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.

• Ali Muhammad Bughio vs Chaudhry Hameedullah, Inspector Anti-2016 P Cr. L J 1581 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-22
  quashment of FIRconstitutional petitionanti-corruptionfactual controversyalternate remedyframing of chargecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, Ali Muhammad Bughio, seeking the quashment of FIR No. 15/2011 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Karachi, under sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 409, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal question was whether an FIR and criminal proceedings can be quashed under constitutional jurisdiction when a challan has been submitted, a charge has been framed, a factual controversy exists, and alternate remedies such as applications under section 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure are available. The Sindh High Court held that sufficient prima facie material existed to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences, that factual controversies should not be resolved through constitutional petitions bypassing trial courts, and that the petition for quashment was premature. The court laid down the principle that the High Court will not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings involving disputed facts where challan has been submitted and charge has been framed, especially when efficacious alternate statutory remedies before the trial court remain unavailed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an FIR be quashed through a constitutional petition when a challan has been submitted and charge has been framed by the trial court?
  • Does the existence of a factual controversy bar the High Court from quashing criminal proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for quashment of criminal proceedings when alternate statutory remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure are available?
  • Should an accused seek relief under section 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Brohi vs The State2016 YLR 1878 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-26
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidence contradictiondelayed FIRforensic evidence delaymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction for murder and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite significant evidentiary discrepancies. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this burden. The court observed that the complainant’s testimony was uncorroborated by other eye-witnesses, including the injured police official, who failed to identify the appellant. Furthermore, the court noted critical flaws: the FIR was registered with an unexplained delay, the medical evidence contradicted the complainant’s account regarding the number of injuries, and the forensic evidence lost its probative value due to a 51-day delay in submission to the laboratory. Additionally, the prosecution failed to examine available independent witnesses from the court premises. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, reaffirming that where ocular testimony is unreliable and uncorroborated by circumstantial or medical evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in submitting forensic evidence to a laboratory destroy its evidentiary value?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant's testimony is uncorroborated by other eye-witnesses?
  • What is the legal effect of a discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries?
  • Does the registration of an FIR after the initiation of post-mortem proceedings cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Mohammad and 7 others vs The STATEand another2016 YLR 1139 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-07
  criminal transfer applicationexpedited trialmala fideabuse of processpolice protectionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a Criminal Transfer Application seeking the transfer of a Sessions case and a connected Constitution Petition seeking police protection and an expedited trial. The core legal question was whether the applicants had established sufficient grounds for the transfer of their criminal trial, or whether the application was a mala fide attempt to delay proceedings. The Court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate genuine apprehension or valid grounds for transfer, noting that the case had been pending since 2011 and had been transferred multiple times previously at the applicants' behest. The Court found the application was filed with ulterior motives to frustrate the trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the transfer application, allowed the petition for police protection, and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within two months. The key principle laid down is that while courts have the power to transfer criminal cases for valid reasons, such applications must be examined strictly and judiciously to prevent the routine abuse of the process for the purpose of causing unnecessary delay.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be transferred between courts solely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of security risks?
  • Does a court have the authority to dismiss a transfer application if it finds the application is filed with the mala fide intention of delaying the trial?
  • Can a High Court issue directions to a trial court to conclude a long-pending criminal case within a specific timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul vs The State2016 PCRLJ 1997, 2016 PCr. L J 197 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-05
  criminal revisionsummoning of witnessesadditional evidencefair trialchallanpolice report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the applicant's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for summoning two additional witnesses whose names were neither in the FIR nor in the challan. The core legal question was whether the trial court was bound to summon witnesses introduced by the complainant to prove an alleged confession of guilt when such witnesses were not part of the police report. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court rightly refused to summon the witnesses, as the complainant cannot use Section 540 to fill gaps or assume the role of an investigator, and examining such unlisted witnesses without prior statements recorded under Section 161 would violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principle laid down is that a trial court may refuse to summon additional witnesses under Section 265-F(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if their production is meant to delay or defeat justice, and the complainant cannot independently introduce new witnesses outside the police challan.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complainant introduce witnesses not named in the FIR or challan under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a trial court can refuse to summon a witness if it is of the opinion that the witness is being called for vexation or delay under Section 265-F(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does examining unlisted prosecution witnesses without statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 violate Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul alias Mujahid and another vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 47 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-09
  conscious possessioncharas recoverynarcotics controlparity in sentencingpolice witnessesburden of proofacquittal on benefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment resolves three criminal appeals arising from a narcotics case involving the recovery of seventeen kilograms of charas from a Chingchi rickshaw. The core legal questions pertained to the conscious possession of narcotics by a vehicle driver, the applicability of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to narcotics cases, and the evaluation of consistent police testimony versus parity in sentencing among co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the physical custody and lack of rebutted conscious possession regarding the first appellant, whose conviction and sentence were accordingly upheld. However, regarding the second appellant, the court held that his case was identical to that of an already acquitted co-accused, making his separate conviction unsustainable due to inconsistent judicial evaluation of the same evidence. The key principles laid down include that under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, the burden shifts to the accused to prove lack of knowledge once physical custody is proven, that section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply to narcotics cases under section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and that co-accused placed on identical footing are entitled to consistent treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden shift to the accused to prove lack of knowledge once the prosecution establishes physical custody of narcotics under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Are the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to cases investigated under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can police officials be regarded as reliable witnesses in narcotics cases without independent corroboration in the absence of proved enmity?
  • Is a co-accused entitled to acquittal on the principle of parity when situated on an identical footing with another co-accused who was previously acquitted on the same evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed vs National Accountability Bureau Sindh and another2016 P Cr. L J 594 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-21
  pre-arrest bailcorruptioncheatingNational Accountability Ordinanceextraordinary reliefdocumentary evidenceNAB reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought pre-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was implicated in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference regarding corruption, corrupt practices, and cheating the public through an unregistered forex business entity, Ahmed Trading Company. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of financial fraud and the existence of incriminating documentary evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the NAB. The Court observed that substantial documentary evidence, including receipts and financial agreements, prima facie connected the petitioner to the alleged offenses. Emphasizing that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be used as a substitute for post-arrest bail, the Court dismissed the petition and recalled the interim bail. The Court further affirmed that a deeper appreciation of evidence remains the exclusive function of the trial court, directing the trial court to conclude the reference proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute for post-arrest bail?
  • What is the standard for granting pre-arrest bail in cases of corruption?
  • Does the existence of prima facie documentary evidence justify the refusal of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed Lund vs The State through Chairman NAB and 4 others2016 P Cr. L J 1921 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-13
  pre-arrest bailassets beyond known sources of incomecorruption and corrupt practicesNational Accountability Ordinancetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, a retired government servant, who anticipated arrest by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in connection with an inquiry regarding assets beyond known sources of income under Section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question centered on whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner committed the offense of corruption and corrupt practices under Section 9(a)(v) of the Ordinance, warranting the continuation of pre-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that NAB had thoroughly investigated and correctly tabulated the petitioner's income and assets in accordance with established judicial precedents, and that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily account for massive disproportionate transactions and bank deposits. Consequently, the court recalled the ad interim pre-arrest bail and dismissed the petition, directing the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution establishes a holder of public office possesses assets or pecuniary resources disproportionate to known sources of income, and the accused fails to satisfactorily account for them, reasonable grounds exist to deny pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be maintained when the prosecution demonstrates reasonable grounds connecting the accused to the offense of possessing assets beyond known sources of income?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to prove an offense of assets beyond known sources of income under Section 9(a)(v) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the failure of an accused to satisfactorily account for disproportionate pecuniary resources give rise to a statutory presumption of guilt under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed Lund vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2016 PLC (C.S.) 92 · Sindh High Court · 2014-05-29
  civil servantrectification of date of birthservice recordRule 12Asuperannuationmaintainability of suitalteration of age
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court of Sindh considered a civil suit filed by a civil servant seeking rectification of his date of birth in his official service record from 02-04-1954 to 02-04-1956, relying on educational certificates, national identity documents, and passports. The central issue was whether a civil servant could maintain a suit to alter his date of birth recorded in service records after approximately 30 years of service, in light of Rule 12A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The Court held that following the insertion of Rule 12A via S.R.O. 521(I)/2000, the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into government service is final, and any alteration in the service record is strictly impermissible. Following Supreme Court precedent, seeking such correction at the twilight of one's career is an afterthought and presumed mala fide. Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit as unmaintainable and directed the plaintiff to return any salary or benefits drawn after his actual date of superannuation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant legally seek the alteration or rectification of their date of birth in service records after the insertion of Rule 12A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973?
  • Whether a civil suit seeking correction of a civil servant's date of birth in official service records at the verge of retirement is maintainable?
  • Is a civil servant obligated to refund salary and benefits received for continuing in service past the statutory age of superannuation determined by the date of birth recorded at entry?
  Read full judgment →
• Aldo Group International Ag through Authorized Signatory vs The Aldo2016 CLD 229 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-19Read full judgment →
• Al-Tamash Medical Society vs Dr.Anwar Ye Bin Ju & others2016 SHC 51 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-16Read full judgment →
• Al! Nawaz through L.Rs, and others vs Mst. Zainab through L.Rs, and others2016 CLC 1202 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-28Read full judgment →
• Akhter Mehmood vs State and another2016 YLR 366 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-26
  illegal gratificationwrongful confinementanti-corruptionbenefit of doubthostile witnessinterested witnesscriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, a police official, under sections 161, 342, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, rendered by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case of illegal gratification and wrongful confinement beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge, noting inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, failure to produce the original complaint, non-examination of material witnesses who were given up, and the hostility of the star witness regarding the payment of bribe money. The court ruled that uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses is insufficient for conviction, especially when no recovery of tainted money was made and no magistrate or anti-corruption official was associated with the alleged transaction. Consequently, the benefit of the doubt was extended to the appellant, setting aside the conviction and acquitting him.

  Questions settled

  • Whether uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction for accepting a bribe?
  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR cast serious doubt on the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right when reasonable doubts exist regarding the prosecution's evidence?
  • What is the legal effect when a star prosecution witness is declared hostile and fails to support the version of the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Aijaz and another vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 130 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-24
  appellate jurisdictionHudood lawsFederal Shariat Courtcriminal appealcharge framingOffences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979jurisdictional competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, convicting the appellants under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, despite the FIR and charge being framed under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether appellate jurisdiction lies with the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court when the conviction is under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, but the initial charge was under the Hudood Ordinance. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent before the High Court and ordered its transfer to the Federal Shariat Court. The Court established that the forum of appeal is determined by the charge framed, not the final sentence imposed. Under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and Section 24 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, the Federal Shariat Court possesses exclusive jurisdiction over cases initiated under Hudood laws. Consequently, even if a trial court convicts an accused under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, due to a lack of evidence for a Hudood offence, the appellate jurisdiction remains vested in the Federal Shariat Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case depend on the charge framed or the sentence awarded?
  • Does the Federal Shariat Court have exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in cases where the charge was framed under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a High Court entertain an appeal against a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the original charge was under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsanullah and 11 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2016 PLC (C.S.) 477 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-22
  regularization of contract employeesstipend employeesdiscriminationfundamental rightsequality before lawconstitutional petitionpublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by 12 footballers of the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) challenging the termination of their stipend contracts and the failure of the respondents to consider them for regularization alongside other similarly placed employees. The core legal question revolved around whether the termination of the petitioners and their exclusion from regularization, while regularizing other stipend workers and re-hiring certain terminated colleagues, constituted arbitrary discrimination in violation of fundamental rights. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioners were indeed subjected to discriminatory treatment without a rational intelligible differentia, violating Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The court directed the respondents to consider the cases of all petitioners for regularization within two months and submit a compliance report.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract or stipend employees have a right to be considered for regularization under government directives?
  • Does the termination of long-serving stipend employees following a regularization directive violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether an employer can adopt a pick and choose policy while regularizing similarly placed temporary or stipend-based workers?
  • What constitutes a reasonable classification under Article 25 in matters of public employment and regularization?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Asad vs Mrs. Rubina Naeem and 2 others2016 MLD 86 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-22Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Khan vs S.S.P. District West, Karachi and 4 others2016 MLD 302 · Sindh High Court · 2013-07-17Read full judgment →
• Agar Textiles (Private) Ltd. through Authorised Officer vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power, Islamabad and 2 others2016 PLD Sindh 431 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-02Read full judgment →
• Afzal-Ur-Rehman alias Aatif vs The State2016 MLD 1686 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-17
  post-arrest bailpolice encounterunlicensed pistolexplosive substancesheinous offense
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, Afzal-ur-Rehman alias Aatif, sought post-arrest bail in criminal cases involving offenses related to an alleged police encounter, illegal possession of firearms, and explosives. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the recovery of an unlicensed pistol during a police encounter and his alleged involvement in a heinous crime affecting public safety. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was arrested on the spot with an unlicensed weapon, that the offenses charged carried punishments exceeding ten years, and that possessing such arms and ammunition gravely undermined the law and order situation in Karachi. The court laid down the principle that deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage and that prima facie connection to heinous offenses involving firearms and explosives disentitles an accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused arrested on the spot with an unlicensed firearm during an alleged police encounter is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the possession of illegal arms and explosives in connection with law and order issues preclude the grant of bail?
  • Can deeper appreciation of evidence be undertaken by the court at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Shahban Mirani vs Muhammad Ibrahim Jatoi and 10 others2016 CLC 222 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-13Read full judgment →
• Adnan alias Sanny and another vs Province of Sindh through Secretary2016 CLC 513 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-13Read full judgment →
• Adnan Abid vs Munaf Attara and others2016 PLD Sindh 392 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-25Read full judgment →
• Additional Collector of Customs vs Muhammad Hussain2016 PTD 2748 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-15
  customs referenceBaggage Rules 2006commercial quantityredemption fineshow cause noticeprocedural deficiencymens reaS.R.O. 499(I)/2009
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application under the Customs Act 1969 was filed by the department against an order of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had fully remitted the redemption fine and penalty imposed on commercial imports made by respondents under the Baggage Rules 2006. The Tribunal deleted the fine and penalty on the ground that the show-cause notice was defective and deficient. The High Court considered whether procedural deficiencies in a show-cause notice justify the complete remission of statutory redemption fine and penalty when the factual basis of commercial import under the Baggage Rules is undisputed. The High Court answered the reference question in the negative, holding that where legal requirements are complied with in substance and no prejudice is caused, minor deficiencies in a show-cause notice do not vitiate proceedings or extinguish statutory liability. The Court held respondents liable for redemption fine at 20% under S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 alongside duty and taxes, while confirming the waiver of penalty in the absence of mens rea.

  Questions settled

  • Does a procedural deficiency in a show-cause notice render the entire assessment proceedings void where no prejudice is caused to the taxpayer?
  • Whether commercial imports made under the Baggage Rules 2006 attract mandatory redemption fine under Section 181 of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Can penalty be imposed under customs laws in the absence of mens rea?
  Read full judgment →
• Abu Dhabi Flour and Animal Feed Factory through Attorney vs M.V.2016 PLD Sindh 367 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abib alias Ghaffar Abba vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 683 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-19
  post-arrest bailunlicensed weaponSindh Arms Actrecovery witnessesfurther inquirystatutory sentencepolice officials
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused charged under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for the alleged possession of an unlicensed pistol. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the recovery, the lack of independent witnesses, and the status of the investigation. The Sindh High Court granted bail, noting that the investigation was complete, the accused was not required for further investigation, and the recovery witnesses were exclusively police officials. The court reaffirmed the principle that when considering bail, the court should not focus solely on the maximum sentence provided by the statute, but rather on the sentence likely to be entailed by the specific facts and circumstances of the case. Additionally, the court held that where the prosecution relies solely on official witnesses for a recovery, and the accused has already been granted bail in the main case, a case for further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a recovery case entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Should a court considering a bail application focus on the maximum statutory sentence or the likely sentence based on the facts of the case?
  • Does the completion of investigation and the lack of risk of tampering with evidence constitute grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 3 others vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 271 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-18
  anti-terrorism courtjurisdictionsiyah karitransfer of casesense of insecurityheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed against the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Shikarpur, which dismissed the accused's application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, seeking the transfer of the case to an ordinary court. The core legal question was whether the brutal murder of two girls on the pretext of 'Siyah Kari' and burying them in a ditch without proper funeral rites constituted an act of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. The Sindh High Court held that the gruesome nature of the crime, its widespread media coverage, and the resulting panic and sense of insecurity created among the public and villagers brought the offense within the ambit of terrorism. The court dismissed the application, affirming that the act created a sense of insecurity and destabilized public peace, thus properly attracting the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the murder of girls on the pretext of Siyah Kari falls within the definition of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does an Anti-Terrorism Court have jurisdiction to try a case where the brutal act creates panic and a sense of insecurity in the society?
  • Can an application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of a case to an ordinary court be dismissed when the offense has a nexus with terrorism?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul, Waheed Usman through legally constituted attorney vs Gul2016 CLC 1079 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Pathan vs Habib Bank Limited through Attorney and Manager and 3 others2016 CLD 210 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs Adil Nafees, Etc.2016 NLR Civil 414 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and another vs The StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 25, 2016 P Cr. L J 396 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-07
  pre-arrest bailcorruptionmisappropriationmala fideextraordinary reliefcriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail by two individuals accused of corruption, fraud, forgery, and misappropriation of government funds under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question is whether the applicants, who were accused of illegally withdrawing government funds after retirement, established sufficient grounds of mala fide or departmental intrigue to warrant the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate any mala fide intent on the part of the investigating agency. Furthermore, the applicants did not deny the encashment of government funds, which prima facie linked them to the alleged offence. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be used as a substitute for post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that mere allegations of 'mala fide' or 'departmental intrigue' are insufficient for pre-arrest bail; an accused must satisfy the strict conditions established by the Supreme Court, including proving that the arrest is sought for ulterior motives and that there are reasonable grounds for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can mere allegations of mala fide or departmental intrigue justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute or alternative for post-arrest bail?
  • What are the essential conditions an accused must satisfy to be granted pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the fact that a case relies on documentary evidence in the possession of the prosecution automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and another vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 25 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-07
  pre-arrest bailcorruptionmisappropriationmala fideextraordinary reliefdepartmental intrigue
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail in a case involving charges of corruption, fraud, forgery, and misappropriation of government funds under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The applicants, accused of misappropriating funds from the Taluka Municipal Administration after the retirement of one of the accused, contended that their implication was the result of departmental intrigue and mala fide intentions. The core legal question was whether the applicants met the stringent criteria for the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, specifically regarding the proof of mala fides and the existence of reasonable grounds for further inquiry. The Court held that the applicants failed to establish mala fides or departmental intrigue, noting that they did not deny the encashment of government funds during the period in question. Emphasizing that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be used as a substitute for post-arrest bail, the Court dismissed the application, ruling that the applicants were prima facie linked to the alleged offences.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted solely on the assertion of mala fide intentions without supporting evidence?
  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute for post-arrest bail in corruption cases?
  • What are the essential conditions that must be satisfied to obtain pre-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and others vs Mst. Haleema Khatoon through L.Rs2016 YLR 2158 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-29Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 266 · Sindh High Court · 2013-08-05
  post-arrest bailunlicensed pistolprohibitory clausefurther inquirySindh Arms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 165/2013 registered under Section 23(1) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 at Police Station Tando Allahyar, following the alleged recovery of an unlicensed .30 bore pistol. The core legal question involved the correct applicability of the penal provisions of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 regarding the recovery of a pistol and whether the case fell within the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that the determination of the exact quantum of punishment and whether the offence falls within the prohibitory clause requires further probe, making the case one of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be withheld as a punishment, all recovery witnesses were police officials, and the accused was no longer required for investigation. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of an unlicensed pistol falls under Section 23 or Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013?
  • Does a case warrant further inquiry when the quantum of punishment and applicability of the prohibitory clause are to be determined by the trial court?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment when the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq. vs Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, Karachi and 2 othersPTCL 2016 CL. 837 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-FBR, Regional Office, Karachi and 2 othersPTCL 2016 CL. 837, 2016 PTD 1861 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-26
  customs referencesmugglingburden of proofbanned goodsillegal importconfiscation of goodscustoms act
  Summary & questions settled

  This Customs Reference Application was filed under Section 196 of the Customs Act 1969 against the order of the Customs Appellate Tribunal, which had upheld the confiscation of seized non-duty paid foreign-origin ladies art silk cloth of Indian origin found in a private godown in Karachi. The core legal question centered on whether the goods were smuggled and upon which party the burden of proof lay. The Sindh High Court held that since the goods were of Indian origin and their import was banned under the Import Policy Order, and given that the applicant failed to produce any legal import documents or purchase receipts, the applicant failed to discharge the initial evidentiary burden of proof placed upon him under Section 187 of the Customs Act 1969. The Court ruled that the special provisions of the Customs Act override general rules of evidence and that the Tribunal was fully justified in concluding the goods were smuggled. The reference application was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the initial evidentiary burden of proof under Section 187 of the Customs Act 1969 lies on the person found in possession of goods alleged to be smuggled?
  • Can findings of fact recorded concurrently by subordinate adjudicatory forums regarding the origin and status of seized goods be interfered with in a customs reference application?
  • Whether goods of Indian origin whose import is banned under the Import Policy Order can be presumed to be lawfully acquired without supporting import documents or receipts?
  • Whether the provisions of the Customs Act 1969 prevail over general rules of evidence contained in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 in matters of evidentiary burden?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak Khamosh vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary2016 CLC 740 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Mst. Shamim Zakir and 6 others2016 MLD 1006 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Ali Bux through L.Rs, and others2016 CLC 1824 · Sindh High Court · 2016-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Abdul Wahid2016 MLD 190 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raheem alias Walhari vs The State2016 YLR 2147 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-11
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealshort sentenceSindh Arms Actcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the appellant, Abdul Raheem alias Walhari, seeking suspension of his sentence and release on bail pending the outcome of his main appeal against the judgment dated 11.11.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan. The appellant had been convicted under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to suspension of sentence and bail on the ground of a short sentence and delay in the hearing of the appeal. The Sindh High Court allowed the application, holding that a two-year sentence falls within the category of a short sentence and that the appellant had already served a significant period in custody while the likelihood of an early hearing of the appeal was remote due to a heavy judicial backlog. The key principle laid down is that the award of a short sentence coupled with the unlikelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future constitutes a sufficient ground for suspending the sentence and releasing the convict on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a short sentence of imprisonment is a valid ground for suspension of sentence and release on bail pending appeal?
  • Can the High Court suspend a sentence and grant bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to a heavy backlog of pending cases delaying the final hearing?
  • What criteria govern the grant of bail when a convict is undergoing a short sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayoom and another vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 786 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-30
  suspension of sentencebail pending appealshort sentencecorruption offencesconcurrent sentences
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal appeal filed by the appellants, Abdul Qayoom and Qalandar Bux, who sought the suspension of their sentences and release on bail pending the decision of their main appeal. The appellants were convicted and sentenced for various offences under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, with their sentences ordered to run concurrently, resulting in a maximum substantive sentence of five years. The core legal question was whether the execution of a sentence should be suspended and bail granted when a convict has already undergone a major portion of a short remaining sentence and the final hearing of the appeal is likely to take time. The Sindh High Court held that since the appellants had served a substantial portion of their respective sentences and final adjudication would be delayed, the sentences should be suspended. The key principle laid down is that where a convict has served a significant part of a short sentence and the appeal cannot be heard promptly, the sentence may be suspended and bail granted during the pendency of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of a convicted person can be suspended during the pendency of an appeal when a major portion of the sentence has already been served?
  • Can bail be granted to appellants facing a short remaining sentence when the final hearing of the appeal is likely to take time?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qavi Khan and others vs Chairman NAB and others2016 P Cr. L J 1252 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-24
  white-collar crimepost-arrest bailpre-arrest bailland grabbingcorruptionreasonable groundsjoint criminal enterprisetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns seven bail applications arising from a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference involving allegations of land grabbing and illegal allotment of plots in Karachi, resulting in a loss of approximately Rs. 500 million to the state exchequer. The core legal question was whether the accused, including public officials and private individuals, were entitled to pre-arrest or post-arrest bail given the evidence connecting them to the alleged corruption and corrupt practices. The court held that, based on a tentative assessment of the evidence, there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused were involved in a joint criminal enterprise. The court emphasized that in white-collar crimes, the entire transaction must be viewed holistically. It ruled that bail is not to be used as punishment, but where reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused to a serious offense, and considering the risk of witness tampering and potential absconsion, bail must be refused. The court affirmed that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage, and medical grounds were insufficient without proof that prison facilities were inadequate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court should conduct a deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage in corruption cases?
  • Does the existence of a medical condition automatically entitle an accused to bail if prison facilities can provide treatment?
  • Can bail be granted in cases of economic crime involving significant loss to the state exchequer where reasonable grounds for guilt exist?
  • Should a court consider the risk of witness tampering and absconsion when deciding on bail applications in complex corruption references?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Tawakal vs National Accountability Bureau (Sindh)2016 PLD Sindh 105 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman2016 P Cr. L J 1874 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-03
  post-arrest bailNational Accountability Bureaucorruptionfurther inquirymisappropriationbank fraudconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, a bank manager accused of corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999. The core legal question was whether the petitioner established sufficient grounds for bail in light of the allegations of misappropriation and the issuance of fake guarantees. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, determining that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry. The court observed that the alleged victim entities had not filed complaints, there was no clear evidence of personal gain, and the alleged financial loss did not involve the public exchequer, as the involved bank was a private entity. Furthermore, the court noted that the purported guarantees had expired, weakening the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on allegations requiring substantial proof of guilt and the essential ingredients of the offense are not prima facie established, the matter constitutes a case for further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail under the principles applicable to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case fall within the category of further inquiry when the alleged victim entities have not filed complaints?
  • Are the principles for grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to establish that the alleged financial loss involved the public exchequer?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Anjum vs Abida Parveen and another2016 MLD 1509 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and others vs The Appellate Authority for Local Counsils2016 CLC 855 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-28
  nomination papersproposer and seconderelectoral unitlocal bodies electionsrejection of nominationsubstantial defectconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of several constitutional petitions filed by candidates whose nomination papers for local bodies elections were rejected because their proposers or seconders did not belong to the same electoral unit or constituency. The core legal question was whether a candidate whose proposer or seconder belongs to a different electoral unit can be permitted to substitute them or cure the defect at a subsequent stage under the election rules. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions requiring a proposer and seconder to be from the same electoral unit are mandatory in nature, and any defect in this regard is substantial and incurable at a subsequent stage by the Returning Officer, Appellate Authority, or even the High Court. The court relied on binding precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan and a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court to establish that such invalid nomination forms cannot be subsequently validated, thereby dismissing the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a proposer and seconder of a candidate contesting local bodies elections must be registered voters of the same electoral unit?
  • Is the requirement for a proposer and seconder to belong to the candidate's constituency mandatory in nature?
  • Can a defect regarding an unqualified proposer or seconder be cured or substituted at a subsequent stage by the Returning Officer or the High Court?
  • Does the rejection of a nomination paper due to a proposer or seconder belonging to a different electoral unit constitute a defect of a substantial nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Board of Investment and 4 others2016 PLC (C.S.) 530 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-01
  up-gradation of postdiscriminationArticle 25equal protection of lawvested rightconstitutional petitionequal pay for equal workreasonable classification
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by a Public Relations Officer (BS-16) in the Board of Investment seeking upgradation of his post to BS-17 and subsequent promotion benefits. The petitioner alleged discrimination under Article 25, arguing that similar public relations, protocol, and information officer posts in other federal and provincial departments were assigned BS-17. The core legal questions were whether an employee who voluntarily accepted terms of service in BS-16 can subsequently claim post upgradation under Article 25, and whether distinct posts across different departments with varying qualifications require uniform pay scales. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that equal protection under Article 25 permits reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia, such as differing qualifications, duties, and administrative structures across departments. The Court held that to invoke Article 199, the petitioner must prove an infringement of an existing vested legal right. Furthermore, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an absolute fundamental right and cannot override established statutory recruitment rules voluntarily accepted by an employee.

  Questions settled

  • Does a minor difference in pay scale for distinct posts across different government departments constitute discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can an employee who voluntarily accepted an appointment under specific terms claim post upgradation through a constitutional petition under Article 199?
  • Is the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' an absolute or enforceable fundamental right under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Is the High Court entitled to enter into disputed questions of fact regarding job duties and qualifications under its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq through L.Rs, and otherss vs Mrs. Razia Begum through L.Rs, and others2016 YLR 2176 · Sindh High Court · 2016-02-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Brohi vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 1598 · Sindh High Court · 2014-08-27
  narcotic traffickingrecovery of charascredibility of excise police witnessesviolation of section 103 Cr.P.C.criminal appeallife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge CNS, Shikarpur, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for trafficking eighty kilograms of charas and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt, whether non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the recovery, and whether the defence plea was wrongly discarded. The High Court held that the prosecution witnesses fully supported the recovery and withstood lengthy cross-examination without material contradictions, that procedural technicalities like section 103 Cr.P.C. are excluded by section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and that the defence failed to substantiate its claims. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-compliance with the provisions of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiates a recovery made under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can the evidence of excise police officials be discarded solely on the basis of their official capacity in the absence of proved mala fides?
  • Whether procedural technicalities should be overlooked in cases involving the transportation or possession of large quantities of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hussain Tehirally through L. Rs, and others vs Additional District2016 CLC 1024 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hayee-Applicant vs The State2016 MLD 661 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-18
  post-arrest bailnon-compliance of court ordersdelay in trialabductionprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Hayee, who was implicated in Crime No. 120/2013 under sections 364, 337-J, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the abduction and subsequent murder of two women over a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail solely on the ground of non-compliance by the trial court with this Court's previous directions to conclude the trial or examine material witnesses within a specified timeframe. The Sindh High Court held that the failure of the trial court to conclude the trial or examine witnesses within the prescribed period does not automatically entitle an accused person to bail. The court laid down the principle that while delay in trial can be a ground, non-compliance with expediting directions alone does not confer an automatic right to bail, and bail must be evaluated on merits or statutory delay, leading to the dismissal of the application with directions for expedited trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to comply with High Court directions to conclude a trial within a specified period automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of non-compliance with an earlier order directing the examination of material witnesses within two months?
  • Does delay caused by the non-production of witnesses or court adjournments provide a sufficient ground for the grant of bail outside of statutory delay or merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 240 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-11
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of doubtcriminal appealmurderappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a minor. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically the "last seen" theory, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of a weapon. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the "last seen" evidence was inconclusive, as the accused was merely present on his own agricultural land, and the alleged extra-judicial confession was unreliable and lacked corroboration. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon from an open, accessible area failed to provide a necessary link in the chain of evidence. The court emphasized that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, every link must be fully established to form a complete chain connecting the accused to the crime. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted based on the principle of benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence where the chain of events is incomplete?
  • Does the presence of an accused on his own agricultural land constitute 'last seen' evidence sufficient for conviction?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient for conviction without strong corroboration by independent evidence?
  • What is the legal standard for evaluating circumstantial evidence in capital cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs Messrs Gulshan-E-Faisal Coop. Housing Society Ltd.2016 YLR 1557 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hadi vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and 22016 PLJ Karachi 115 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and another-Applicants vs The State2016 MLD 416 · Sindh High Court · 2014-06-19
  pre-arrest bailkidnapping for ransomaffidavit of abducteemala fidestentative assessmentAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Abdul Ghani and Nadir, in relation to a criminal case registered under sections 365-A, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sections 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail based on an affidavit filed by the abductee exonerating them, despite being named in the FIR and implicated in statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants failed to establish the necessary grounds for pre-arrest bail, particularly the element of mala fides. The court emphasized that an affidavit filed by a prosecution witness at the bail stage cannot be treated as conclusive evidence and must be scrutinized by the trial court. Furthermore, the court held that the material collected during the investigation must be assessed tentatively, and given the gravity of the offence, which carries capital punishment, the applicants were not entitled to the relief sought.

  Questions settled

  • Can an affidavit filed by an abductee at the bail stage be treated as conclusive evidence to grant pre-arrest bail?
  • Is the absence of mala fides a sufficient ground to reject an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Should the court rely on an affidavit exonerating the accused when the accused is named in the FIR and implicated in statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil vs The State2016 YLR 1259 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-24
  post-arrest bailrapemedical evidenceprima facie casetrial delaydeeper appreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a second post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Adil, in a case registered under Sections 376, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of rape and abetment. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the delay in the trial and the arguments regarding the lack of DNA evidence and the existence of a prior financial dispute. The Court held that the bail application should be dismissed. The ratio of the decision is that the victim's testimony, which fully implicated the accused, was corroborated by medical evidence confirming pregnancy. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, it is not permissible to engage in a deeper appreciation of evidence, especially when there is prima facie material connecting the accused to a serious offence punishable by imprisonment of up to 25 years. The key principle laid down is that where there is sufficient prima facie evidence, including consistent victim testimony and medical corroboration, the accused is not entitled to bail, regardless of trial delays or arguments requiring deeper evidentiary analysis.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bail application can be granted when the victim's testimony is corroborated by medical evidence of pregnancy?
  • Is it permissible for a court to conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence during the bail stage?
  • Does a delay in the conclusion of a trial automatically entitle an accused to bail in serious offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Karachi) 779 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-30
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailineffective firingcriminal appealsindh high court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the appellant, Abdul Ghaffar Marfani, seeking suspension of the sentence awarded to him through the judgment dated 08.09.2015, whereby he was convicted under Section 324 and Section 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and two years respectively. The core legal question was whether the sentence of the appellant should be suspended and bail granted pending the final hearing of the main appeal. The Sindh High Court held that since the prosecution case was one of ineffective firing with no injuries sustained by anyone, the appellant remained on bail during trial without misusing the concession, and the preparation of the paper book and final adjudication would take time, the application deserved to be allowed. The court laid down the principle that where a conviction involves ineffective firing with no resultant injuries and the appeal is not likely to be heard at an early date, the sentence may be suspended and the convict enlarged on bail pending appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sentence awarded for ineffective firing under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be suspended pending appeal?
  • Does the fact that an accused remained on bail during trial without misusing the concession justify the suspension of sentence?
  • Can the delay in the preparation of the paper book and final adjudication of an appeal serve as a ground for granting bail after conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Mallah and another and 4 Others vs Province of Sindh2016 SHC 67 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Ansari and another vs The State2016 MLD 546 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and 3 others vs The Chairman, National Accountability2016 YLR 403 · Sindh High Court · 2014-01-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Haroon2016 MLD 1335 · Sindh High Court · 2015-12-29Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali and another- vs Asif Abbas and 3 others-2016 CLD 555 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-17Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali and another vs Asif Abbas and 3 others2016 CLD 555, 2016 CLC 604 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-17Read full judgment →
• Aashique Ali Chandio and another vs The State2016 MLD 1377 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-19
  pre-arrest baildouble murdermala fideextraordinary reliefcriminal trialfalse implicationbail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by accused persons facing trial for double murder under Sections 452, 302, 504, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to pre-arrest bail despite being directly nominated in the FIR by an eyewitness who was the father of one of the deceased. The court dismissed the application, holding that the accused failed to establish mala fide or satisfy the stringent requirements for pre-arrest bail. The court reaffirmed that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief, not a substitute for post-arrest bail, and requires demonstrating reasonable grounds for innocence and ulterior motives by the prosecution. Furthermore, the court held that arguments regarding enmity and discrepancies in the prosecution's story are matters to be adjudicated during the trial, not at the pre-arrest bail stage. The judgment emphasizes that where there is prima facie strong evidence connecting the accused to a heinous crime, the court’s discretion must be exercised with caution, prioritizing the requirements of Sections 496-498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute or alternative for post-arrest bail?
  • Can enmity and doubts in the prosecution story be examined at the stage of pre-arrest bail?
  • What are the essential conditions a petitioner must satisfy to be granted pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the existence of reasonable grounds for believing an accused committed a non-bailable offence necessitate the refusal of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• A. Habib Ahmed and anothers vs Meezan Bank Limited (Former Hongkong2016 CLD 2125, 2016 CLC 1561 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
• A. Habib Ahmed and another vs Meezan Bank Limited (Former Hongkong2016 CLD 2125 · Sindh High Court · 2016-01-27Read full judgment →
• (1) Syed Muhammad Shoaib & others (2) Ms.Nabila Zafar vs Federation of Pakistan & others2016 SHC 79 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-15Read full judgment →
• #Tbe#TBS vs #Tbehomepack Freight International2016 CLD 82 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-22Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Kachelo and Ali & Others vs The State2015 NLR Criminal 434 · Sindh High Court · 2014-06-28
  compromisecompounding of offencesqisas and diyatsuspension of sentenceSection 302 PPCSection 201 PPCfasad-fil-arzhostile witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This common order of the High Court of Sindh disposed of applications under Section 345(5) and (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for permission to compromise, along with an application under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for suspension of sentence pending appeal. The primary appellant had been convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death, alongside convictions under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for all appellants. The legal questions before the Court were whether the compromise reached between the legal heirs and the appellant under Section 302 was genuine and hit by Section 311 or Section 338-E of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether sentences under the non-compoundable Section 201 could be suspended pending appeal. The Court verified the compromise, held that the offence was neither brutal nor constituted fasad-fil-arz under Section 311, and acquitted the appellant under Section 302. Finding the trial judgment on Section 201 unsupported by evidence, the Court suspended the remaining sentences and granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code automatically follow from a genuine compromise reached with all legal heirs of the deceased?
  • Under what circumstances can a court invoke Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code to award Tazir despite a valid compromise between the parties?
  • Can a court suspend a sentence under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for a non-compoundable offence under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code when the principal compoundable murder charge has been acquitted through compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Kachelo @ Ali & others vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  compromise of murdercompounding of offencesuspension of sentencefasad-fil-arzappellate bailcriminal appealqisas and diyat
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against convictions under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants and the legal heirs of the deceased reached a compromise regarding the murder charge. The core legal question was whether the court should permit the compounding of the offence under Section 302 PPC and how to address the remaining conviction under Section 201 PPC. The court held that while a compromise in a compoundable offence is permissible, it is not an automatic right; the court must judicially examine whether the crime involved Fasad-fil-Arz or was committed in a brutal manner, invoking Sections 311 and 338-E of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Finding no evidence of brutality or Fasad-fil-Arz, the court accepted the compromise, acquitted the appellant of the murder charge, and suspended the sentences for the remaining offence under Section 201 PPC pending the final adjudication of the appeal, noting the lack of evidence connecting the appellants to the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court accept a compromise for a murder conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Does a compromise between parties automatically entitle an accused to acquittal in a murder case?
  • What factors must a court consider under Section 311 and Section 338-E of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when deciding whether to accept a compromise in a murder case?
  • Can a sentence be suspended under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending an appeal when the conviction is based on insufficient evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi vs The StateSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmed Khaskheli vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others2015 PLD Sindh 118 · Sindh High Court · 2013-11-12Read full judgment →
• Zohaib Hussain and Faisal Hussain both sons of Ayaz Hussain vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  criminal appealcompoundable offenceqisas and diyatconcealment of evidencedeath sentence confirmationlegal heirscompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the criminal appeal of appellants Faisal Hussain and Zohaib Hussain against their convictions under Sections 302(b) and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and the concealment of evidence. The core legal questions were whether a compromise could be accepted for the offence of murder, and whether a conviction under Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could be sustained when the accused was also the primary perpetrator of the murder. The Court held that the offence under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is compoundable with the court's permission. Following a verified compromise between the legal heirs of the deceased and the appellants, the Court allowed the compromise and acquitted the appellants of the murder charge. Furthermore, relying on established precedent, the Court held that a person convicted as a principal offender for murder cannot simultaneously be convicted for the concealment of that same offence under Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the convictions under Section 201 were set aside, and the death sentence reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Is the offence of murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 compoundable?
  • Can an accused convicted as a principal offender for murder also be convicted for the concealment of that same offence under Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a compromise between the legal heirs and the accused in a murder case necessitate the acquittal of the accused for the offence of concealing evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Mustafa Lashari and anothers vs Province of Sindh through the Chief Secretary, Sindh, Karachi and others2015 PLJ Karachi 190 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-24Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Mustafa Lashari & another vs The Province of Sindh & othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Zardullah Khan vs Mst. Ruqiyya Hanif Maniar and 5 others2015 C.L.R. 9 · Sindh High Court · 2013-11-25Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited, Etc.s vs 1. Nazim Hussain 2. the Sindh2015 NLR Labour 31 · Sindh High Court · 2013-03-13
  Golden Handshake Schemeapprobate and reprobatereinstatementabatement of appealFederal Service Tribunallabour court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of the respondent employee. The respondent had opted for a Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme offered by the petitioner bank but later claimed to have revoked his acceptance. Following his relief from duty, the respondent received payments under the scheme in two installments. The core legal question was whether an employee who voluntarily accepts benefits under a Golden Handshake Scheme, despite an initial attempt to revoke their acceptance, is entitled to seek reinstatement through litigation. The Court held that the respondent, by accepting the payments under the scheme, had acted on his own free will and could not subsequently approbate and reprobate by seeking re-induction into service. The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent in Raja Riaz v. Chairman, Pakistan Space & Upper Atmosphere Research Commission regarding the necessity of a judicial order for abatement, finding that the respondent's subsequent actions barred his claim. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the reinstatement order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acceptance of payments under a Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme preclude an employee from seeking reinstatement?
  • Is a judicial order of abatement from the Federal Service Tribunal strictly required in every case for an employee to seek alternative legal remedies?
  • Can an employee who has accepted benefits under a severance scheme later claim that their acceptance was revoked?
  Read full judgment →
• Zamir Iqbal Khan & another vs Province of Sindh & othersSindh High Court · -
  civil servicetransfer and postingconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalterms and conditions of serviceArticle 212maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the transfer orders of two civil servants, alleging that the transfers were mala fide, violated departmental rules, and contradicted the principle of tenure security. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to adjudicate upon the transfer of civil servants, or if such jurisdiction is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that the transfer and posting of civil servants are matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court ruled that the constitutional petition was not maintainable, as the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court, even where the impugned orders are alleged to be mala fide or ultra vires. The principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal is the sole forum for adjudicating service-related disputes, and the High Court cannot bypass this statutory bar.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to adjudicate the transfer of a civil servant?
  • Are matters relating to the transfer and posting of civil servants considered terms and conditions of service?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to transfer orders alleged to be mala fide or ultra vires?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a transfer order of a civil servant if an efficacious remedy exists before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakir Rashid Khan vs Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines2015 PLC 1461 · Sindh High Court
  wrongful terminationtechnological redundancydiscriminatory dismissalservice benefitsspecific reliefreinstatementemployment law
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a Flight Engineer with Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and damages following his termination on grounds of technological redundancy in 2008. The core legal questions were whether the termination was arbitrary, void, and discriminatory, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to reinstatement or compensation given that other similarly situated engineers were reinstated or offered more favorable retirement packages. The Court held that the termination was void ab initio, as it lacked the requisite approval from the Board of Directors and failed to provide the mandatory notice or opportunity for a hearing. Furthermore, the Court found the defendant's actions discriminatory, as the plaintiff was denied benefits and reinstatement opportunities granted to other engineers. The Court established the principle that an employer cannot arbitrarily terminate an employee under the guise of redundancy while simultaneously failing to follow internal procedural safeguards or engaging in discriminatory practices regarding severance and reinstatement. Consequently, the Court decreed the suit, awarding the plaintiff compensation for the period up to his superannuation, minus any benefits already received.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a termination order issued without the approval of the Board of Directors, where such approval is required by internal regulations, is void ab initio?
  • Does an employer's failure to provide mandatory notice prior to termination render the dismissal arbitrary and illegal?
  • Can an employer be held liable for discrimination if they reinstate some employees affected by a redundancy scheme while arbitrarily excluding others?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to full compensation for the period up to superannuation if their termination is found to be void and discriminatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakarullah vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  narcotics possessioncharas recoveryrepresentative sampleappreciation of evidencereduction of sentencecontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 800 kg of Charas recovered from an oil tanker driven by him. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of evidence regarding the recovery of narcotics, the reliability of police/excise witnesses, and the application of representative sampling principles as established in superior court precedents. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, establishing exclusive possession of the contraband by the appellant without any proven mala fides or enmity on the part of the raiding officers. The court affirmed the conviction but, considering the appellant's young age, clean jail record, and the fact that he had already served over 17 years of imprisonment, exercised leniency by reducing his sentence to the period already undergone, while maintaining the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the recovery of a large quantity of narcotics from a vehicle driven by the accused?
  • Can the uncorroborated testimony of excise officials regarding the recovery of narcotics be relied upon in the absence of proven enmity or ill-will?
  • Whether a sentence of life imprisonment for narcotics possession can be reduced to the period already undergone on the grounds of leniency and time spent in jail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Younus son of Muhammad Younus: In the matter of Mrs. Khair un2015 CLC 1135 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-14Read full judgment →
• Zahid Shakeel and others vs Pakistan and others2015 P.C.T.L.R. 1202 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-07Read full judgment →
• Zahid Shaikh vs NotSindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailcontrol of narcotic substancesmalafide prosecutionfurther inquirybenefit of doubtrecovery from waistpolice animosity
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by applicant Zahid Shaikh in Crime No.77/2012 registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Naudero, wherein 1600 grams of charas was allegedly recovered from his possession. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail in view of alleged malafide police action, previous litigation between the applicant's family and the local police, and doubts surrounding the recovery. The Sindh High Court accepted the bail application and held that the prior habeas corpus proceedings initiated by the applicant's father against the same police station created reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the applicant under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The key principle laid down is that where prior animosity or litigation between the accused's family and the local police creates a reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case, the accused becomes entitled to further inquiry and bail as a matter of right under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Whether recovery of a large quantity of charas from the waist of an accused creates a circumstance for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does prior litigation or habeas corpus proceedings initiated against the police by an accused's family constitute a ground for presumptive malafide and grant of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage when reasonable doubt exists regarding police involvement and false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Saeed & others vs CDGK & othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali S/o Azhar Ali vs Station House Officer, P.S Patni, Taluka Rohri,Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed vs The State2015 MLD 992 · Sindh High Court · 2014-07-22
  post-arrest bailtentative assessmentdeeper appreciation of evidencepolice investigation reportcorroborative evidencecriminal administration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Zaheer Ahmed, who is charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his alleged involvement in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence, including a second police investigation report declaring him innocent and a ballistic report suggesting the recovered weapon did not match the crime scene evidence. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, reasoning that the FIR assigned a specific role to the applicant and that the recovery of the weapon and shell casing provided sufficient prima facie evidence linking him to the offense. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of evidence is permissible, and deeper appreciation of evidence, such as evaluating the validity of a second investigation report or the ballistic findings, is reserved for the trial court. The principle laid down is that police investigation opinions are not binding on the court during bail proceedings, and recovery evidence, while corroborative, creates a prima facie connection sufficient to deny bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second police investigation report declaring an accused innocent binding upon the court during bail proceedings?
  • Does the court conduct a deeper appreciation of evidence or a tentative assessment when deciding a bail application?
  • Can bail be denied when there is sufficient prima facie material linking the accused to the offense despite conflicting investigation reports?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed vs Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation-Ir and 4 others2015 PTD 349 · Sindh High Court · 2014-06-11
  quashment of FIRinherent powers of High Courttax evasionabuse of processcriminal proceedingsjurisdictional defectadjudication proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation-IR for alleged tax evasion under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and the Federal Excise Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the criminal proceedings were maintainable given the absence of prior adjudication, lack of tax liability determination, and procedural irregularities. The Court held that the proceedings were unsustainable, as the respondents failed to issue show-cause notices or follow mandatory adjudication procedures before initiating criminal action. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and proceedings, directing the release of seized assets. The judgment established that the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process, particularly when a case is groundless, mala fide, or lacks evidence. It further affirmed that the High Court may intervene directly without requiring the petitioner to first exhaust trial court remedies under Sections 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. in exceptional circumstances where the continuation of proceedings would be a futile exercise.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings without waiting for the trial court to decide on applications under Sections 249-A or 265-K Cr.P.C.?
  • Does the initiation of criminal proceedings for tax evasion without prior adjudication or determination of tax liability constitute an abuse of the process of law?
  • Is the High Court empowered to quash an FIR when the investigation and registration of the case are proven to be mala fide or lack evidence?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed if the alleged offence is based on a dispute that is purely civil in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed vs Directorate General of Intelligence & Investigation-Ir &Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed vs Directorate General of Intelligence & Investigation-111 TAX 389 · Sindh High Court · 2014-06-11Read full judgment →
• Zafar Mahmood Khan vs Muhammad Ali Khan and anotherSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Zaeem Aziz Qureshi vs Piac & AnotherSindh High Court · -
  compulsory retirementcompetent authoritystatutory powersinquiry reportdelegation of powerservice lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a compulsory retirement order issued against the petitioner under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The core legal questions concerned whether the order was validly issued by an HR Manager rather than the designated competent authority, and whether the competent authority is bound by the penalty recommendations of an inquiry officer. The Court held that the compulsory retirement order was unlawful because it was issued by an incompetent person, violating the procedural requirements of Section 8 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The Court established that while the competent authority is not bound by the inquiry officer’s recommendations and may impose a different penalty, it must personally exercise its statutory powers. The decision to terminate employment cannot be delegated to internal committees like the "Employee Leadership Team" or conveyed by unauthorized personnel. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order but granted the management liberty to pass a fresh order after proper consideration of the inquiry report in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the competent authority under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 bound by the penalty recommendations of an inquiry officer?
  • Can the power to compulsorily retire an employee be exercised by an HR Manager if the statute designates a higher authority?
  • Does the delegation of a decision-making power to an internal committee, such as an Employee Leadership Team, satisfy the statutory requirement for action by a competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Yusuf Muhammad Siddiq and 16 others vs Muhammad Rafique2015 PLJ Karachi 118, 2015 PLD Sindh 319 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-27Read full judgment →
• Yusuf Muhammad Siddiq & 16 others vs Muhammad Rafique2015 PLJ Karachi 118 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-27Read full judgment →
• Younus Rizwani vs StateSindh High Court · -
  pre-arrest bailcorruptionembezzlementfreight subsidyconstitutional petitionpublic exchequerbail conditions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns pre-arrest bail applications filed by the applicant in multiple FIRs involving allegations of massive corruption and embezzlement within the Trade Policy Freight Subsidy Incentive Scheme. The applicant, a former partner in a Chartered Accountant firm, was accused of approving fraudulent subsidy claims. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail, considering a prior consent order in a constitutional petition and his role in the alleged financial irregularities. The court held that while constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 and bail jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are distinct, the applicant’s willingness to deposit the disputed amount of Rs. 23,00,000 to the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP) justified the confirmation of bail. The court established the principle that the primary object of trial is to ensure the accused faces prosecution rather than to punish them pre-trial. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, subject to the condition of depositing the disputed funds and surrendering the applicant's passport, ensuring the protection of the public exchequer.

  Questions settled

  • Does the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 override the court's jurisdiction to grant bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed subject to the deposit of the disputed amount in a corruption case?
  • What is the primary objective of a criminal trial regarding the detention of an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Younus Rizwani vs Federation of Pakistan and othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Yasmin Gul Khanani and another vs Tariq MehmoodSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad Jameel Ahmed vs StateSindh High Court · -
  narcotics possessionControl of Narcotics Substances Actsentence reductionrecovery memoburden of proofcriminal appealpolice evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Special Court for possession of narcotics under Section 9/C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the recovery of contraband and whether the sentence warranted reduction based on the duration of incarceration and judicial precedents regarding sampling. The Court held that the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof, as the recovery memo and police testimony were consistent and corroborated, and the appellants failed to rebut this evidence under Section 29 of the Act. While maintaining the conviction, the Court observed that the appellants had already served over twenty years in prison. Applying judicial discretion, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, allowing for the appellants' release. The judgment reaffirms that police evidence is admissible under the CNS Act and that sentencing can be mitigated in cases where the accused has served a substantial portion of their term, despite the severity of the original offense.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997 render police evidence admissible without private witnesses?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997 once the prosecution establishes possession of narcotics?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction for a narcotics offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad Brohi vs 1. Abdul Malik 2. Raheem Bux 3. MuhammadSindh High Court · -
  quashing of orderpolice reportcolumn No.2non-bailable warrantsbailable warrantscognizance of offencecriminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the order of a Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate who disagreed with the police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 placing the applicants' names in column No.2, took cognizance against them, and issued non-bailable warrants. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is justified in issuing non-bailable warrants in the first instance against accused persons whose names were placed in column No.2 of the police report. The court held that while a Magistrate has the power to disagree with the police report and summon accused persons placed in column No.2, issuing non-bailable warrants in the first instance is harsh when such accused have been cooperating with the police. The court laid down the principle that a Magistrate should in the first instance issue bailable warrants to secure the attendance of accused persons placed in column No.2, and resort to coercive methods only upon their failure to appear.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate disagree with a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and summon accused persons placed in column No.2?
  • Is it proper for a Magistrate to issue non-bailable warrants in the first instance against accused persons whose names are placed in column No.2 of the police report?
  • When should a Magistrate resort to coercive methods or non-bailable warrants against an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Yar Muhammad (2) Jameel Ahmed vs The StateSindh High Court · -
  narcotics possessionheroin and opium recoveryrebuttal of presumptionreduction of sentencecriminal appealcontrol of narcotics substances act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Court-II, CNS Karachi, convicting the appellants under Section 9/C of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 43 kgs of heroin and 23 kgs of opium, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged their conviction and sought acquittal. The Sindh High Court examined the prosecution evidence, which established that the police intercepted a vehicle and recovered the narcotics from secret cavities, and noted that the appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, or demonstrate any mala fides or enmity on the part of the raiding party. The High Court upheld the conviction but, considering the mitigating circumstances that the appellants were first-time offenders who had already served over 20 years and 8 months of imprisonment, exercised leniency regarding the sentence. The court dismissed the appeals as to the conviction while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, directing the immediate release of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully discharged its initial burden of proof regarding the recovery of narcotics under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997?
  • Can the evidence of police officials alone be relied upon in narcotics cases where the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are excluded under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the effect of an accused failing to rebut the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997?
  • Whether an appellate court can reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone in view of prolonged incarceration and mitigating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Y.G. Investment and Developers through Authorized Attorney vs Clifton2015 CLD 1572 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-27Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority (Wadpa) through Chief2015 PTD 1799 · Sindh High Court · 2014-05-20Read full judgment →