of a larger bench apply when the legal landscape has been fundamentally altered by a subsequent Supreme Court decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department2016 PLD Sindh 288 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-06Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh and another vs Land Acquisition Officer and 2 others2016 CLC 1047 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-28Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh through Secretary Forest Department and 2 others-2016 YLR 773 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-24Read full judgment →
• Peer Jehanzeb Shah vs Sadaqat ALIand 5 others2016 YLR 970 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-04
  Illegal Dispossession Actproperty disputecriminal revisioncivil disputeland mafiapossessionjoint survey
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Malir Karachi, whereby a criminal complaint filed by the applicant under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed. The applicant claimed ownership and possession of a piece of land situated in a joint survey number, alleging that the respondents forcibly dispossessed him with the assistance of police. The trial court referred the matter for inquiry, and the inquiry report revealed that the respondents had purchased the property from a predecessor who held title documents, while the applicant failed to substantiate his possession or title. The core legal question was whether a case under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was made out where a bona fide property dispute involving competing claims and disputed demarcation existed. The court held that the statute was enacted to curb land grabbers and Qabza groups, and where title and location are unclear and stem from a genuine civil dispute, the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act do not apply. The revision application was accordingly dismissed, affirming that civil remedies should be pursued for disputed property ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can be invoked in cases involving bona fide civil disputes over property ownership and demarcation?
  • Can a criminal complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act be maintained when the complainant fails to establish settled physical possession or clear title?
  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act apply to purchasers who acquire property through registered sale agreements from predecessors holding settlement and revenue documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Parma Saeed vs Kli R Ra M Za Far2016 CLC 1251 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd.s vs Shahabuddin K. Bhimani and 52016 MLD 1630 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan PVC Limited General Employees Union. vs Government of Pakistan2016 SHC 49 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-07Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association vs The Controller of Patents and another2016 SHC 32 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-30Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Petroleum Limited through Authorized Officer vs Pakistan2016 PTD 2664 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-12
  income tax audittax assessmentstatutory interpretationtaxpayer rightsCommissioner of Inland Revenueself-assessment schemejudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit filed by the plaintiff challenging a notice issued by the tax authorities under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, selecting the plaintiff for an audit of its income tax affairs. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner is required to provide reasons for selecting a taxpayer for audit, whether the taxpayer has a right to object to such reasons, and whether the Commissioner must pass a justiciable speaking order on those objections before proceeding with the audit. The Court held that while the Commissioner is statutorily obligated to record and communicate reasons for selecting a case for audit, the law does not grant the taxpayer a right to challenge these reasons through a separate, justiciable proceeding before the audit commences. The Court affirmed that the audit process itself does not create tax liability and that the taxpayer has sufficient remedies to contest findings during the subsequent assessment amendment process. The Court emphasized that it cannot read into the statute a mechanism for challenging audit selection that the legislature did not provide.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 require the Commissioner to pass a justiciable speaking order on a taxpayer's objections to an audit selection notice?
  • Is the Commissioner's power to conduct an audit under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 dependent solely on selection by the Federal Board of Revenue under Section 214C?
  • Does the mere issuance of an audit notice under Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 create an adverse tax liability for the taxpayer?
  Read full judgment →
• Pathan Khokhar vs The State2016 YLR 359 · Sindh High Court · 2015-06-01
  post-arrest bailnarcoticscharaschemical examination delaypolice witnessesfurther inquiryControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Pathan Khokhar, challenging the dismissal of his bail plea by the Sessions Judge/Special Judge, CNS, Kamber Shahdadkot, in a case involving the recovery of 2050 grams of charas. The core legal questions were whether the non-association of private witnesses (mashirs) and the delay in sending the narcotic samples for chemical examination entitled the applicant to bail on the grounds of further inquiry. The Court held that under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are excluded, rendering the absence of private witnesses immaterial as police officials are competent witnesses. Furthermore, the Court held that the rules regarding the 72-hour window for sending samples to the chemical examiner are directory, not mandatory, and a delay does not vitiate the prosecution's case absent evidence of tampering. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, finding no case for further inquiry, while directing the trial court to conclude proceedings within 30 days.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 render the non-association of private witnesses at the time of recovery immaterial?
  • Are police officials considered competent witnesses in narcotics cases?
  • Is the requirement to send narcotic samples for chemical examination within 72 hours mandatory or directory under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (Government Analysts) Rules 2001?
  • Does a delay in sending narcotic samples for chemical examination automatically entitle an accused to bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Medical Association (Centre) through General Secretary and others vs Chancellor Dow University of Health Sciences and others2016 PLC (C.S.) 1232 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-26
  Vice-Chancellor appointmentDow University of Health SciencesSearch CommitteeChief Minister adviceGovernor Chancellor powersconstitutional petitionpublic sector university
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment addresses multiple constitutional petitions challenging the appointment process and notification of the Vice-Chancellor of the Dow University of Health Sciences. The core legal questions involve whether the Chancellor has discretion to act contrary to the Chief Minister's advice under Section 12(1) of the Dow University of Health Sciences Act, 2004, read with Article 105 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and whether flaws in the constitution and proceedings of the Search Committee vitiated the selection process. The Sindh High Court held that the Chancellor is bound by valid executive advice and that participation of a search committee member whose name was listed as a referee by a candidate, alongside the unexplained absence of another member, compromised the neutrality and transparency of the selection. Consequently, the court set aside the appointment notification, directed the reconstitution of the Search Committee, and ordered a de novo selection process. The key principle laid down is that statutory search committees for public university leadership must strictly maintain impartiality, full quorum, and transparent evaluation standards to uphold merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chancellor has the discretion to substitute his own choice or act contrary to the advice of the Government regarding the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor under Section 12(1) of the Dow University of Health Sciences Act, 2004?
  • Does the inclusion of a person in the Search Committee who was cited as a referee by one of the competing candidates vitiate the transparency and neutrality of the selection process?
  • Whether the absence of a member of the Search Committee during interviews and the evaluation process renders the selection of candidates illegal?
  • Can candidates who actively participate in a selection process without immediate objection later challenge the composition of the selection body after being declared unsuccessful?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, Karachi through Secretary vs Mrs. Shahida M. Amin and 3 others2016 CLC 624 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority vs Creek Marina (Pvt.)2016 CLD 1453 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-04Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority through Administrator/2016 YLR 262 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-18Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Airline Pilots Association and others vs Pakistan International2016 SHC 3 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pak Oman Investment Company Limited vs Chenab Limited and 9 otherss2016 CLD 1903 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-29
  Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001Banking suitRejection of plaintLeave to defendCertified statement of accountBankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891Mandatory complianceFair trialDue processTerritorial jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses applications filed under Section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, seeking rejection of the plaint or leave to defend a suit for recovery of Rs. 191,190,736/-. The core legal questions revolved around the plaintiff financial institution's compliance with mandatory requirements of Section 9(2) and 9(3) of F.I.O., 2001, specifically concerning the filing of a duly certified statement of account and other relevant documents, and whether any deficiencies could be cured at a later stage. The court held that compliance with Section 9 of F.I.O., 2001, including the proper certification of a statement of account under Section 2(8) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, is mandatory and cannot be rectified subsequently. The court found that both the plaintiff and the defendants failed to fulfill their respective mandatory obligations under Sections 9 and 10 of F.I.O., 2001. Consequently, the court rejected both the defendants' leave-to-defend applications and the plaintiff's plaint, emphasizing that an incompetent suit should not be allowed to continue.

  Questions settled

  • Is compliance with Section 9(2) and 9(3) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, mandatory for a financial institution's suit for recovery?
  • Can non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, be cured at a later stage, such as through replication?
  • What are the essential ingredients for a statement of account to be considered 'duly certified' under Section 2(8) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891?
  • What are the consequences for a plaintiff financial institution if it fails to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. preclude a plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint for the same cause of action?
  Read full judgment →
• Pak Libya Holding Company (Private) Limited vs Maxco (Pvt.) Limited2016 CLD 1147 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-21Read full judgment →
• Pathan vs The State2016 YLR 1629 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-25
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseocular evidencemedical corroborationcriminal liabilitybail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which dismissed his plea for post-arrest bail in a case involving offences under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being nominated in the FIR, having a specific role attributed to him, and facing incriminating evidence including the recovery of a weapon. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, noting that the incident occurred in daylight, the parties were known to each other, and the ocular evidence was corroborated by medical reports and the recovery of empty casings from the crime scene. The Court affirmed that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where there are reasonable grounds to believe an accused committed an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment, and the prosecution's case is supported by corroborated evidence, bail should be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of a weapon and empty casings from the crime scene constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail in a murder case?
  • Can bail be granted when the accused is nominated in the FIR and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a delay in registering an FIR necessarily entitle an accused to bail if the delay is explained by the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Pacific Exim (Pvt.) Ltd. through Company 'Secretary vs Pakistan Steel2016 PLD Sindh 398 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-27Read full judgment →
• Olympia Power Generation (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Sui Southern Gas2016 SHC · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-18Read full judgment →
• Noushad Ali vs The State and 2 others2016 YLR 1819 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-23
  criminal revisionanti-terrorism courtjurisdictionreturn of FIRmurdercommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed by the complainant to assail the order passed by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, whereby the FIR was returned to the police for submission before a court of ordinary jurisdiction after deleting sections relating to terrorism. The core legal question was whether an offense committed inside a bank following a dispute over money between coworkers, resulting in murder without creating public terror or insecurity, falls within the ambit of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The Sindh High Court held that since the incident arose from a sudden quarrel over money between bank employees without any design to create terror or public insecurity, the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were not attracted. The Court laid down the principle that private disputes resulting in violence, absent the specific design or purpose contemplated under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, do not constitute acts of terrorism and are triable by ordinary courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a murder committed during a sudden quarrel between coworkers over a money matter fall within the definition of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can an anti-terrorism court return an FIR to the police for submission to an ordinary court if the offense lacks the elements of terrorism?
  • What constitutes the necessary design or purpose of an offense to attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Norinpaco and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2016 PTD 1214 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-02Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Mst. Feroza and another2016 MLD 941 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-24Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and another vs 1ST Additional District Judge, Badin2016 YLR 1270 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-27Read full judgment →
• Noor Hassan vs Abdullah and 4 others2016 P Cr. L J 166 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-24
  bail cancellationheinous offencefurther inquiryprohibitory clausetransfer of casejudicial biaspolice misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal miscellaneous applications for the cancellation of bail granted to police officials accused of abduction and rape, alongside a transfer application regarding the trial court's conduct. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in granting bail based on minor contradictions in witness statements and whether the case warranted transfer due to judicial bias. The High Court cancelled the bail, ruling that the trial court acted illegally by treating minor discrepancies as sufficient grounds for 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly in heinous offences falling under the prohibitory clause. The court established that tentative assessment of evidence for bail purposes does not permit a trial court to fixate on minor contradictions to bypass the prohibitory clause for heinous crimes. Furthermore, the court affirmed that where victims face harassment and the trial judge displays bias—evidenced by unjustified issuance of warrants against victims—transfer of the case is necessary to ensure a fair and impartial trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of minor contradictions between ocular and medical evidence automatically entitle an accused to bail under the 'further inquiry' provision of Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court's unjustified issuance of bailable warrants against victims and complainants constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a criminal case?
  • Is a tentative assessment of evidence in a bail application permitted to focus on minor discrepancies when the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed vs The State2016 YLR 388 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-08
  suspension of sentenceshort sentencebail pending appealnarcotics recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal and an associated application under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the appellant seeking suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail pending appeal, following his conviction under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 to four years and six months rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question concerns whether a convict serving a short sentence should be granted bail when the appeal is unlikely to be heard promptly due to institutional backlog. The Sindh High Court held that where a short sentence has been awarded and the disposal of the main appeal is likely to take considerable time due to the non-preparation of the paper book and heavy backlog, the sentence ought to be suspended and the appellant released on bail. The key principle laid down is that the existence of a short sentence combined with the improbability of an early hearing of the appeal constitutes sufficient ground for suspending the sentence and granting bail during the pendency of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended and bail granted during the pendency of an appeal when the appellant has been awarded a short sentence?
  • Whether the likelihood of a delayed hearing due to backlog and absence of a paper book justifies suspension of sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin alias Nizam vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 667 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-05
  Section 540 CrPCrecall of witnesscross-examinationSection 561-A CrPCright of cross-examinationState counselfair trialjust decision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed against an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, which had dismissed the applicant's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall a key prosecution witness for cross-examination. The trial court had refused to recall the witness after defence counsel initially refused to cross-examine him and state-appointed counsel also failed to cross-examine him. The core legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial court erred in declining to recall a material prosecution witness for cross-examination when no cross-examination had taken place on record. The High Court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the recall of the witness, holding that cross-examination is a fundamental right and the primary vehicle for determining truth, particularly in cases involving severe or capital penalties. The Court established that under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where evidence is essential for the just decision of a case, it is mandatory for the court to permit its production and examination, and an accused person should not suffer prejudice due to the faults or lapses of defence counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Is it obligatory upon a court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall a prosecution witness for cross-examination when such evidence is essential for a just decision?
  • Should an accused person suffer prejudice or be denied the right of cross-examination due to the default or refusal of defence counsel?
  • Can a court allow an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to permit cross-examination of a key witness when no cross-examination was conducted by either private counsel or state-appointed counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed Ansari through his real son vs Federation of Pakistan2016 P Cr. L J 761 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-20
  post-arrest bailassets beyond known sources of incomeNational Accountability Ordinancepersonal libertyincomplete investigationsupplementary referenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, concerns a request for post-arrest bail by a former government servant facing charges under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for accumulating assets beyond known sources of income. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the prosecution admits that the investigation is incomplete, supplementary references are pending, and previous inquiries into the same allegations concluded that no further action was required. The Court held that the prosecution must prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence, specifically the accused's public office, the extent of pecuniary resources, the known sources of income, and that the resources are disproportionate to those sources. Finding that the prosecution had not yet collected sufficient material to connect the petitioner to the offence and that the petitioner could not be held indefinitely pending further investigation, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that mere gravity of an offence does not justify indefinite detention, and personal liberty cannot be curtailed without sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the accused to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients the prosecution must establish to prove an offence under Section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can an accused be kept in indefinite detention pending the collection of further evidence by the prosecution?
  • Does the mere possession of pecuniary resources or property by a public servant constitute an offence under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Nib Bank Ltd. vs Muhammad Zia Ali Qureshi2016 CLD 2160 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-13
  limitation periodcondonation of delayspecial lawbanking court appealfinancial institutions recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal was filed under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, challenging a judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court, which partly decreed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and damages against the appellant-bank. The appeal was filed after forty-six days, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking condonation of delay. The core legal question addressed by the High Court was whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, apply to appeals filed under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The Court held that since the Ordinance is a special law that prescribes its own period of limitation, and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act excludes provisions not expressly made applicable, Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to appeals under the Ordinance. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay and the main appeal were dismissed as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be availed for proceedings under a special law unless expressly applicable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to appeals filed under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can the benefit of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 be invoked when a special law prescribes its own period of limitation?
  • What is the prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal against a judgment and decree of a Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Niazul Haque through Legal Heirs vs Rafi Ahmed Qureshi2016M L D 493 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-21Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed vs The State2016 YLR 291 · Sindh High Court · 2014-07-08Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State2016 MLD 886 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-11
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilitycommon intentionprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal bailmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application concerns an accused seeking post-arrest bail in a double murder case involving offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an accused, who was present at the crime scene but unarmed and attributed no active role in the commission of the offence, is entitled to bail despite the offence falling under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court granted bail, holding that the applicant's vicarious liability under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, required further inquiry to be determined at trial. The key principle laid down is that bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment, and incarceration should not be maintained without reasonable grounds establishing the accused's complicity. Where an accused is merely present without an active role or weapon, the question of common intention is a matter for trial determination. The Court emphasized that the potential for unjustified incarceration of an innocent person outweighs the risk of mistaken relief in the absence of reasonable grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail if they were present at the crime scene but unarmed and attributed no active role in the commission of the offence?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime automatically establish common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment for an accused involved in an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nayadaur Motor (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance and 3 others2016 PTD 1080 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-04Read full judgment →