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.

• Suleman and others vs Allan Jokhio through L.Rs,-2008 CLC 524 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-28Read full judgment →
• Suleman and 3 others vs Allan Jokhio and 3 others2008 C.L.R. 1210 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-21Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd., Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan2008 PLD Karachi 402 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-21Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd., Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan2008 PLJ Karachi 153 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-21Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Govt. of Pakistan and 2 others2008 CLD 901 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-21Read full judgment →
• Suhail Khan alias Saleh Muhammad vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 146 · Sindh High Court · 2007-11-02
  narcoticsheroin recoverycharaschemical analyst reportcontradiction in evidencereduction of sentencecontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possession of narcotics and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine. The core legal questions involved the credibility of police witnesses, the applicability of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, discrepancies between oral testimony and the chemical examiner's report regarding the weight of the recovered substance, and the evidentiary value of a Government Analyst Report under section 36(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The High Court held that where oral evidence regarding the weight of seized heroin samples directly contradicts the Government Analyst Report, the statutory weight of the conclusive report prevails, rendering the heroin recovery doubtful, whereas the recovery of charas stood proven. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction regarding heroin, upheld it regarding charas, and altered the sentence to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a Government Analyst Report under section 36(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when it contradicts oral testimony?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained for charas while being set aside for heroin due to evidentiary contradictions?
  • Whether the sentence of life imprisonment can be altered to the period already undergone in light of the quantity of narcotics proven?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs CH. Ahmed Mukhtar and anotherPLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Karachi) 155 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-20
  acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocenceaccountabilitypublic exchequerabuse of authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Accountability Court acquitting the respondents of charges relating to the sale of rice below the international market price, allegedly causing loss to the public exchequer. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the respondents—the former Minister of Commerce and the Additional Secretary—regarding abuse of authority and connivance in the sale of rice without tendering and below market rates. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to bring on record sufficient evidence showing the respondents had knowledge of the higher international market price or that they actively participated in or influenced the final approved transaction, noting that the final decision was approved by the Cabinet and the trial court properly evaluated the evidence. The court reaffirmed the principle that in an appeal against acquittal, the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence, and appellate courts will not interfere with a well-reasoned acquittal order unless it is shown to be perverse or suffering from material omissions of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What is the criterion for examining an appeal against an acquittal in criminal proceedings?
  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal judgment that is based on proper appraisal of evidence and suffers from no perversity?
  • Can a public functionary be held criminally liable for a transaction approved by the Cabinet without proof of personal knowledge regarding alleged market price discrepancies?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Messrs Ahmed &2008 CLC 610 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-25Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Habib Safe Deposit2008 CLC 517 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-11
  constitutional petitionfair rent fixationrented premisesconcurrent findingsappreciation of evidencejurisdiction of high court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts fixing the fair rent of the disputed premises at Rs. 5 per square foot per month under Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The petitioner-landlord contended that the courts below failed to properly consider lease deeds establishing higher rates in the same or other areas and increased construction costs. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower tribunals, based on proper appraisal of evidence including admissions by the petitioner's own witness that the relied-upon lease deeds pertained to properties in entirely different localities, did not warrant interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that a High Court cannot substitute its own view for that of a statutory tribunal on re-appraisal of evidence unless perversity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence is shown. The petition was consequently dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding fair rent fixation under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Are lease deeds relating to properties situated in different localities relevant for determining the fair rent of a premises under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Whether the co-existence of all four conditions mentioned in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 is mandatory for fixing fair rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Star Textile Mills Ltd.s vs Messrs Longclose and 2 others2008 CLD 141 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-27Read full judgment →
• Soneri Bank Ltd. vs Abdul Qadir Jangda2008 CLD 1317 · Sindh High Court · 2008-07-30Read full judgment →
• Sohrab vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 772 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryvicarious liabilityinstigationempty-handedadvanced agecommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was filed by the applicant, Sohrab, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving offences under Sections 302, 324, 114, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was present at the scene of the crime empty-handed and had instigated the co-accused, who subsequently fired shots and inflicted Lathi blows, resulting in two deaths and three injuries. The applicant contended that he was empty-handed, had no overt act attributed to him, and was of advanced age (73/74 years old) and physically infirm. The High Court observed that the question of whether the applicant harboured a common intention or was vicariously liable for the acts of the co-accused required evidence and was a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Considering the applicant's advanced age, weak physical health, and the lack of any overt physical act attributed to him, the Court allowed the application and granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an empty-handed accused who is only attributed the role of instigation is entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry into vicarious liability?
  • Can the advanced age and physical infirmity of an accused be considered as mitigating factors for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the question of common intention under Section 34 or vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be conclusively determined at the bail stage without recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Masood vs Khatoon Shahood and others2008 YLR 2372 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-09Read full judgment →
• Sobia Sohail Jafrani vs Collector of Customs, Karachi and 2 others2008 PTD 1284 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-14Read full judgment →
• Siraj Ahmed Khan vs Syed Shakeel .Haider2008 YLR 1231 · Sindh High Court · 2007-12-07Read full judgment →
• Sikander Trading Company Private Limited and 6 others vs Habib Bank2008 CLD 326 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-26
  maintainability of appealpre-admission noticefinancial institutions recoveryprocedural technicalityexecution proceedingssubstantial compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of an appeal filed against an order passed in execution proceedings arising from a banking suit. The core legal question was whether the failure to strictly comply with the pre-admission notice requirements under Section 22(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 read with Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 renders the appeal non-maintainable. The Sindh High Court held that the primary object of the statutory notice requirement is to ensure the respondent is not condemned unheard and to provide an opportunity to contest the admission of the appeal. The Court ruled that where a notice has been served and the respondent's counsel is present and fully aware of the proceedings, substantial compliance with the procedural requirement is achieved. The Court laid down the principle that procedural laws and technicalities are meant to foster the cause of justice as stepping stones rather than act as stumbling blocks to defeat a litigant's right of appeal, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is maintainable without strict adherence to Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the underlying intent and purpose of requiring a pre-admission notice under Section 22(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does substantial compliance with the notice requirement suffice when the respondent's counsel is already in attendance and aware of the impugned order?
  • Can a party be non-suited on the basis of a procedural technicality where no prejudice has been caused to the opposing side?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs The State2008 YLR 351 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-08
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancessample testingprohibitory clausefurther inquirypolice investigationcomplainant as investigator
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Sikandar in respect of Crime No. 5 of 2007 registered under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act at Police Station Kamaldero, District Naushahro Feroze, involving the alleged recovery of 1015 grams of charas. The core legal questions involved whether the sampling of only 15 grams out of the total recovered quantity brings the offense within the lesser punishment of Section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, and whether investigation conducted by the complainant himself violates Article 18(4) of the Police Order 2002, creating further inquiry. The court held that the case falls under Section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act since only a 15-gram sample was sent for chemical analysis from the bulk, which does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the investigation by the complainant violated Article 18(4) of the Police Order 2002. The key principle laid down is that where samples are not drawn from all recovered narcotic pieces and procedural violations in investigation occur, a case for further inquiry is made out warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the sending of only a partial sample for chemical examination reduce the nature of the offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act?
  • Does an offense punishable under Section 9(a) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an investigation conducted by the complainant himself in violation of Article 18(4) of the Police Order 2002 create grounds for further inquiry for the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddique through his Legal Heirs and 9 others vs Member (L.U.) Board of Revenue, Sindh and others2008 MLD 661 · Sindh High Court · 2006-02-16Read full judgment →
• Sibtemujtaba Kazmi vs Cantonment Board through Cantonment2008 MLD 793 · Sindh High Court · 2003-12-18Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs The State2008 MLD 651 · Sindh High Court · 2007-07-11
  bail on medical groundsailmentcriminal proceduremedical examinationpost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, Sher Zaman, seeking post-arrest bail primarily on the ground of serious ailment, specifically contending that he has only one functioning kidney causing constant pain and numbness in his legs, posing a hazard to his life. The core legal question concerns whether bail should be granted on medical grounds based on the produced medical report. The Sindh High Court held that the existing record did not conclusively establish that continued detention was hazardous to the life of the applicant. Consequently, the court disposed of the bail application with directions for the applicant to be re-examined by the Medical Officer of Central Prison Hospital, Karachi, and if necessary, by a medical expert. The principle laid down is that a plea for bail on medical grounds requires a verified medical report establishing that imprisonment is hazardous to life, and the accused is at liberty to approach the trial court afresh upon receipt of such a report.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted on the ground of ailment without a verified medical report showing detention is hazardous to life?
  • What procedure should be adopted when an accused seeks bail on medical grounds and the jail medical report is contested?
  • Can an accused apply afresh for bail before the trial court after obtaining a medical expert's report subsequent to an initial high court order?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan and 2 otherss vs The State2008 YLR 2334 · Sindh High Court · 2006-06-27
  ocular testimonyvisual identificationcriminal appealmurder convictionbenefit of doubtnight-time occurrencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, following a trial court judgment. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony in a night-time incident where the prosecution failed to establish the source of light or provide independent corroboration. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained because the prosecution’s evidence regarding the identity of the culprits was suspect. Specifically, the Court found that the witnesses failed to prove the presence of sufficient light for identification at the time of the occurrence, and the delayed disclosure of the culprits' names suggested that the appellants were implicated after deliberation. The Court laid down the principle that visual identification in night-time incidents constitutes suspect evidence, which generally requires independent corroboration to be safe for conviction. Absent such corroboration or proof of exceptional circumstances like adequate lighting or prior acquaintance, the Court ruled that the possibility of mistaken identity could not be excluded, necessitating the acquittal of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Is ocular testimony regarding visual identification in a night-time incident sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish the source of light in a night-time crime scene render the identification of the accused doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to disclose the names of the culprits to the police at the earliest opportunity?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan and 2 others vs StatePLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Karachi) 689 · Sindh High Court · 2006-12-27
  ocular testimonyvisual identificationmurdercriminal appealburden of proofreasonable doubtcorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s ocular testimony, which lacked independent corroboration and failed to establish the source of light for identification during a night-time incident, was sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It observed that visual identification in night-time incidents without sufficient light constitutes 'suspect evidence' that requires independent corroboration, which was absent here. Furthermore, the Court noted that the failure of witnesses to disclose the names of the culprits to the police at the earliest opportunity, despite having the chance, indicated that the FIR was the result of consultation and deliberation. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and dismissed the revision application seeking sentence enhancement, emphasizing that the possibility of mistaken identity could not be ruled out in the absence of reliable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is ocular testimony regarding visual identification in a night-time incident sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure to disclose the source of light in a night-time occurrence render identification evidence unreliable?
  • Does the failure to name culprits to the police at the earliest opportunity suggest that the FIR was the result of consultation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Ltd. through Attorney vs Aero Asia International (Pvt.)2008 CLD 996 · Sindh High Court · 2008-06-13
  summary suitdishonoured chequesleave to defendarbitration clausenegotiable instrumentsrecovery of money
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of outstanding amounts based on dishonoured cheques issued by the defendants for fuel supplies. The defendants, despite being served, failed to file an application for leave to defend within the statutory period, instead filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to stay proceedings. The core legal questions were whether the arbitration clause in the underlying fuel supply agreement precluded a summary suit based on dishonoured cheques, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree due to the defendants' failure to seek leave to defend. The Court held that a suit based on negotiable instruments constitutes an independent cause of action distinct from the underlying agreement, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Consequently, the application under the Arbitration Act was dismissed. Furthermore, as the defendants failed to obtain leave to defend, the allegations in the plaint were deemed admitted. The Court decreed the suit, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable for the outstanding amount, subject to the specific liability limit of the second defendant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitration clause in an underlying supply agreement bar a summary suit filed specifically on the basis of dishonoured cheques?
  • What is the legal consequence in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a defendant fails to apply for leave to defend?
  • Can a suit based on dishonoured cheques be considered an independent cause of action separate from the underlying commercial agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Ltd. through Attorney vs Aero Asia International (Pvt.)2008 PLD Karachi 429 · Sindh High Court · 2008-06-12
  summary suitnegotiable instrumentsdishonored chequesleave to defendarbitration stayadmitted liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a summary suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of outstanding amounts based on dishonored cheques and admitted liabilities arising from an aviation fuels agreement. The core legal question was whether a suit founded on negotiable instruments and admitted liability can be stayed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a summary decree upon the defendants' failure to apply for leave to defend. The Sindh High Court held that an independent claim based on dishonored cheques and admitted debt does not constitute a dispute covered by an arbitration clause, and that upon failure of the served defendants to seek leave to defend, the averments in the plaint are deemed admitted, entitling the plaintiff to a decree. The court laid down the principle that summary suits based on negotiable instruments cannot be defeated by invoking arbitration clauses for undisputed, admitted debts, and that failure to secure leave to defend mandates an immediate decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit based on dishonored cheques and admitted liability can be stayed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act?
  • What is the legal consequence under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure when a defendant fails to file an application for leave to defend within the statutory period?
  • Can an arbitration clause in an agreement be invoked when the claim is founded on an independent cause of action regarding negotiable instruments?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Fazal Rahim And Another vs Andrew Stearmose And Others2008 P.C.T.L.R. 1087 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-25Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Wahid And Others vs Securities & Exchange Commission Of Pakistan2008 P.C.T.L.R. 458 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Wahid and 7 others vs Securities and Exchange2008 CLD 57 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-12
  fiduciary dutyundervaluation of sharestakeoverssubstantial acquisition of voting sharesinsider tradingsecurities regulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan concerning the undervaluation and clandestine sale of shares held by Ahmed Spinning Mills Limited in United Sugar Mills Limited. The core legal question is whether the management of a listed company breached its fiduciary duties by selling company shares at a nominal price to a dormant front company, which subsequently resold them at an exorbitant profit, thereby prejudicing ordinary shareholders. The court held that the initial sale lacked probity and constituted a financial rip-off designed to siphon windfall profits to the company's directors at the expense of ordinary shareholders. The court established that the right to claim the price differential between the two transactions belongs exclusively to the shareholders who held shares on the date of the original undervalued sale, and not to subsequent purchasers or the wrongdoer directors who had artificially inflated their shareholding post-transaction. The appeal was dismissed with directions for depositing and distributing the recovered funds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a company management breach its fiduciary duties by selling corporate assets to a dormant front company at a fraction of their market value?
  • Who is entitled to claim the price differential resulting from a fraudulent and undervalued sale of company shares?
  • Can directors who orchestrate an undervalued sale of shares subsequently acquire majority shareholding to claim the resulting price differential?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Bashir Memon vs The Chairman, WAPDA,,Lahore and another2008 C.L.R. 1563 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-06Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Bashir Memon vs Chairman, WAPDA and another2008 PLC (C.S.) 1283 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-13
  service contracttermination of servicemala fidesstigmacontractual employeeWAPDAHESCO
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his termination order from the post of Manager Finance (C.P.C.) at HESCO, WAPDA, which was executed on the grounds of dishonesty and breach of trust regarding an alleged misrepresentation of his employment status before the Selection Board. The core legal question was whether the contractual employee's termination for alleged dishonesty and breach of trust was legally sustainable and free from mala fides. The court held that the respondents failed to produce any evidence establishing dishonesty or breach of trust, finding the termination to be based on mala fides and leaving a stigma on the petitioner's career. However, since the petitioner's contract period had already expired by the time of the judgment and a replacement had been appointed, reinstatement was denied. The court ruled that the stigmatic findings of dishonesty and breach of trust be set aside, and directed the respondents to pay all salaries and benefits to the petitioner up to the date of the expiry of his contract. The key principle laid down is that a contractual employee cannot be terminated on stigmatic grounds of dishonesty and breach of trust without substantiated evidence, and termination actuated by mala fides warrants appropriate financial relief even if reinstatement is barred by efflux of time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the termination of a contractual employee on the ground of dishonesty and breach of trust is sustainable without substantiating evidence?
  • Can a court order reinstatement of a contractual employee whose fixed-term contract has already expired during the pendency of the proceedings?
  • Whether a termination order carrying stigmatic allegations of dishonesty and breach of trust can be modified to remove such stigma when unsupported by record?
  • Is a termination actuated by mala fides and personal grievances legally justifiable?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat and 4 others vs Karachi Transport Corporation2008 MLD 37 · Sindh High Court · 2002-05-14Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Aman vs Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretary Revenue2008 P.C.T.L.R. 492 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-10Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Aman through Special Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan2008 YLR 306 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-10Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The State2008 YLR 914 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-16
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrobberyrecoveryindependent witnessesnon-compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Shaukat Ali, challenging the Sessions Judge's order refusing post-arrest bail in a robbery case. The applicant was apprehended at the scene, while a co-accused allegedly absconded with the stolen money and the weapon (Khanjar). The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the lack of recovery from his person, the absence of independent witnesses, and the prosecution's failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell under the category of further inquiry. The Court reasoned that since the investigation was complete, the challan had been submitted, and no recovery was effected from the applicant, the prosecution's failure to explain the absence of independent witnesses or comply with statutory search and seizure requirements weakened the case. The key principle laid down is that where no recovery is made from an accused arrested at the spot and independent witnesses are absent without explanation, the case constitutes one of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of recovery from an accused arrested at the scene of a crime constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is the failure of the prosecution to cite independent witnesses or explain non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a valid ground for granting bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted, but the trial has not commenced?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Amin Fabrics Ltd. and 3 others2008 CLD 837 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-06Read full judgment →
• Sharjeel Younus vs Salahuddin Mirza2008 YLR 1523 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-02Read full judgment →
• Shamsullah alias Hawaldar vs The State2008 YLR 1179 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-14
  post-arrest bailidentification paradefurther inquirymurdercriminal procedureevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant, Shamsullah alias Hawaldar, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving murder. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether, given the lack of incriminating evidence and the failure of eye-witnesses to identify the accused, there existed reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty of the offence charged. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in the murder of the deceased during a robbery attempt, yet the applicant was not named in the First Information Report, and eye-witnesses refused to participate in identification proceedings. The Court held that in the absence of identification or other incriminating evidence, the case against the applicant fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant, establishing the principle that where the prosecution fails to connect an accused to the crime through identification or other evidence, the case warrants further inquiry under the bail provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, entitling the accused to relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when eye-witnesses refuse to identify them during investigation?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the First Information Report and the failure of witnesses to identify them constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • When does a criminal case qualify for 'further inquiry' under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakar Din vs Provincial Government of Sindh through the Chief2008 MLD 1403 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-18Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Sadiq vs Mst. Sain Islam2008 PLD Karachi 20 · Sindh High Court · 2007-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Sadiq vs Mst Zarin IslamK.L.R. 2008 Civil Cases 278 · Sindh High Court · 2007-09-25Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Fazal Rahim and anothers vs Andrew Staermose and 3 others2008 CLD 879 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-25Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Kamran Salim and anothers vs Prime Commercial Bank Ltd and 82008 CLD 504 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-20Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Kamran Salim and another vs Prime Commercial Bank Ltd. and 82008 CLC 821 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-20Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Arifulrehman vs Province of Sindh and others2008 CLC 579 · Sindh High Court · 2007-09-28Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Yousaf vs Province of Sindh and others2008 YLR 1587 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-18Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ali vs City District Government through Nazim-e-Ala and another2008 MLD 782 · Sindh High Court · 2003-10-16Read full judgment →
• Shahida Begum and others vs Muhammad Ramzan and others2008 MLD 182 · Sindh High Court · 2007-11-23
  quashment of proceedingsprivate complaintmala fideabuse of processharassmentcriminal breach of trustcheating
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed for the quashment of proceedings initiated on a private complaint under sections 420, 406, and 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the private complaint, which alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating, disclosed a genuine criminal offence or was merely a civil dispute filed with mala fide intent to harass the accused. The High Court held that the proceedings were an abuse of process and quashed them. The Court determined that the allegations constituted a civil dispute regarding the recovery of money rather than a criminal offence. The judgment establishes that a Judicial Magistrate must apply their judicial mind when issuing process under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and must not allow the criminal process to be weaponized for personal vendettas or harassment, particularly where the underlying dispute is essentially civil in nature. The Court emphasized that courts must scrutinize private complaints to prevent the misuse of legal machinery for ulterior motives.

  Questions settled

  • Can a private complaint be quashed if it is found to be filed with mala fide intent to harass the accused?
  • Does the issuance of process under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require the Magistrate to apply their judicial mind to the contents of the complaint?
  • Can a dispute regarding the recovery of money be treated as a criminal offence under sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Begum And Another vs Muhammad Ramzan And AnotherK.L.R. 2008 Criminal Cases 376 · Sindh High Court · 2007-11-23
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of processharassmentprivate complaintcriminal breach of trustcheatingmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated through a private complaint under Sections 420, 406, and 506(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code before the 1st Judicial Magistrate Nawabshah, wherein process was issued against the applicants. The core legal question revolves around whether the ingredients of the alleged criminal offenses were made out from the contents of the complaint and whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of the court's process and harassment of an ex-wife. The Sindh High Court held that the contents of the private complaint disclosed a civil dispute regarding the recovery of money and failed to make out any criminal offense, concluding that the complaint was false, mala fide, and filed by the complainant to harass his divorced wife and her brother. The Court laid down the principle that criminal proceedings initiated maliciously to harass parties, particularly where a magistrate fails to apply judicial mind and misuses powers to issue process in civil matters, are liable to be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed when the contents of a private complaint disclose a purely civil dispute regarding recovery of money?
  • Can a magistrate issue process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without properly applying judicial mind to the ingredients of the alleged offenses?
  • Whether a private complaint filed with mala fide intent to harass an ex-spouse constitutes an abuse of process warranting quashment?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Zari vs The State2008 YLR 41 · Sindh High Court · 2007-09-28
  post-arrest bailrobberyno recoverycriminal trialsindh high court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant, Shahid Zari, who is facing trial under section 393434 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with FIR No. 134 of 2007 registered at Police Station Saeedabad, Karachi. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including the lack of recovery from his possession and the absence of injuries attributed to him. The Sindh High Court evaluated the arguments presented by both parties, noting the concessions made by the State counsel regarding the absence of recoveries and prior convictions. The court held that the applicant has made out a case for the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where no recovery is effected from the accused, no injuries are attributed to him, and he has no past criminal record, he is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused from whom no recovery has been effected and no injury attributed is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Can a bail application be granted when the accused has no previous criminal convictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid vs The State2008 YLR 670 · Sindh High Court · 2005-11-10
  post-arrest bailmurdercommon intentionmedical evidencechemical examiner reportstrangulationbail rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his brother-in-law. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to post-arrest bail given the arguments regarding the lack of eyewitnesses, delay in FIR registration, and conflicting medical reports. The High Court rejected the bail application, holding that the accused failed to make out a case for relief. The Court observed that the deceased died in mysterious circumstances at the accused's residence, and the FIR specifically named the accused. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Chemical Examiner’s report detected Benzodiazepam in the deceased's system, and medical evidence indicated signs of strangulation. The Court emphasized that a detailed assessment of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court ruled that the accused could not be granted bail while the case involved a serious offense punishable by death or life imprisonment, granting liberty to move for bail again after the recording of medical evidence at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a detailed assessment of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
  • Does the presence of conflicting medical reports automatically entitle an accused to bail in a murder case?
  • Can bail be granted when the deceased died in mysterious circumstances at the residence of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mehboob vs Muhammad Ismail2008 CLC 87 · Sindh High Court · 2007-03-19
  ejectment proceedingsspecific performancelandlord and tenantbona fide requirementsecurity depositrent appealpart performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This rent appeal arose from an ejectment order passed against the appellant-tenant, who resisted eviction by claiming a sale agreement existed and a suit for specific performance was pending. The appellant also challenged the landlord's bona fide personal requirement for his son, arguing the son was financially independent. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a tenant cannot deny the landlord's title or resist ejectment proceedings based solely on a pending suit for specific performance. The court affirmed that the landlord-tenant relationship continues until a competent civil court decrees otherwise. Regarding personal requirement, the court ruled that a landlord’s bona fide need for a child is valid under rent laws regardless of whether that child is financially dependent on the landlord. Additionally, the court clarified that security deposits are typically intended for property maintenance and cannot be unilaterally adjusted against rental arrears. The ejectment order was upheld, though the tenant was granted three months to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant resist ejectment proceedings by claiming a pending suit for specific performance of a sale agreement?
  • Is a landlord's personal requirement for a child's use valid if the child is financially independent?
  • Can a security deposit be automatically adjusted against arrears of rent?
  • Does the relationship of landlord and tenant cease upon the execution of an agreement to sell the premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain and others vs The State2008 YLR 1560 · Sindh High Court · 2007-09-18
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryfurther inquirymashirnamamalicious prosecutionExcise Police
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicants, Shahid Hussain and others, who were allegedly found in possession of 11 kilograms of Charas and firearms, and are accused of using criminal force against Excise Police. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail in the circumstances of the case, particularly considering allegations of mala fides, previous enmity with the Excise Department, non-association of public witnesses despite a busy location, and visible interpolations in the mashirnama of arrest. The Sindh High Court held that the case called for further inquiry under the law, making the applicants eligible for bail. The key principle laid down is that where prior information exists, failure to associate public witnesses, coupled with admitted enmity, absence of separate criminal cases for alleged assaults on police, and visible tampering in recovery memos, creates reasonable grounds for further inquiry, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure of police to associate public witnesses during recovery from a busy place entitles an accused to bail?
  • Does previous enmity with arresting officers render the prosecution case subject to further inquiry?
  • Whether visible interpolations or cuttings in the mashirnama of arrest and recovery provide grounds for post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Airport Services vs Muhammad YasinK.L.R. 2008 Labour & Service Cases 104 · Sindh High Court · 2007-07-01Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Ahmed Siddiqui vs Muhammad Yasin Khan and others2008 C.L.R. 198 · Sindh High Court · 2007-02-12Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 2008 Criminal Cases 205 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-02
  post-arrest bailhardship baildelay in trialrobberyattempted murderocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court upon a repeated bail application filed by the applicant Shahbaz Ali, who was arrested in Crime No. 93 of 2006 registered under Section 392, Section 324, and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Preedy Karachi (South). The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay and hardship, given that the trial court failed to record the ocular account within the ninety-day timeframe previously ordered by the High Court. The court held that the applicant has been confined in jail for eighteen months, the material witnesses have not been examined despite sufficient time, and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, thus constituting a case of hardship. Consequently, the court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety, laying down the principle that prolonged incarceration without progress in trial due to prosecution delays warrants the grant of bail on hardship grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of hardship when the trial court fails to record evidence within the time specified by the High Court?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without the completion of trial constitute a sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Can a repeated bail application be entertained when earlier directions for concluding the trial within a stipulated period are not complied with by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ali vs StatePLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Karachi) 545 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-02
  post-arrest bailhardship baildelay in trialrobberyattempted murdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Shahbaz Ali in Crime No. 93 of 2006 registered under Sections 392, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Preedy, Karachi. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory hardship and delay, given that the trial court failed to record the ocular evidence within the timeframe previously stipulated by the High Court. The Sindh High Court accepted the bail application and held that the prolonged incarceration of the applicant for eighteen months coupled with the non-examination of material witnesses and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in the near future constitutes a case of hardship. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to conclude material witness testimony within the timeframe ordered by the court and the accused suffers prolonged incarceration without the trial concluding soon, the accused becomes entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail on hardship grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of hardship when the trial court fails to record evidence within the time specified by the High Court?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of trial conclusion in the near future constitute sufficient ground for granting bail?
  • Can an accused repeat a bail application before the High Court when earlier directions for expeditious conclusion of trial are not complied with by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 676 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-06
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausemurdercommon objectweapon recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed on behalf of the applicant/accused Shah Nawaz, who stands charged in Crime No. 18 of 2007 registered under sections 302, 324, 384, 147, 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Tando Jam, District Hyderabad. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry when he was nominated in the FIR with a general allegation of being armed with an iron rod and participating in an attack resulting in the death of the deceased, despite a single fatal head injury. The court dismissed the bail application, holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused was connected with the commission of an offense carrying capital punishment, bringing the case within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that at the pre-trial bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence is unwarranted, and the presence of specific allegations, recovery of the weapon on the accused's pointation, and lack of mala fides for false implication disentitle the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused named in the FIR with a general allegation of causing injuries with an iron rod is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry when the deceased sustained a single fatal injury?
  • Does the recovery of an incriminating weapon on the pointation of the accused during investigation constitute a reasonable ground to believe his involvement at the bail stage?
  • Can a court undertake a deeper appreciation of the prosecution evidence while deciding a bail application at the preliminary stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafique Mukhtar alias Gudoo vs The State2008 MLD 1056 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-28
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurdercircumstantial evidencerecoverydelayed FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, Shafique Mukhtar alias Gudoo, sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 32 of 2005 registered under sections 302, 436, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Shahrah-e-Faisal. The prosecution case alleged that the applicant was seen at the deceased's flat shortly before smoke and the deceased's dead body were discovered, and that stolen ornaments were later recovered from his possession. The applicant's counsel contended that the recovery of the incriminating wire and ornaments was doubtful, that the witnesses were related, and that the applicant had been detained for nearly three years without trial. The State opposed bail, highlighting eyewitness accounts and identification of the recovered property. The Court observed that material discrepancies existed regarding the delayed FIR lodging and the circumstantial evidence. Holding that the case called for further inquiry under the law, the Court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of required surety bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the delayed lodging of an FIR in the presence of contradictory circumstances makes a case one of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
  • Does the lack of recovery of the primary weapon of offense during investigation justify granting post-arrest bail?
  • Whether prolonged incarceration without the commencement of trial entitles an accused to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 1577 · Sindh High Court · 2006-10-30
  pre-arrest bailbail confirmationaged accusedinfirm accusedjudicial discretiondispensation of personal attendance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal proceeding wherein the applicant sought pre-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. Crime No. 86 of 2006 registered at Police Station Tando Ghulam Ali for an offence involving hatchet blows. The core legal question concerned whether pre-arrest bail was rightly declined by the Sessions Court to an aged, infirm, and incapacitated accused charged with an offense not carrying a sentence beyond three years, particularly when a co-accused was extended concessions. The Sindh High Court held that the Sessions Judge failed to exercise discretion justly and fairly, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail in view of the applicant's age, physical condition, the quantum of sentence, and the State's no-objection. The key principles laid down include that discretion in granting bail must be exercised fairly in cases involving elderly and incapacitated accused, and that the personal attendance of such an accused before the trial court may be dispensed with.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed for an aged and incapacitated accused when the State has no objection?
  • Did the Sessions Judge fail to exercise discretion justly and fairly by declining bail to an accused charged with an offense not carrying a sentence beyond three years?
  • Can the personal attendance of an infirm accused be dispensed with during trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs The State and others2008 PLD Karachi 480 · Sindh High Court · 2008-06-10
  Illegal Dispossession Actretrospective applicationland grabbingregistered sale deedrevisional jurisdictioncontinuing wrongburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional District Judge under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, regarding a property dispute over two plots. The core legal questions were whether the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, applies retrospectively to acts of dispossession occurring before its promulgation, and whether the respondent’s registered sale deed from 1977 holds precedence over the applicant’s unregistered sale agreement from 2000. The Court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is remedial legislation intended to curb land grabbing and applies retrospectively, as the act of illegal dispossession is a continuing wrong. Furthermore, the Court upheld the lower court's decision in favor of the respondent, noting that the respondent’s 30-year-old registered sale deed carries significant evidentiary weight under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, whereas the applicant’s unregistered agreement lacked proof of payment and contained discrepancies. The key principle laid down is that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, applies retrospectively to prevent land grabbers from escaping liability through technical pleas or forged backdated documents, and registered documents generally override unregistered agreements in title disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, apply retrospectively to acts of dispossession committed before its enactment?
  • Can a registered sale deed be overridden by an unregistered sale agreement in a dispute over property title?
  • Is the act of illegal dispossession considered a continuing wrong for the purpose of legal remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbirulhassan vs Syed Zahid Hussain and another2008 MLD 449 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-05
  bail cancellationextra-judicial confessioncriminal miscellaneous applicationappraisal of evidencepost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent-accused by the trial court. The core legal question revolved around whether bail once granted should be cancelled on the basis of an extra-judicial confessional statement allegedly made by the accused before a police official and a private witness, prior to the proper appraisal of evidence by the trial court. The Sindh High Court held that once an accused is admitted to bail, very strong circumstances are required for its cancellation, and bail cannot be revoked based on evidence that has yet to be properly appraised by the trial court at the conclusion of the trial. The court dismissed the application in limine, affirming that the trial court remains at liberty to consider bail cancellation if strong evidence subsequently emerges on the record, in accordance with settled legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confessional statement alone warrants the cancellation of bail already granted to an accused?
  • What degree of circumstances is required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted to an accused?
  • Can bail be cancelled on the basis of evidence that has not yet been properly appraised by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir-Ul-Hassan vs Syed Zahid Hussain and anotherPLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Karachi) 24 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-05
  cancellation of bailextra-judicial confessioncriminal miscellaneous applicationappraisal of evidencebail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed to seek the cancellation of bail previously granted to the respondent/accused. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the existence of an alleged extra-judicial confession, made before a police official and a prosecution witness, constituted sufficient grounds to warrant the cancellation of bail that had already been granted by the trial court. The High Court dismissed the application in limine, holding that there were no compelling reasons to cancel the bail at this stage. The court emphasized the settled legal principle that once bail is granted, it cannot be cancelled based on evidence that has yet to be properly appraised by the trial court during the final adjudication. The court affirmed that very strong circumstances are required to justify the cancellation of bail. While dismissing the application, the court clarified that the trial court retains the liberty to cancel the bail if, during the course of the proceedings, strong evidence emerges on the record that necessitates such a measure.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be cancelled based on an extra-judicial confession before the evidence has been appraised by the trial court?
  • What is the threshold for cancelling bail once it has been granted to an accused?
  • Does the trial court retain the authority to cancel bail if strong evidence emerges during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaban alias Umed Ali vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 29 · Sindh High Court · 2007-07-20
  post-arrest baildelayed FIRfurther inquiryabductionZina Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, Shaban alias Umed Ali, sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 43 of 2007 registered at Police Station Dadu under Section 11/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the delayed FIR, the conduct of the complainant, the delay in recording Section 161 statements, and the fact that the primary role of abduction was attributed to a co-accused who had since been murdered. The Sindh High Court held that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the unnatural conduct of the complainant in seeking tribal intervention instead of reporting the crime promptly, and the absence of any active role attributed to the applicant beyond accompanying the main accused rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing requisite surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the lack of an active overt act attributed to a co-accused, brings the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether absence of an active role attributed to an accused accompanying the main perpetrator makes out a case for further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted when the primary accused assigned a specific role has been murdered?
  Read full judgment →
• Senator Asif Ali Zardari and another vs The State2008 PLD Karachi 381 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-13
  quashment of proceedingscriminal revisionabuse of processno evidencecustoms duty evasioncriminal breach of trustacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal revision applications filed by Senator Asif Ali Zardari and S. Wajid Shamsul Hasan seeking the quashment of proceedings in F.I.R. No. 2/1997, which alleged offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the Customs Act 1969, and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the trial should continue despite prosecution witnesses testifying that the goods in question were not liable for customs duty, that the applicants had no ownership or involvement in the consignment, and that the consignment belonged to a third party. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case, noting that the evidence on record negated the allegations of wrongful loss to the exchequer. Furthermore, observing that proceedings against co-accused had already been quashed, the Court determined that continuing the trial would be futile as there was no possibility of conviction. Consequently, the Court allowed the applications, quashed the criminal proceedings, and acquitted the applicants, emphasizing that trial continuation in the absence of evidence constitutes an abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed when prosecution witnesses admit that the alleged offence was not committed?
  • Does the quashment of proceedings against co-accused provide grounds for the quashment of proceedings against remaining accused in the same case?
  • Is it appropriate to quash proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is no possibility of conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sawan alias Khalid vs The State2008 YLR 847 · Sindh High Court · 2007-02-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycriminal procedurefirearms possessionfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application wherein the applicant, Sawan alias Khalid, sought post-arrest bail in crime No. 118/2006 registered at Police Station Tando Allahyar under sections 398, 401, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry, given the contentions regarding false implication due to enmity with a local zamindar and discrepancies in the application of penal sections between the F.I.R. and the challan. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant had made out a case for further inquiry, particularly as the State counsel could not controvert the submissions regarding the questionable addition of section 398 after finding no previous record. Consequently, the court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail upon furnishing solvent surety and a PR bond, laying down the principle that unexplained discrepancies in charging provisions combined with unrefuted claims of enmity can bring a case within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether discrepancies in the application of penal sections between the F.I.R. and the challan can make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can unrefuted contentions of false implication due to local enmity justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused found in possession of a pistol after an alleged botched stop entitled to bail when the State fails to controvert allegations of malafide framing?
  Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Industrial & Agricultural Investment Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs A.H.2008 CLD 1294 · Sindh High Court · 2008-09-01Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Commercial Bank Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorneys vs Qazi Ehtishamul Haque And Another2008 P.C.T.L.R. 679 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-20Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Commercial Bank Ltd. through duly Constituted Attorneys vs Qazi Ehtishamul Haq and another2008 CLD 566 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-20Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Asif vs The State2008 MLD 1018 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-30
  surety bond forfeiturebail jumpingcriminal revisionabsconding accusedbail bond penaltyjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, which forfeited the full amount of a surety bond after the accused absconded. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in forfeiting the entire surety bond amount or if it should have exercised leniency by reducing the penalty. The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the trial court's decision to forfeit the full bond amount. The court held that once a surety undertakes the responsibility to produce an accused in court on every date of hearing, failure to do so renders the surety liable for the full penalty under the law. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the court emphasized that courts should not show undue leniency in such matters, as doing so encourages accused persons to jump bail and undermines the rule of law. The principle laid down is that in the absence of mitigating circumstances, the entire surety amount must be forfeited when an accused absconds, discouraging the misuse of bail concessions.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court required to show leniency in forfeiting a surety bond when an accused jumps bail?
  • Does the failure of an accused to appear in court justify the forfeiture of the full amount of the surety bond?
  • What is the responsibility of a surety regarding the attendance of an accused in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar M. Shakoor Khan vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Manpower and 2 others2008 C.L.R. 409 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs The City Nazim & 2 others2008 C.L.R. 532 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-10Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs City Nazim and 2 others2008 YLR 2058 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-09Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan Niazi vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Information2008 C.L.R. 556 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sardar Ibrahim vs StatePLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Karachi) 892 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-05
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlcharas recoveryfurther inquirydelay in trialexclusive possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Sardar Ibrahim, who was implicated in an FIR registered under Section 9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, regarding the alleged recovery of 400 kgs of charas from a vehicle. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the doubtful nature of the arrest, non-exclusive possession, violation of procedural safeguards, and inordinate, unexplained delay in the conclusion of the trial despite a prior court direction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious doubts regarding the place of arrest as corroborated by independent newspaper reports, that the contraband was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant, and that the prolonged, unexplained incarceration of the accused without trial warranted the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty do not exist, and where there is unexplained delay in concluding the trial violating the right to an expeditious trial, bail can be granted even in narcotics cases notwithstanding the restrictive bars contained in the statute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, when there are doubts regarding the place of arrest and the prosecution's case requires further inquiry?
  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in the conclusion of a criminal trial furnish a sufficient ground for the grant of bail to an under-trial prisoner?
  • Whether the bar contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, prevents the High Court from granting bail where reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty are absent?
  Read full judgment →
• Samuel Xaviour and another vs Provincial Election Commissioner2008 YLR 1958 · Sindh High Court · 2007-12-15Read full judgment →
• Samreen Liaquat Malik vs Messrs Aqmar Health Foods through its2008 CLD 1243 · Sindh High Court · 2008-08-19Read full judgment →
• Samna vs Allied Bank of Pakistan and 2 others2008 CLD 1340 · Sindh High Court · 2008-08-29Read full judgment →
• Samiullah Sharif vs Fauji Oil Terminal & Distribution Company LimitedK.L.R. 2008 Labour & Service Cases 111 · Sindh High Court
  workmanfixed-term contracttermination of servicestanding ordersfraud on statutegrievance petitionback benefitsreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant workers filed appeals against the dismissal of their grievance petitions by the Sindh Labour Court, which had held they were not workmen. The appellants were initially employed for 89-day fixed terms as Civil Supervisors, which contracts were repeatedly renewed, and later worked continuously on permanent jobs without appointment letters. After they formed a registered trade union, the respondent-management forced them to sign further 89-day agreements to create grounds for termination, subsequently terminating their services upon the alleged expiry of the contracts. The core legal questions were whether fixed-term contracts can override statutory labor rights and whether the appellants qualified as workmen. The Sindh High Court held that the concept of fixed-term contracts to circumvent statutory protections is inconsistent with labor laws, that employing workers on long periods with artificial breaks is a fraud on the statute, and that the nature of duties rather than mere designation determines whether an employee is a workman. The court set aside the Labour Court's orders and directed the reinstatement of the appellants with back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the execution of fixed-term contracts or service agreements can override the statutory rights and protections available to a workman under labor laws?
  • Does an employee's designation as a supervisor preclude them from being classified as a workman under industrial labor legislation?
  • What is the fundamental test for determining whether an employee falls within the definition of a workman?
  • Whether terminating a workman's services on the pretext of the expiry of a fixed-term contract constitutes a valid termination when the nature of work is permanent?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Sabir vs Chairman Pakistan Steel and others2008 PLC (C.S.) 814 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-28
  removal from servicedisciplinary inquirynatural justiceinquiry reportreinstatementmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a junior officer of Pakistan Steel challenging his removal from service under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The petitioner, who had served for 17 years, was charged with misconduct and misappropriation. He contended that the inquiry proceedings were unfair and that he was never supplied with a copy of the inquiry report despite repeated requests. The respondents admitted they had no proof or receipt showing that the inquiry report was ever supplied to the petitioner. The High Court of Sindh held that it is a settled principle of law that an employee must be supplied with a copy of the inquiry report in disciplinary proceedings. In the absence of a receipt or proof of delivery, a presumption is drawn against the employer that the report was not supplied. Consequently, the Court set aside the removal order and reinstated the petitioner, while granting the respondents liberty to initiate fresh inquiry proceedings in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employer legally required to supply a copy of the inquiry report to an employee during disciplinary proceedings?
  • What is the legal presumption if an employer fails to produce a receipt or proof of supplying the inquiry report to the employee?
  • Can a removal order be set aside solely on the ground of non-provision of the inquiry report to the accused employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Khalil vs The State and another2008 P Cr. L J 469 · Sindh High Court · 2007-09-05
  police reportC classquashmentsimultaneous civil and criminal proceedingsappreciation of evidenceabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous application filed against an administrative order of the Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East, which approved a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in 'C' Class and disposed of a case registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned the legality and propriety of the Magistrate's order disposing of the police report without proper appreciation of evidence and statements. The Sindh High Court held that a judicial officer, even when acting on the administrative side, must consider the entire evidence and record placed by the investigating officer rather than passing a stereotype order. The Court established the principle that simultaneous initiation of civil and criminal proceedings is legally permissible as they serve independent purposes, and a Magistrate's order that fails to appreciate evidence constitutes an abuse of the process of the court, warranting interference under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether simultaneous initiation of civil and criminal proceedings is barred under the law?
  • Can a Judicial Magistrate dispose of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in 'C' Class through a stereotype order without appreciating the evidence?
  • Is the High Court empowered under Section 561A Cr.P.C. to set aside an administrative order of a Magistrate that amounts to an abuse of the process of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Adil Siddiqui and others vs Province of Sindh and others2008 PLC (C.S.) 220 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-05
  legitimate expectationpublic service commissionappointment delayadministrative negligenceconstitutional dutyservice matterlecturer recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who were successful candidates for the post of lecturers, challenged the failure of the Provincial Government of Sindh to issue appointment letters despite their selection by the Sindh Public Service Commission in June 2006. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government could indefinitely delay or ignore the recommendations of the Public Service Commission without valid justification. The Court held that while recommendations from a constitutional body like the Public Service Commission may not create an absolute vested right, they do generate a legitimate expectation that cannot be arbitrarily disregarded. The Court emphasized that public authorities are obligated to perform their duties within a reasonable timeframe and cannot neglect such responsibilities indefinitely. Finding no justification for the fifteen-month delay, the Court allowed the petition, directing the Provincial Government to decide on the summary within one month. It further ruled that if no decision is made within that period, the recommendees shall be deemed duly appointed. The judgment reinforces the principle that constitutional bodies' recommendations must be respected and acted upon promptly to avoid administrative negligence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recommendation of the Public Service Commission create a legitimate expectation for appointment?
  • Can a provincial government indefinitely delay acting upon the recommendations of the Public Service Commission?
  • What is the legal consequence if a government fails to act on a selection summary within a reasonable time?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh vs The State2008 YLR 844 · Sindh High Court · 2007-11-22
  post-arrest bailreinvestigation reportfurther inquirymurderinnocenceFIR nomination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns bail applications filed by two accused persons, Saleh and Mithal, involved in a murder case registered under FIR No. 4 of 2006. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that a subsequent reinvestigation conducted by police authorities found them innocent, despite their initial nomination in the FIR. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, observing that the reinvestigation report, ordered by the D.I.G. and conducted by the S.P. Investigation, found no material evidence connecting the accused to the offence. The Court criticized the trial court for rejecting bail solely based on the FIR nomination while ignoring the exculpatory findings of the reinvestigation. The key principle laid down is that where a reinvestigation report concludes that accused persons are innocent and there is a lack of material evidence connecting them to the crime, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a reinvestigation report finding an accused innocent constitute sufficient grounds for bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be denied solely on the basis of an FIR nomination when subsequent investigation findings contradict the complainant's version?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh alias Muhammad Saleh vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 113 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-22
  post-arrest bailreinvestigationfurther inquirymurderFirst Information Reportinnocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two bail applications filed by accused applicants involved in a criminal case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in view of a reinvestigation report declaring them innocent. The Sindh High Court held that where an investigating officer during reinvestigation finds the accused innocent and there is a lack of supporting material evidence connecting them to the crime, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, warranting the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that the findings of innocence in a police reinvestigation report must be properly weighed and considered by courts when evaluating bail applications, rather than solely relying on initial nominations in the First Information Report.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused found innocent during a police reinvestigation is entitled to bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be denied solely on the ground that the names of the accused are mentioned in the First Information Report when subsequent investigation points to their innocence?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem and 7 others vs The State2008 MLD 1505 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-19
  criminal appealmurderocular testimonymedical evidencetheory of substitutioninjured witnessescommon intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thatta, convicting the appellants for murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused through consistent ocular and medical testimony, notwithstanding arguments regarding contradictions and the theory of substitution. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case based on reliable eyewitness accounts and injured witnesses, and that the theory of substitution was inapplicable given the public setting of the crime. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the main accused while reducing the sentences of the co-accused to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular testimony contradicting medical evidence is sufficient to warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can the theory of substitution be applied in a crime witnessed by multiple eyewitnesses at a public place?
  • Does post-mortem evidence alone furnish corroboration to ocular testimony without direct or circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin vs Mst. Zohra Begum and 6 others2008 CLC 75 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-04
  compromise decreefraud and concealmentstatus quo orderminors' interestguardian ad litemsetting aside decreecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a miscellaneous application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for setting aside a compromise judgment and decree on the grounds of fraud, collusion, and concealment of material facts. The core legal question was whether a compromise decree obtained during the operation of a status quo order, without disclosing a pending parallel suit and without the leave of the court or notice to the court-appointed guardian of minor respondents, amounted to fraud and vitiated the decree. The Sindh High Court held that the deliberate concealment of pending litigation and a subsisting status quo order from the court, coupled with the failure to comply with the mandatory procedure requiring express leave of the court for a compromise affecting minors under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, constitutes fraud and renders the compromise decree liable to be set aside. The court laid down the principle that the active suppression of material facts that ought to be disclosed constitutes fraud, and a party cannot reap the benefit of a decree obtained through such concealment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the concealment of a pending suit and a subsisting status quo order while obtaining a compromise decree constitutes fraud under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a compromise decree entered into on behalf of minors without the express leave of the court and without notice to the court-appointed guardian voidable?
  • Can a legal ground regarding the violation of mandatory provisions for a compromise involving minors be urged during arguments even if it was not specifically raised in the initial affidavit?
  • Does the failure to disclose material facts to the court during the recording of a compromise amount to sufficient ground for recalling a judgment and decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Aslam Gondal vs Messrs Gondal Textile through Chief Executive2008 CLC 618 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-03Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmed vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau and 32008 YLR 2686 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sajid vs The State2008 YLR 1251 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ahmed Ansari vs Aga Khan University Hospital through Chairman, Karachi and 8 others2008 PLD Karachi 80 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-27
  medical negligencedamageslimitation periodcontinuing wrongmisfeasanceconsent for operationamputationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from a pauper suit for Rs. 50,00,000 in damages filed by the plaintiff against Aga Khan University Hospital and attending doctors following the amputation of his right arm and leg after severe electrical burns. The plaintiff alleged medical negligence, improper amputation, and lack of consent, asserting that the hospital lacked a dedicated burns unit. The defendants contended that the suit was time-barred under Article 22 of the Limitation Act 1908 and denied all allegations of negligence, maintaining that emergency surgical intervention was necessary to save the plaintiff's life with proper consent obtained. The Sindh High Court addressed the preliminary limitation issue, holding that medical negligence cases involving contracts fall under Article 115 (or Article 36 for misfeasance) rather than Article 22, rendering the suit within time. However, on the merits, the court held that while the burden shifts to medical providers to prove standard of care, the defendants successfully established via comprehensive medical evidence that proper procedures were followed to save the plaintiff's life. The suit was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What is the applicable period of limitation under the Limitation Act 1908 for filing a suit for damages arising from medical negligence?
  • Does medical treatment resulting in an amputation constitute a continuing wrong under Section 23 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish standard of care in a suit for professional medical negligence?
  Read full judgment →
• SAJANApplicant vs Nabi Bux and another2008 MLD 1047 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-22
  bail cancellationcriminal revisionprohibitory clausefurther inquiryskin deep injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application arises from an order of the trial court whereby bail granted earlier to the applicant was cancelled under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient and strong reasons existed to warrant the cancellation of bail previously granted. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court erred in cancelling the bail based merely on allegations of threats which are common in such cases, especially where the injury attributed to the applicant falls under section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, is skin deep, and does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., thereby making the case one of further inquiry. The criminal revision application was consequently allowed, the cancellation order was set aside, and the applicant's bail was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether strong reasons are required to review and cancel bail previously granted?
  • Does an injury falling under section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be cancelled merely on the basis of general allegations of threats made by the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Nadeem Kawasaki Ltd. and another vs American Express Bank Ltd.2008 C.L.R. 1511 · Sindh High Court · 2007-03-07Read full judgment →
• Sahib Khan vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 1321 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-03
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayinordinate delayco-accused statementinadmissible evidencemurderpolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application was brought before the Sindh High Court by the applicant, who was facing trial for offences under Sections 224, 225, 225-A, 353, 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where armed persons freed an accused from police custody, resulting in the death of two police officials and injuries to others. The core legal questions before the court were whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay in trial when he had been incarcerated for ten years, whether such delay was attributable to him, and whether uncorroborated police statements of a co-accused could justify withholding bail. The High Court granted bail, holding that the delay of ten years was not attributable to the applicant and that no admissible material connected him with the crime, as a co-accused's statement to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. The court emphasized that gravity of the offence alone cannot justify withholding bail indefinitely as a punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of delay when continuous incarceration of ten years is not attributable to him?
  • Can a statement of a co-accused made before a police officer serve as admissible material to deny bail to an accused?
  • Can bail be withheld indefinitely as a punishment solely on account of the gravity of the offence charged?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadruddin vs Aslam Madad Ali and others2008 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-24Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan and others2008 YLR 152 · Sindh High Court · 2007-06-25Read full judgment →
• Saad Amanullah Khan vs Ivtii-Senior Civil Judge, (South),Karachi and 3 othersPLD 2008 Karachi 499. · Sindh High Court · 2008-07-29
  custody of minorsvisitation rightswelfare of the minoralienation of childrenenforcement of supreme court ordercompromise agreementguardianship
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arose from a long-standing custody and visitation dispute between the petitioner (father) and respondent No. 2 (mother) regarding their two children. The core legal question was whether the visitation rights established by a 1996 Supreme Court compromise agreement remained enforceable despite subsequent allegations of sexual abuse and the children's expressed reluctance to meet their father. The Court held that the Supreme Court's 1996 order remained in the field and could not be modified by lower courts. It rejected the allegations of sexual abuse as unsubstantiated and concluded that the children's refusal to meet their father was a result of tutoring and alienation. The Court emphasized that the welfare of the children requires attachment to both parents. It affirmed the father's visitation rights, ordered the pending custody suits to be disposed of in terms of the original compromise, and established a supervised visitation mechanism to facilitate the transition, noting that while custody may remain with the mother, total deprivation of access to the father is detrimental to the children's welfare.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court implement an order of the Supreme Court under Article 187 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a lower court modify or alter a compromise agreement that has been recorded and disposed of by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the expressed wish of a minor to not meet a parent automatically override the parent's right to visitation?
  • Is a bare allegation of sexual abuse sufficient to deny a parent visitation rights if the allegation was previously considered and not acted upon by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Asif Ali vs Haji Gahno-Khan Jatoi and 2 others2008 C.L.R. 1411 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-29Read full judgment →
• S. Asif Ali vs Haji Gahno Khan Jatoi and 2 others2008 CLC 466 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-29Read full judgment →
• Ruth Sami Ahmad vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Local2008 YLR 2039 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-24Read full judgment →
• Roshan vs Muhammad Saleh and 2 others2008 MLD 187 · Sindh High Court · 2007-11-02
  appeal against acquittalcondonation of delaylimitation periodsufficient causecriminal proceduretime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an appeal against acquittal under section 417-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which was reported by the office to be barred by 20 days. The appellant filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 seeking condonation of delay on the ground of illness, supported by a medical certificate showing treatment for typhoid and acute diarrhea as an out-door patient, but without an initial supporting affidavit detailing the sickness. The core legal questions involved whether sufficient cause for delay was made out and whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals against acquittal under section 417-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the bar under section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908. The Sindh High Court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to such appeals against acquittal due to the exclusionary effect of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908, and that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause or diligence. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is applicable for condoning delay in filing an appeal against acquittal under section 417-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908 bar the application of section 5 to special laws prescribing a specific period of limitation?
  • Does out-patient medical treatment for typhoid and acute diarrhea constitute sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 to condone a delay in filing an appeal?
  • Is the heinousness of an offense a valid ground for condoning a delay in filing an appeal against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan and others vs The State2008 YLR 78 · Sindh High Court · 2007-11-01
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailfirearm injurymitigating circumstancebenefit of doubtmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for suspension of sentence filed by the appellants, Rizwan and Murad, who were convicted under section 302 and section 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment along with other punishments. The core legal question concerns whether the appellants are entitled to the suspension of their sentence and grant of bail pending appeal, given the circumstances of the case including the identification in the dark by torch light, unconvincing recoveries, and the acquittal of co-accused. The court held that the observation of the trial court regarding the uncertainty of which accused caused the fatal injury, coupled with the period already spent in jail and the disbelieving of evidence against co-accused, created sufficient doubt in the prosecution case to warrant the suspension of the sentence. The court laid down the principle that where the identity of the specific assailant causing the fatal blow is uncertain and mitigating circumstances exist, the concession of bail and suspension of sentence may be extended pending the decision of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sentence of life imprisonment can be suspended pending appeal when there is uncertainty regarding which of the co-accused inflicted the fatal injury?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence justify extending the concession of bail to the remaining appellants?
  • Can the period already spent in jail serve as a mitigating circumstance for suspending the operation of the impugned judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan vs Naveed Hussain Shah2008 CLD 444 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-24Read full judgment →