Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Misbah Karim and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2016 PLD Sindh 462 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mirza Abdul Sattar Baig and others vs Pakistan Railway through Divisional Superintendent, Karachi and others2016 CLC 1931 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-06Read full judgment →
- Mir Nadir Ali Khan Talpur vs Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh2016 PLC (C.S.) 403 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a civil servant challenging his transfer order on the grounds of mala fides and lack of approval by the Chief Minister under the Sindh Civil Services (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. During the proceedings, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition in view of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the Supreme Court judgment in Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh, asserting that matters relating to terms and conditions of civil service, including transfers and postings, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The High Court held that since the petitioner is a civil servant challenging his transfer, the constitutional petition is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution and the settled law, as adequate remedy is available before the Service Tribunal under the Sindh Services Tribunal Act, 1973. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition filed by a civil servant against an order of transfer and posting is maintainable in view of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Does the expression 'terms and conditions' of service under the law include matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain service matters of civil servants or must such aggrieved persons approach the Service Tribunal?
- Metropolitan Steel Corporation Limited through its Director L.I.T.E., Landhi, Karachi and another vs Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution & the Board through its Chairman, Eom House, Karachi and 2 others2016 PLC 499, 2016 PLJ Karachi 151 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Sindh High Court resolves constitutional petitions concerning the statutory powers of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The core legal questions addressed were whether the Board of Trustees had the authority to delegate appeal hearings to a committee or quorum of one or two members, and whether an employer is liable to pay old-age contributions for workers hired through an independent contractor. The Court held that the Board's rules legally permit disposal of appeals involving specified financial limits by a smaller committee or quorum, and that workers engaged through contractors fall squarely within the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(bb) of the Act. Consequently, the employer is legally obligated to make contributions to the EOBI for such personnel. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Had the Board of Trustees authority under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 to make provisions for an appeal to be heard by a committee or quorum of one or two members?
- Whether contribution is payable by the employer under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 in respect of employees employed through an independent contractor?
- Do persons hired on a contract basis through a contractor fall under the definition of 'employee' under Section 2(bb) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
- Metropolitan Steel Corpn. Ltd. through Director vs Employees' Old-Age2016 PLC 499 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment resolves consolidated constitutional petitions addressing common questions concerning the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The core legal questions were whether the Board of Trustees had the authority to delegate appeal hearings to a committee comprising one or two members, and whether an employer is liable to pay old-age benefit contributions in respect of workers employed through an independent contractor. The court held that under the statutory framework and the Employees' Old-Age Benefits (Board of Trustees) Rules, 1977, the Board is legally competent to constitute smaller committees or quorums to hear appeals based on financial thresholds. The court further held that contractual laborers and workers engaged through independent contractors fall squarely within the wide statutory definition of "employee" under Section 2(bb) of the Act, rendering the primary establishment or employer liable to contribute to the institution on their behalf. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Board of Trustees has the authority under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 to provide for appeals to be heard by a committee of one or two members?
- Whether an employer is liable to pay contributions under the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 in respect of workers employed through an independent contractor?
- Does a person hired through a contractor fall under the definition of employee within Section 2(bb) of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
- Messrs Yunus Textile Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan throughSecretary (Revenue2016 PT D 1056 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Trust Investment Bank Ltd. through Authorized Officer vs Government of Sindh through Secretary Home and 3 others2016 MLD 278 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a non-banking finance company, sought the quashment of three FIRs registered against its officers for dishonoured cheques issued to the respondent regarding a failed investment scheme. The petitioner argued that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process given the existence of a pending civil suit in a Banking Court and a prior settlement agreement. The Sindh High Court examined whether criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could proceed concurrently with civil litigation. The Court held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not constitute a legal bar to criminal proceedings, as they serve distinct purposes: the former enforces civil rights, while the latter punishes criminal conduct. Furthermore, the Court determined that questions regarding dishonest intention and the violation of settlement agreements require factual inquiry, which is unsuitable for constitutional jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that petitioners must exhaust adequate alternate remedies, such as seeking acquittal under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, before invoking Article 199 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of civil proceedings regarding the same transaction act as a legal bar to the maintainability of criminal proceedings?
- Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to resolve factual disputes regarding the dishonest issuance of cheques?
- Is it permissible for a petitioner to seek identical relief through multiple concurrent legal proceedings?
- Does the police report recommending the disposal of an FIR bind a Magistrate in their judicial decision-making?
- Messrs Tricom Entertainment (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Pakistan Electronic Media2016 CLC 893 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Trading Corporation Op Pakistan Ltd, vs Messrs General2016 MLD 897 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree making an arbitration award the rule of the court. During the pendency of the appeal, the Arbitration Act, 1940 was amended by the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, requiring arbitration awards to set out detailed reasons. The High Court previously remitted the award to the surviving arbitrator to supply reasons, which order was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, before filing the reasons, the surviving arbitrator passed away, creating an impossibility of compliance. The core legal question was the legal effect on an arbitration award when it has been remitted for reasons but the arbitrator dies before providing them, and whether the award becomes void under the statute. The court held that since the award lacked reasons as mandated by law and could not be reconsidered due to the demise of the arbitrator, and the parties declined to appoint new arbitrators, the award became void under Section 16(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Consequently, the court superseded the reference under Section 19, setting aside the judgment and decree while allowing the parties to seek remedies before a civil court.
Questions settled- What is the legal effect on an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 when an award is remitted for reasons but the arbitrator passes away before submitting them?
- Whether an arbitration award lacking reasons becomes void when compliance with an order of remission is rendered impossible by the death of the arbitrator?
- Can a court supersede an arbitration reference under Section 19 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 when the arbitration agreement becomes frustrated due to the demise of the arbitrators?
- Whether the time spent in arbitration proceedings is excluded under Section 37(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 when computing the period of limitation for filing a civil suit?
- Messrs Trade Link Corporation and others vs Federation of Pakistan2016 PTD 1096 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs Tasleem Traders. vs Deputy Collector Group-III PaCCS and others.2016 PTD 1894, PTCL 2016 CL. 831 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs Tasleem Traders vs Deputy Collector Group-III PaCCS and others2016 PTD 1894 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs Standard Chartered Leasing Limited through Authorized Attorney2016 CLD 762 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs SMS Courier (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collector (Appeals) Customs and anotherPTCL 2016 CL. 375, 2016 PTD 1 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sindh Employees Social Security Institution through Commissioner and 2 others vs Rajwani Apparel (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief2016 PLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the assessment of social security contributions by the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution against a private company. The core legal questions were whether the Institution could validly assess contribution arrears for the period of 1993–1995 based on data from subsequent years, and whether the employer had successfully rebutted the Institution's audit findings for the period of 1995–2000. The High Court held that the assessment for the 1995–2000 period was lawful, as the employer failed to produce evidence to rebut the audit findings despite having the burden of proof. However, the Court set aside the assessment for the 1993–1995 period, ruling that the Institution acted arbitrarily by calculating liability based on hypothetical figures from succeeding years without evidence. The key principle laid down is that while the Institution may assess contributions based on available records, it cannot create arbitrary liabilities for prior years by extrapolating data from later periods without a factual basis, and the burden remains on the employer to disprove audit findings once an inspection has occurred.
Questions settled- Can the Social Security Institution assess contribution liability for a past period based solely on calculations from succeeding years?
- Does an employer have the burden of proof to rebut a demand for social security contributions once an audit has been conducted?
- Is an assessment of social security contributions valid if it is made arbitrarily without reference to evidence or records?
- Messrs Sindh Employees Social Security Institution through Commissioner and 2 Others vs Rajwani Apparel (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive_Managing Director2016 PLC 1, 2016 NLR Labour 118 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns a dispute over the assessment of short-paid social security contributions by the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution against an employer. The core legal questions were whether the Institution could assess contribution arrears for a past period (1993-1995) based on hypothetical calculations derived from subsequent years (1995-2000) due to the employer's failure to produce records, and whether the burden of proof lies on the employer to rebut an audit assessment. The Court held that while the Institution is entitled to assess contributions based on available records, it cannot arbitrarily assess liabilities for past years based on figures from succeeding years without a factual basis. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the employer to rebut an audit assessment once the Institution has conducted an inspection, but ruled that the assessment for the period 1993-1995 was invalid as it lacked evidentiary support. The key principle laid down is that assessments of social security contributions must be based on actual evidence or records, and figures from one period cannot be extrapolated to create liability for another period without justification.
Questions settled- Can the Social Security Institution assess contribution arrears for a past period based on hypothetical calculations derived from subsequent years?
- Does the burden of proof lie on the employer to rebut an audit assessment of social security contributions?
- Is an assessment of social security contributions valid if it is based on extrapolation from a different time period rather than actual records?
- Messrs Shahtaj Textile Ltd. vs Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan)2016 YLR 1477 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shahtaj Textile Limited vs Messrs J&M Clothing Co. and others2016 CLD 984 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ranipur Sugar Mills(Pvt.) Ltd. through Director Operations vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Agriculture Department and another2016 PLD Sindh 201 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rabia Rana and Company through Managing Partner vs Province2016 YLR 2286 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two contempt of court applications filed by the petitioners alleging non-compliance with an earlier court order regarding land compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were entitled to interest from the date of taking possession under Section 34 of the Act, and whether they could claim additional compensation under Section 28-A of the Act despite its subsequent omission from the statute as 'if it had never been enacted' following a declaration of repugnancy to Islamic Injunctions. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to interest under Section 34 from the date possession was taken until final payment, as the respondents had miscalculated the period. However, the court held that no vested right could be claimed under Section 28-A because its omission was retrospective, treating the provision as if it had never existed, rendering savings provisions like Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Articles 203-D and 264 of the Constitution inapplicable. The contempt applications were partly allowed regarding interest calculation and dismissed regarding additional compensation.
Questions settled- Whether a landowner is entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 from the date of taking possession of the land until final payment?
- Does the omission of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 'as if it had never been enacted' extinguish previously accrued rights to additional compensation?
- Can the savings provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 and Articles 203-D and 264 of the Constitution protect a vested right under a law declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and omitted retrospectively?
- Whether contempt proceedings are maintainable when the interpretation of statutory compensation provisions is genuinely disputed?
- Messrs Qamran Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. through Managing Director vs Mohammad Anis and 26 others2016 YLR 1436 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Port Services (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Port Qasim Authority2016 MLD 506 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Popular International (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorised Officer and another vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 4 others2016 PLD Sindh 19 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pfizer Pakistan Ltd. through Company Secretary and others vs Deputy Commissioner and others2016 PTD 1429 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected constitutional petitions under Article 199 challenged the Commissioner's authority to select a taxpayer for audit under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The petitioners contended that the power to select persons for audit is solely vested in the Federal Board of Revenue through computer balloting under Section 214C, and that the Commissioner cannot exercise independent discretion under Section 120(1A). The High Court examined the interplay between Sections 120(1A), 177, 214C, and 122(5). The Court held that Section 120(1A) contains a non-obstante clause that empowers the Commissioner to conduct audits independently of the Board's selection process. The Court reasoned that if the Commissioner's power were contingent only upon the Board's selection, provisions regarding 'reasonable grounds' for re-audit under Section 177(7) would become redundant. The Court laid down the principle that the law visualizes two distinct modes for audit selection: person-specific selection based on the Commissioner's discretion under Section 120(1A) where reasonable grounds exist, and general selection by the Board under Section 214C. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
- Messrs Shogan International (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue2016 PTD 2866 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan Hockey Federation through Secretary General and another vs Mirza Imtiaz Baig2016 CLC 1922 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan Gas Port Ltd. vs Messrs Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd. and 2P L,D 2016 Sindh 207 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pak Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd. vs Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Government of Pakistan and 3 others2016 PTD 2933 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pak Arab Pipeline Company Ltd. through Attorney vs Federation2016 PTD 100, PTCL 2016 CL. 362 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs New Lal Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs Shaheen Insurance Co.2016 CLD 52 · Sindh High Court · 2015-07-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs New Bhatti Oil Mills through Proprietor and anothers vs National2016 CLD 1805 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs National Fiber Ltd.,. and 5 others vs National Bank of Pakistan2016 YLR 1304 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. through Chief Manager vs The VTH2016 MLD 780 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs Muhammad Muqeem Sohail Builders and Developers through Managing Partner vs Shamsher Ali and 43 others2016 YLR 240 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Muhammad Hassan Wassan, Government Contractor through Proprietor vs Province of Sindh through Secretary and 2 others2016 CLC 633 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs M.K. International, Local Agent of Messrs Interman Trading Fze vs Sui Southern Gas Company through M.D. and 2 others2016 CLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a private indenting firm, challenged an order dated 22.09.2014 issued by Sui Southern Gas Company (Respondent No. 1) blacklisting it from future business under Rule 19 of the Public Procurement Rules, 2004. The respondent alleged that the petitioner submitted false authorization from a French manufacturer (M/s EFFBE France) for a tender and had previously supplied Chinese-origin goods instead of the required French-origin materials. The petitioner contended that the blacklisting violated the Procurement Rules as no proper show-cause notice or inquiry was conducted. The respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, citing the existence of an alternate remedy and the factual nature of the dispute. The High Court held that the controversy regarding the genuineness of the authorization and alleged forgery involved disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the Public Procurement Rules, 2004, provide a complete mechanism for grievance redressal which must be exhausted. The petition was dismissed, with the petitioner advised to seek alternate legal remedies.
- Messrs Labbaik (Pvt.) Ltd. through authorized person and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary for Ministry of Interior and others2016 CLC 575 · Sindh High Court · 2015-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the withdrawal of security clearance for their media company and a government directive halting their transmission. The core legal questions concerned whether security clearance is mandatory upon a change in company management and whether the Federal Government may issue licensee-specific directives under Section 5 of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002. The Court held that security clearance is a mandatory, ongoing requirement upon any change in management to ensure compliance with ownership and funding restrictions. Regarding the second petition, the Court ruled that the government’s directive to stop the transmission of a specific channel did not constitute a "policy" directive but rather an unlawful interference in the regulatory functions of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. The Court established that policy directives must be general principles applicable across the board, not specific instructions targeting individual licensees. Consequently, the first petition was dismissed as premature, while the second petition was allowed, and the impugned directive was quashed.
Questions settled- Does the change of directors or management in a media company require fresh security clearance from the Ministry of Interior under the PEMRA framework?
- Can the Federal Government issue licensee-specific directives to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority under the guise of 'policy advice' pursuant to Section 5 of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002?
- Is the requirement of security clearance for media company directors a violation of the freedom of trade and business under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Messrs Kalb-E-Haider & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive. vs National Bank of Pakistan through President and another2016 CLD 183 · Sindh High Court · 2015-07-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Insaf Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory and Oil Mills, Mirpurkhas Road, Sanghar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division and Ex-Officio Chairman and 2 others2016 PTD 2585 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged SRO 188(1)/2015, which introduced Chapter XV to the Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007, effectively imposing sales tax on the supply of cottonseed. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government, through subordinate rule-making power, could impose sales tax on goods explicitly exempt under the Sixth Schedule of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Court held that Chapter XV was ultra vires the 1990 Act, as the Federal Government cannot, via notification, nullify or withdraw a statutory exemption granted by the legislature. The Court further ruled that the retrospective application of the notification was unlawful, as it imposed a new fiscal burden. The judgment establishes the principle that subordinate legislation cannot override or contradict the parent Act. It clarified that the power to regulate the 'manner' of an exemption under Section 13(1) does not authorize the executive to negate the exemption itself. Additionally, the Court affirmed that denying input tax adjustment without specific statutory authority violates the fundamental structure of the VAT mode of taxation.
Questions settled- Can the Federal Government, through subordinate rule-making power, impose sales tax on goods that are explicitly exempt under the Sixth Schedule of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
- Does the power of the Federal Government to specify conditions for an exemption under Section 13(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 include the power to withdraw or nullify the exemption itself?
- Can a fiscal notification that imposes a new tax burden be given retrospective effect?
- Is the denial of input tax adjustment in the Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007 consistent with the fundamental principles of the VAT mode of taxation under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
- Messrs Grace Accumulators and 3 others vs Messrs Soneri Bank Limited2016 CLD 892 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs Getz Pharma Limited through Authorised Person--Plaintiff vs2016 PLD Sindh 479, 2016 PLJ Karachi 215 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Getz Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorised Person vs Federation2016 PLD Sindh 420 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a pharmaceutical company, filed a constitutional petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the National Accountability Bureau to investigate alleged mis-procurement and corruption in the tender for Hepatitis B and C medicines for the year 2014-2015, and to direct disciplinary proceedings against officials responsible for rejecting the petitioner's technical bid. The core legal questions involved whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when alternate statutory remedies exist and when civil suits regarding the same tender disputes are already pending. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust alternate and efficacious remedies provided under the Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010, and that parallel civil suits on the same subject matter were already pending on the original side of the court. The court established that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued when adequate statutory remedies are available and where collateral proceedings would prejudice pending civil litigation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner maintain a constitutional petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus without exhausting alternate statutory remedies available under public procurement rules?
- Whether a constitutional petition is competent when civil suits covering the same subject matter and seeking identical reliefs are already pending before a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Does the Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau have a mandatory duty to initiate an inquiry solely upon a direct writ petition without the aggrieved party approaching the relevant forum first?
- Is it appropriate for a constitutional court to issue directions amounting to a finding on disputed facts while parallel civil proceedings are sub judice?
- Messrs Getz Pharma (Pvt.) Limited through Authorised Person vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and 7 others2016 PLD Sindh 479 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Franklin Credit and Investment Company Ltd. vs Export2016 MLD 952 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs First Dawood Investment Bank Limited through Authorized2016 CLD 920 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for recovery of Rs. 65,252,355/- was filed by a financial institution against the principal customer and guarantors under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (FIO, 2001). The defendants sought leave to defend, raising preliminary objections regarding the court's jurisdiction due to an arbitration clause, the validity of the plaint's verification, and the alleged execution of blank documents. The Court held that the FIO, 2001 is a special law that overrides other laws, including the Arbitration Act, 1940, granting the Banking Court exclusive jurisdiction. It further determined that the defendants failed to raise substantial questions of law or fact requiring evidence, as mandated by section 10 of the FIO, 2001. Consequently, the application for leave to defend was rejected for non-compliance with statutory requirements. The Court decreed the suit, affirming that the liability of guarantors is co-extensive with the principal debtor and that the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the outstanding amount and the sale of the mortgaged property.
Questions settled- Does the existence of an arbitration clause in a financial agreement oust the exclusive jurisdiction of a Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
- Is the liability of a guarantor co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under the Contract Act, 1872?
- Can a defendant be granted leave to defend a suit if the application fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
- Does the Banking Court have the authority to decree the sale of mortgaged property in a recovery suit filed by a financial institution?
- Messrs Emco Industries Ltd. through constituted Attorney vs Masood2016 YLR 18 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs D.J. Builders and Developers through Partner and-Unother vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 6 others2016 PTD 1723 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Brothers Industries through Partner vs Dollars Industries2016 CLD 1103 · Sindh High Court · 2015-07-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Broadtex (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others vs Messrs Nib Bank Ltd.2016 CLD 217 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Asia Motor Company through Proprietor and another vs Messrs2016 CLD 609 · Sindh High Court · 2015-06-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Apollo Textile Mills Ltd through Chief Executive and 2 others vs Standard Chartered Leasing Ltd through Principal Secretary2016 CLD 2316 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ally Brothers and Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. through Duly Authorized2016 PTD 1153 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Al-Meezan Investment Management Company vs Pakistan2016 CLC 1510 · Sindh High Court · 2014-02-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Abid S. Zuberi and others vs Messrs Khawaja Shams-Ul-Islam and another2016 PLD Sindh 618 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a complaint filed by several Advocates against two fellow lawyers regarding alleged contemptuous and disorderly conduct in a High Court courtroom and the Bar Room. The Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court constituted a Full Bench to hear the matter, which was converted into a Criminal Miscellaneous Application. The respondents initially challenged the maintainability of the proceedings, arguing that the alleged incident was not reported by the presiding judge and that the complaint was frivolous. However, upon the issuance of show-cause notices, the respondents submitted a written reply tendering an unconditional and unqualified apology, requesting the discharge of the notices. The Court, exercising judicial restraint and relying on the principle of forgiveness, accepted the apology and discharged the show-cause notices. The Court held that while it possessed the authority to initiate contempt proceedings, the acceptance of a sincere apology aligns with the judicial duty to maintain decorum without unnecessary escalation. The Court declined to refer the matter to the Bar Council, noting that complainants retained the right to pursue such action independently.
Questions settled- Can a Full Bench take cognizance of contempt of court proceedings based on a complaint filed by third-party advocates rather than the presiding judge?
- Is a court empowered to accept an unconditional apology and discharge show-cause notices in contempt proceedings?
- Does the acceptance of an apology in contempt proceedings preclude the court from referring the matter to the Bar Council for professional misconduct?
- Mesier's Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. through Senior Manager Finance vs Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue2016 PTD 1872 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-29Read full judgment →
- Mehfooz Akhter through Legal Heirs vs Askari Leasing Limited and otherss2016 CLD 102 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-27Read full judgment →
- Mehboob---Applicant vs The State2016 YLR 2648 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenged an order by the Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 200,000 upon the applicant/surety following the forfeiture of his bail bond. The applicant had stood surety for an accused who absconded from trial. Despite receiving notice under Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the applicant failed to produce the accused and subsequently absconded himself, only appearing years later to claim the accused had been murdered. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in imposing the full penalty amount despite the applicant's explanation. The High Court held that the applicant's conduct—specifically his failure to act diligently and his own disappearance after receiving notice—demonstrated a lack of sincerity. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court affirmed that given current societal conditions, provisions regarding bail bond forfeiture must be strictly adhered to. The Court upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that the applicant deserved no leniency and was liable for the full penalty amount.
Questions settled- Is a surety liable for the full amount of the bail bond if the accused fails to appear in court?
- Does the conduct of a surety in failing to produce an accused justify the imposition of the full penalty under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court deny leniency to a surety who absconds after receiving notice of bail bond forfeiture?
- Meezan Islamic Fund. and others vs D.G. (WHT) FBR and others2016 PTD 1204 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an FBR Circular dated 12.05.2015, which mandates the production of a valid tax exemption certificate prior to availing the statutory tax exemption under Clause 47B of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question is whether entities entitled to statutory exemption under Clause 47B are exempt from the mandatory requirement of obtaining and presenting an exemption certificate under Section 159 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 before withholding agents can omit advance tax deductions. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that notwithstanding the substantive exemption granted under Clause 47B, Section 159(2) imposes an absolute statutory obligation on withholding agents to deduct tax unless a valid certificate under Section 159(1) is produced. The key principle laid down is that substantive statutory tax exemptions do not bypass procedural requirements expressly mandated by statute, and withholding agents are legally bound to deduct tax under Sections 150, 151, and 233 unless a formal exemption certificate is presented.
Questions settled- Can a taxpayer claim the benefit of a statutory exemption under Clause 47B of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 without obtaining and producing an exemption certificate under Section 159?
- Is a withholding agent legally obligated under Section 159(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to deduct advance tax even if the payee falls within a category entitled to statutory exemption?
- Does the lack of an exemption certificate compel a withholder to make tax deductions under Sections 150, 151, and 233 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
- Meezan Bank Limited through Attorney and 4 others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary and 2 others2016 PLD Sindh 284 · Sindh High Court · 2015-06-03Read full judgment →
- Mazari and 3 others vs Province of Sindh through ' Secretary Labour2016 CLC 844 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Constitutional petition filed by workers challenging non-receipt of compensation awarded under the Cost of Living Relief Act, 1973 and Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The petitioners' application before the 'Authority' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was allowed, granting a sum of Rs. 30,576,674 to 321 applicants. The employer department disbursed the full awarded amount through cross-cheques directly to the petitioners' constituted attorney, who allegedly misappropriated the funds without distributing them to the workers. The petitioners contended that the payment should have been deposited with the Authority instead of being paid directly to their attorney. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under the Contract Act, 1872 and agency principles, acts performed by a validly authorized attorney bind the principal. In the absence of repudiation of the power of attorney, payment made to and acknowledged by the attorney satisfied the department's liability. The petitioners' remedy for non-accounting or misappropriation lies against their attorney under Section 218 of the Contract Act, 1872.
Questions settled- Does payment of an awarded claim to a duly authorized attorney discharge the debtor's liability to the principal under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Whether a principal is bound by the acts and receipts of their attorney in the absence of a repudiation of the power of attorney?
- What is the legal remedy of a principal when an attorney fails to account for or misappropriates funds received on the principal's behalf?
- Mazar alias Fouji and anothers vs The State2016 YLR 2815 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a sole chance witness, the admissibility and voluntariness of retracted judicial confessions, and the validity of joint recoveries of crime weapons. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the sole eyewitness's testimony unreliable due to his unnatural conduct, failure to report the incident promptly, and the prosecution's failure to examine a crucial witness who possessed the light source used for identification. Furthermore, the court ruled that the retracted judicial confessions were involuntary, as they were recorded after a delay and contained claims of police coercion. Additionally, the court held that joint recoveries of incriminating items are inadmissible as corroborative evidence. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right when reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's narrative.
Questions settled- Whether a retracted judicial confession can be relied upon for conviction if recorded after a delay and under claims of police coercion?
- Is the joint pointation and recovery of crime weapons by multiple accused admissible as corroborative evidence?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to examine a key witness who possessed the means of identification create a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case?
- Can the testimony of a chance witness be relied upon in a capital case if the witness failed to report the incident or attempt to rescue the victim?
- Masood Ali Khan vs Zahid Ali Khan deceased2016 SHC 21 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Maqsood Ali vs Mst. Fahmida Khatoon and 7 others2016 MLD 854 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-20Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmed vs Shah Muhammad and another2016 PLD Sindh 87 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal acquittal appeal challenges an order passed by the trial court acquitting respondent No.1 under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on a plea of alibi and supporting service documents. The core legal question revolves around whether an accused can be acquitted under Section 265-K relying on a defence plea of alibi and documents without affording the prosecution an opportunity to test or disprove them through evidence. The Sindh High Court held that a defence plea, including an alibi, cannot be legally considered for acquittal at this stage without the prosecution having the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of defence documents, and that physical presence is not necessary for an offence of abetment or conspiracy. The court set aside the impugned order, remanded the case back to the trial court for a fresh decision on the acquittal application, and established that defence material cannot prematurely substitute the trial procedure.
Questions settled- Can a trial court acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on a defence plea of alibi without allowing the prosecution an opportunity to challenge the supporting documents?
- Whether physical presence of an accused is necessary at the scene of the crime to constitute an offence of abetment or conspiracy?
- Can defence material be used for final determination and acquittal before the prosecution evidence is concluded?
- Manzoor Hussain Shahwani vs S.H.O. P.S. "a" Section Khairpur and 52016 MLD 1558 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate, which accepted a police summary report in 'C' class regarding an FIR lodged under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant, an advocate, alleged that the accused attempted to murder him outside the court premises. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate erred in accepting the police report that recommended the cancellation of the case due to lack of evidence. The High Court held that the Magistrate's order was proper and legally sound. The Court observed that the incident occurred in a busy area, yet no independent witnesses were cited, and the only witness was the complainant's brother, who was deemed an interested witness lacking corroboration. Furthermore, the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of forensic evidence, such as spent cartridges, undermined the prosecution's case. The Court affirmed that a Magistrate must exercise judicial discretion under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by carefully examining investigation materials and providing reasoned orders, which the Magistrate had correctly performed in this instance.
Questions settled- Is a Magistrate required to provide sound reasons when accepting a police summary report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the testimony of an interested witness be accepted without independent corroboration in a criminal case?
- Does the absence of independent witnesses in a busy public area create doubt regarding the veracity of an FIR?
- Manzoor Hussain and 9 others vs Shah Nawaz and 13 others2016 MLD 1426 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-20Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Butt through L.Rs, and 2 others vs Mahmud Sufi and 7 others2016 CLC 1284 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the legal heirs of the deceased husband, seeking a declaration that a residential property purchased in 1965 in the name of his deceased wife was a benami transaction and that he was the real owner. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs successfully discharged the burden of proof to establish that the property was benami, specifically regarding the source of consideration and the requisite motive, and whether a property purchased in a wife's name can be deemed benami merely because the husband had financial resources. The Sindh High Court dismissed the suit, holding that the onus heavily lies on the plaintiff in benami claims, which cannot be sustained on mere presumptions or negative evidence. The court laid down the principle that the source of money alone is not determinative, and proof of a clear motive along with positive affirmative evidence of payment is essential. Furthermore, when spouses live harmoniously, a property purchased in the wife's name implies an intention to confer title, and a surviving spouse cannot subsequently turn around after the wife's death to claim exclusive ownership to the detriment of other legal heirs.
Questions settled- Whether the onus to prove a benami transaction lies on the plaintiff seeking such declaration?
- Can a property purchased in the name of a wife be declared benami merely on the ground that the husband possessed the financial resources to purchase it?
- Is the source of money the sole determinative factor in establishing a benami transaction?
- What is the evidentiary value of an unverified and unprooved handwritten note relied upon as a will?
- Manthar Ali and 6 others vs Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad and 82016 MLD 1277 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-17Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Ahmed vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 643 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a former Superintendent of Preventive Services, for the alleged misappropriation of 1087 kg of silver from a State Warehouse. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution sufficiently established the appellant's guilt during his brief three-month tenure and whether the conviction could be sustained based on the evidence of accomplice witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the absence of reliable stock-taking records and the fact that the alleged shortage spanned two decades, not just the appellant's tenure. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's reliance on accomplice testimony without independent corroboration legally insufficient. Additionally, the Court identified procedural irregularities regarding the transfer of the case from the Customs Court to the Accountability Court. The judgment reaffirms the principle that an accomplice’s testimony requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction and that criminal liability cannot be established through vague, uncorroborated evidence, especially when procedural mandates for case transfer under the National Accountability Ordinance are disregarded.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of accomplice witnesses?
- Does the failure to conduct proper stock-taking records preclude a finding of criminal misappropriation against a warehouse custodian?
- What is the legal effect of failing to follow the procedural requirements for transferring a case from a Customs Court to an Accountability Court under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
- Malik Aqeel Ahmed vs The State---Respondent2016 MLD 129 · Sindh High Court · 2013-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Section 377 and Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the sodomy and murder of a minor. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, specifically regarding the reliability of DNA analysis and the consistency of witness testimony. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, corroborated by medical reports and a DNA profile matching the appellant to the victim. The Court rejected arguments regarding procedural lapses in evidence collection, finding them insufficient to vitiate the overwhelming evidence. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically entitle an appellant to acquittal where the evidence against the co-accused was distinct and insufficient. The judgment reinforces the principle that while circumstantial evidence must be robust, DNA evidence constitutes a strong, admissible piece of proof that, when combined with consistent testimony, sustains a conviction even in the absence of eyewitnesses.
Questions settled- Does the acquittal of a co-accused on the basis of insufficient evidence automatically entitle a convicted co-accused to acquittal?
- Can a conviction for murder and sodomy be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence and DNA profiling in the absence of eyewitnesses?
- Do procedural lapses in the handling of forensic samples automatically vitiate the reliability of DNA evidence?
- Madarsa Mehmoodia (Regd.) through President vs Muhammad Sharif2016 P Cr. L J 1221 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision challenged an order dismissing a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, regarding an alleged illegal occupation of land. The applicant claimed ownership of a plot allotted to a Madarsa, while the respondent asserted long-standing possession and a claim to regularize the land. The core legal question was whether the summary proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, were appropriate given the ambiguity regarding the land's description, the lack of evidence regarding the date and manner of the alleged dispossession, and the existence of a bona fide dispute over title and possession. The Court held that the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, were inapplicable because the applicant failed to establish the essential elements of the claim, specifically the exact location of the property and the timing of the dispossession. The key principle laid down is that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is a summary remedy that cannot be invoked in cases involving disputed title, vague property descriptions, or where the essential facts of the alleged dispossession remain unproven, leaving the parties to seek redress through civil proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to cases where the exact description and location of the disputed property are unclear?
- Is the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 an appropriate remedy when there is a bona fide dispute over title and possession?
- Must an applicant under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 specify the date and manner of the alleged dispossession to maintain a complaint?
- Lt. CDR. Mirza Mansoor Hussain Qazalbash through Attorney vs Syed2016 YLR 748 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-05Read full judgment →
- Lawrencepur Woollen and Textile Mills Ltd. vs National Investment2016 CLC 1607, 2016 CLD 1888 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-03Read full judgment →
- Late Mirza Masood Ali Warsi & Others vs Mst. Bali Bai and others2016 SHC · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-03Read full judgment →
- Malik Naeem lqbal and Muhammad Saleem Khaskheli for Petitioners (in _f2ed6a7b2016 PLC (C.S.) 787 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated constitutional petitions challenged newspaper advertisements issued by the Government of Sindh inviting applications for the posts of Chairman, Secretary, and Controller of Examinations in various Education Boards. The core legal question was whether the controlling authority could initiate a competitive, merit-based recruitment process for these posts, thereby overriding the claims of existing incumbents to tenure or the claims of employees to promotion. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the controlling authority possesses the statutory power to determine terms and conditions of appointment. The Court found that the government’s policy to introduce a transparent, competitive selection process via a search committee was a valid executive function. The Court established that incumbents in tenure posts do not possess an absolute vested right to prevent the introduction of a merit-based selection process, nor do employees holding additional charge have a vested right to promotion. Furthermore, judicial review does not extend to interfering with government policy decisions unless they are proven to be mala fide or arbitrary. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions prevail over non-statutory service rules.
Questions settled- Can the controlling authority initiate a competitive selection process for posts previously filled without such a process?
- Does an incumbent in a tenure post have a vested right to prevent the government from advertising the post for open competition?
- Can an employee holding an additional charge claim a vested right to promotion to that post?
- Do non-statutory service rules override the express provisions of a parent Ordinance regarding appointment methods?
- Laguardia.Logistics (Private) Limited, Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan2016 PLJ Karachi 211, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 705 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
- Laguardia Logistics (Pvt.) Ltd. through General Manager Officer, Karachi2016 PTD 1750 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
- Laguardia Logistic (Pvt.) Ltd. through General Manager Officer vs Federation of Pakistan through Customs Collectorate Preventive Customs House, Karachi2016 PLJ Karachi 211 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
- Khurram and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary/2016 PLD Sindh 557 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-14Read full judgment →
- Khuda Nazar vs Director General Intelligence and Investigation2016 P Cr. L J 325 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant seeking to quash FIR No. 01 of 2014 registered by the Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation for alleged transportation of smuggled High-Speed Diesel (HSD) oil, and to direct the release of the seized oil tanker and oil. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent or constitutional jurisdiction to quash an FIR after the submission of a challan and cognizance by the trial court, especially when the accused has alternative remedies under the procedural law. The court held that the High Court should not short-circuit the normal trial procedure or quash an FIR based on defence pleas in the absence of exceptional circumstances, leaving the accused to seek acquittal before the trial court. The key principles laid down are that inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or constitutional power under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 should not be used to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure, and the prosecution must be permitted to adduce evidence before the trial court.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash an FIR under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the submission of a challan and cognizance by the trial court?
- Whether the High Court should short-circuit the normal procedure of trial on the mere consideration of a defence plea?
- Is the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court an alternative or additional jurisdiction available to bypass ordinary criminal procedure?
- Khawaja Muhammad Salman Younis and another vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and 10 others2016 PLJ Karachi 22, 2016 PLD Sindh 547 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-04Read full judgment →
- Khan Bux vs The State2016 YLR 85 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 37 kilograms of charas. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt despite significant discrepancies in the evidence. The High Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The Court identified a material inconsistency between the weight of the samples recorded at the recovery site and the weight of the samples received by the Chemical Examiner, which undermined the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court noted that the police failed to associate available independent witnesses to the recovery, despite their presence, warranting an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. Additionally, contradictory testimony from police witnesses regarding the placement and packaging of the contraband further weakened the case. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants, affirming the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between the weight of samples recorded at the crime scene and the weight of samples received by the Chemical Examiner entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
- Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to examine available independent witnesses as mashirs of recovery?
- Is the benefit of doubt a matter of right for an accused when prosecution evidence contains material contradictions?
- Khalid Mansoor vs Federal, Board of Revenue and 3 others2016 PTD 1813 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-04Read full judgment →
- Khalid Hussain through Legal representatives vs Province of Sindh2016 YLR 1370 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-11Read full judgment →
- Khalid Ahmed Memon vs Deen Muhammad Talpur and 2 others2016 MLD 1527 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-29Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hassain vs Sindh Bank Ltd. through President and another2016 PLJ Karachi 46 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-13Read full judgment →
- KH. Muhammad Salman Younis vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Islamabad and others2016 PLJ Karachi 22 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-04Read full judgment →
- Kazim Ali vs Liaquat Ali and 7 others2016 P Cr. L J 487 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal judgment passed by the 1st Civil Judge and M.J. Mirwah arising out of Crime No. 82/2014 registered under sections 447, 511, 506/2, 337-H2, 148, 149, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the trial court's acquittal order and the scope of interference by an appellate court under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an order of acquittal. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the commission of the offence through unimpeachable evidence, as the ingredients of criminal trespass were not met, no injuries were caused, and no incriminating recoveries were made. The court reiterated that an accused person enjoys a double presumption of innocence following an acquittal, and an appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court's judgment is perverse, arbitrary, based on misreading of evidence, or results in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an accused person acquire a double presumption of innocence upon being acquitted by a trial court?
- When can an appellate court set aside a balanced and well-reasoned order of acquittal?
- Kasb Bank Limited vs Muhammad Saleem Shaikh2016 CLD 1744 · Sindh High Court · 2015-06-09Read full judgment →
- Karo and 4 others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary and 32016 PLC (C.S.) 360 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a constitutional petition seeking a declaration that they are entitled to appointment as Police Constables (BPS-5) in District Tharparkar on par with successful candidates in previous judgments, having passed the physical, written, and medical tests. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, whose names fell below the initially advertised 164 seats but were included in a merit list recommending up to 173 candidates, were entitled to appointment and similar treatment as other similarly situated candidates. The court held that the petitioners, who obtained the same marks as those who were issued appointment letters, cannot be denied their right and are entitled to similar treatment, overcoming the objection of laches. The court directed the respondents to adjust the petitioners against vacant posts of constables in District Tharparkar, or accommodate them as soon as such posts become available, laying down the principle that similarly situated candidates securing identical merit cannot be arbitrarily denied appointment when a finalized merit list recommends them.
Questions settled- Whether candidates who secure identical marks to those appointed from a merit list can be denied appointment on the basis of a restricted quota?
- Does a mere selection or inclusion in a merit list vest a candidate with a right to appointment?
- Can the objection of laches defeat the claim of petitioners seeking identical treatment to previously granted judgments?
- Karam Khatoon vs Senior Superintendent of Police, District Khairpur2016 MLD 29 · Sindh High Court · 2015-06-22Read full judgment →
- Karachi Water and Sewerage Board through Managing Director vs Messrs Famous Art Printers (Pvt) Ltd. through Director and another2016 PLD Sindh 527 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-19Read full judgment →
- Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd. and 4 others vs Habib Bank Limited2016 CLD 2240 · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-03Read full judgment →
- (1) Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (2) Liaqat Ali vs Islamuddin2016 SHC 44 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-02Read full judgment →
- Karachi Fisheries Harbour Authority through Managing Director vs Messr Hussain (Pvt.) Ltd2016 MLD 1037 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-24Read full judgment →
- Karachi Electric Supply Company through authorized Officer vs Soorty2016 MLD 1577 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-05Read full judgment →
- Kaniya Lal and others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary and others2016 YLR 1730 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-10Read full judgment →
- Kamran Ali Khan vs Vaneeza Umeran and 9 others2016 SHC · Sindh High Court · 2016-06-27Read full judgment →
- Kamal Din---Applicant vs The State2016 YLR 2638 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application challenges the order of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Sukkur, dismissing the post-arrest bail of the applicant, a clerical employee accused alongside numerous others of corruption and forgery relating to land transactions. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry, delay in lodging the FIR, absence of a specific role, and parity of treatment with co-accused who were granted bail or remained unarrested. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the case rested on documentary evidence already in the prosecution's possession, no tampering was apprehended, co-accused had been granted relief, and bail cannot be withheld as punishment. The court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail, establishing that where documentary evidence forms the basis of the charge and the accused's role requires evaluation during trial, continued incarceration serves no useful purpose.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution case is based entirely on documentary evidence already in custody?
- Does a delayed FIR without plausible explanation provide a ground for granting bail to an accused?
- Can bail be withheld as a punishment when the trial Court has yet to record evidence to determine the guilt of the accused?
- Kadir Bakhsh vs Muhammad Ibrahim Bhutto and 3 others2016 YLR 807 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-13Read full judgment →