Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.
- Sattar and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 653 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court filed by two applicants, S. Tariq Ali and Nadir Raza, seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 108 of 1989 registered at Police Station Malir City under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the serious nature of the armed robbery charge falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the first proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 mandates bail for a youthful offender. The court held that there was prima facie evidence connecting the applicants to the crime, including immediate arrest, identification by witnesses, and recovery of robbed money, and that the discretionary power under the first proviso to section 497(1) does not confer an absolute right to bail for minors in heinous offences. The High Court dismissed the bail application for both applicants.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted when an accused is charged with an offence falling within the prohibitory clause and prima facie evidence connects them to the crime?
- Does the use of the word 'may' in the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make the release of a youthful offender on bail mandatory?
- Is a youthful offender accused of a heinous crime automatically entitled to the concession of bail based solely on their age?
- Sardar Saleem Jan Khan vs Karo Khan and 2 others1990 MLD 2244 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-10Read full judgment →
- Sardar Israr Hussain Baloch vs The Collector of Customs1990 MLD 1648 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-11Read full judgment →
- Santex Products vs Deputy Collector 1, Central Excise and Land CustomsPTCL 1990 CL. 386 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Saleem Ahmad vs Central Board of Revenue and 2 othersPTCL 1990 CL. 890 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-08Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain Khan and 126 others vs Muhammad Hanif Siddiqui and 31990 MLD 25 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order rejecting the appellants' plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit seeking a declaration of membership and the right to contest elections in a housing society. The core legal question was whether a dispute regarding membership status of a cooperative society falls within the scope of 'business' under Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 70-A of the same Act. The Sindh High Court held that the dispute concerning whether a person is or was a member of a society is expressly covered by Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925, and consequently, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred under Section 70-A. The key principle laid down is that disputes touching the membership and elections of a cooperative society must be referred to the Registrar under Section 54, and Civil Courts lack jurisdiction to entertain such suits.
Questions settled- Does a dispute regarding membership status in a cooperative society fall under Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
- Is the jurisdiction of Civil Courts barred under Section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 in disputes touching the business of a cooperative society?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC based on the averments made in the plaint when the court's jurisdiction is ousted by statute?
- Does a dispute concerning the election of officers form part of the business of a cooperative society under the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
- Sahib and 3 others vs The STATEOpponent1990 MLD 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Sindh High Court via a petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the applicants before the Resident Magistrate, Kandiaro, for an alleged offence under paragraph 30 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115). The core legal question addressed is whether a court can take cognizance of an offence under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 upon a police report rather than a written complaint authorized by the Commission. The Court held that paragraph 31 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 explicitly bars courts from taking cognizance of an offence except upon a written complaint made by order of or under the authority of the Commission, and a police report does not constitute a valid complaint under the law. Consequently, taking cognizance on a police report is illegal and renders the entire trial void ab initio. The petition was allowed and the proceedings were quashed.
Questions settled- Can a court take cognizance of an offence under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 upon a police report?
- Does a police report constitute a complaint as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- What is the effect of a court taking cognizance of an offence on a police report when the statute requires a written complaint by the Commission?
- How does the mode of taking cognizance on a complaint differ from taking cognizance on a police report regarding the liberty of the accused?
- Sagheer Ahmad and another vs The State1990 MLD 1166 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
- Saeed Mahmood vs Halima Bai1990 MLD 1789 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-08Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 79 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-16Read full judgment →
- Sadoro vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1186 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application arises from the refusal of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, to entertain a plea of alibi raised by the applicant in successive bail applications concerning offenses under sections 365, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether a subordinate court can refuse to consider a new ground, such as alibi, permitted by a higher court pursuant to its revisional or concurrent jurisdiction under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the rule against successive bail applications applies only to the court where the application is made, and that higher forums can permit new grounds to be raised. The Court laid down that subordinate courts are bound to comply with the directions of higher courts and must consider new grounds permitted by them, rather than rejecting them on the technicality of not being raised in the first instance.
Questions settled- Whether the disposal of a bail application on merits is foreclosed merely because a subsequent bail application is moved on the ground of statutory delay?
- Does the rule restricting successive bail applications on grounds available earlier apply to higher forums in the judicial hierarchy?
- Is a subordinate court bound to comply with directions of a higher court permitting the agitation of a new ground of bail?
- Sa. Hafeez vs A.B.K. Hameedi1990 MLD 1644 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-17Read full judgment →
- S.M. Saleem vs Deputy Collector, Central Excise And Land Customs Etc.PTCL1990 CL. 335 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-14Read full judgment →
- S.M. Saleem vs Deputy Collector, Central Excise & Land Customs and another1990 PTD 184 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
- S. Sultan Ali Jeoffrey, vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1990 MLD 1656 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
- S. Amir Haider Zaidi vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and another1990 PLC 790 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-29Read full judgment →
- Rustom Khan and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-27Read full judgment →
- Riffat Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 846 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-19Read full judgment →
- Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Manager1990 PLC 93 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two appeals filed by the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan against the orders of the Labour Court, which directed the regularization of two workmen. The core legal question was whether workmen who had completed over nine months of service were entitled to be classified as 'permanent workmen' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, notwithstanding a settlement agreement between the Collective Bargaining Agent and the management that stipulated a later date for regularization. The Court held that the respondents, having completed over nine months of service, satisfied the statutory definition of permanent workmen under the Standing Orders. The Court ruled that parties cannot contract out of the law, and a settlement agreement cannot deprive workmen of rights guaranteed by the Ordinance unless the settlement terms are more favourable to the workmen. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Labour Court's decision, holding that the settlement did not preclude the workmen from claiming regularization from the date they attained the status of permanent workmen under the law.
Questions settled- Does the completion of nine months of service automatically qualify a workman as a 'permanent workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Can a settlement agreement between a Collective Bargaining Agent and an employer override the statutory rights of workmen regarding their classification?
- Is a workman estopped from claiming regularization from a date prior to that specified in a settlement agreement if the agreement does not explicitly prohibit such claims?
- Riaz Ahmed Mansuri vs Abid Ali Qazi and 2 others1990 MLD 1786 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from using the name 'The Cricketer' for their sports magazine, alleging passing off. The plaintiff claimed to have published his magazine under that name since 1972, establishing goodwill in Pakistan. The defendants contended that they were authorized to publish 'The Cricketer International,' a globally renowned magazine published since 1921, and argued that the plaintiff had actually copied the name and style of this international publication. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case of passing off and goodwill sufficient to warrant an interim injunction. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting that the international magazine had prior and established circulation. The Court emphasized that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, as the plaintiff had essentially copied the name of a pre-existing international publication. Consequently, the application for an interim injunction was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a plaintiff in a passing off action need to prove that their mark was distinctive and continuously in use?
- Is the user of a trade mark outside Pakistan relevant for determining the question of registration within Pakistan?
- Can a plaintiff who has copied the name of an established international publication successfully claim passing off against the authorized local publishers of that international publication?
- Does the balance of convenience favor the refusal of an interim injunction where the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of exclusive goodwill?
- Republic Motors Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer and others1990 PTD 889 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the reopening of income tax assessments under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 for several assessment years. The petitioner, a company nationalized and later owned by the Federal Government through PACO, had originally been assessed and taxed as a public limited company. Subsequently, the Income Tax Officer sought to reopen the assessments to apply a higher tax rate applicable to private limited companies, claiming the corporate status was wrongly determined. The core legal question was whether a mere change of opinion or a reinterpretation of law on the same set of facts constitutes valid 'information' to invoke section 65 for reassessment. The court held that reassessment proceedings under section 65 cannot be initiated on a mere change of opinion by the assessing officer or based on a new interpretation of law derived from existing records without any new definite information from an external source. The court concluded that the impugned notices and reassessment orders were issued without lawful jurisdiction and consequently set them aside along with the appellate orders confirming them.
Questions settled- Does a mere change of opinion by an Income Tax Officer on the same set of facts constitute valid 'information' to invoke section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 for reassessment?
- Can an aggrieved party invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court without exhausting alternate remedies when the impugned action is challenged on the ground of complete lack of jurisdiction?
- Does obtaining a new interpretation of a legal provision from internal review or legal books constitute external 'information' sufficient for reopening a concluded tax assessment?
- Do appellate orders confirming a reassessment order inherit the jurisdictional defect and voidness if the original notice and reassessment order under section 65 were issued without lawful jurisdiction?
- Rehmatullah through his Legal Heir and anothers vs Province of Sindh1990 MLD 2353 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of agricultural land leases granted to the petitioners. The core legal question was whether the failure to issue a mandatory prior notice, as required by Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, rendered the cancellation order void, and whether subsequent hearings at appellate or revisional stages could cure this initial defect. The Court held that where a statute expressly mandates a prior notice before an adverse order is passed, the failure to provide such notice renders the order void ab initio. The Court distinguished between statutory notice requirements and general principles of natural justice, holding that while appellate hearings might cure a violation of natural justice, they cannot cure the non-compliance with an express statutory requirement for prior notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, declaring them to have been passed without lawful authority, while permitting the department to initiate fresh proceedings provided they comply with the statutory notice requirement.
Questions settled- Does the failure to provide a mandatory statutory notice prior to the cancellation of a land lease render the cancellation order void?
- Can a subsequent hearing at the appellate or revisional stage cure the defect of a missing statutory notice required by law?
- Is there a legal distinction between the violation of a statutory notice requirement and the violation of the general principles of natural justice regarding the curing of procedural defects?
- Raza Muhammad and others vs The State1990 MLD 1530 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-15Read full judgment →
- Rasool Bux and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 872 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-02Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1079 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-22Read full judgment →
- Rajab Ali Motani. vs Collector Of Customs (Appraising) And 3 OtherPTCL1990 CL. 855 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
- Raisuddin vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 881 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-29Read full judgment →
- Rafiq and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-21Read full judgment →
- Raeesuddin and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 506 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-15Read full judgment →
- Qamrul Hasan and anothers vs United Bank Ltd. and another1990 MLD 276 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit involved a claim for the recovery of Rs. 1,50,000 based on a telegraphic transfer made on 11-12-1971 by plaintiff No. 2 from the Tej Gaon Branch, Dacca, of the defendant bank in favor of plaintiff No. 1, payable at the PECHS Branch, Karachi, shortly before the fall of Dacca. The core legal questions centered on whether the deposit and telegraphic transfer were duly made and received, whether a drawee branch must physically receive funds before liability arises, and whether a banking corporation as a legal entity is liable for the defaults or unfulfilled obligations of its branches when the branch ceases to function due to war or force majeure. The Sindh High Court held that the deposit and dispatch of the telegraphic message were established, physical receipt of funds by the drawee branch was not a prerequisite where the message was sent, and the bank as a single corporate entity remained liable for the unfulfilled obligations of its defunct branch. The court laid down the principle that where money is deposited for a specific telegraphic remittance and the remitting branch fails in its duty, the aggrieved party has a joint and several remedy against the bank as an entity and its concerned branches.
Questions settled- Whether a banking corporation as an integral entity is liable for a telegraphic transfer deposited at one of its branches which subsequently became defunct due to war?
- Does a telegraphic transfer become payable only upon the physical receipt of funds by the drawee branch, or is the dispatch and receipt of an authenticated telegraphic message sufficient?
- How are handwriting and official documents proved under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, where direct authors are not examined?
- What presumption arises under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a party fails to produce the best available documentary evidence regarding receipt of telegraphic messages?
- Qabil and 6 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1723 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-06Read full judgment →
- Prince Glass Works Welfare Union vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal1990 PLC 258 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Plaza Hotel And Bar. vs Federation Of Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1990 CL. 596 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-14Read full judgment →
- Pir Muhammad vs Government of Sindh and 3 others1990 MLD 869 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-03Read full judgment →
- Philips Electrical Company of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs Income-Tax1990 PTD 389 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner company claimed a deduction for bad debts written off following the voluntary liquidation of a debtor company, which was eventually allowed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 to reopen the assessment. The petitioner challenged this notice through a constitutional petition, contending that the reopening was based merely on a change of opinion without any new 'definite information' and that the statutory pre-conditions were not met. The Sindh High Court held that an assessment that has attained finality cannot be reopened under section 65 based on a mere change of opinion or a different interpretation of facts already disclosed and considered. The Court further held that for the relevant period prior to the 1987 amendment, the word 'or' in section 65(2) must be read conjunctively as 'and', requiring both definite information and approval. The Court concluded that the impugned notice was issued without jurisdiction, and consequently, all subsequent proceedings and assessments built upon that invalid foundation were null and void.
Questions settled- Can an income tax assessment be reopened under section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 based solely on a change of opinion derived from facts already on record?
- Whether the word 'or' in section 65(2) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 should be read as 'and' for the period prior to the Finance Act, 1987 amendment?
- Does the filing of a return under protest or the subsequent finalization of an assessment vitiate a challenge to the initial notice under section 65 based on the doctrine of merger?
- Does section 154(6) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 bar an assessee from challenging the validity of a notice if the return was filed after the validity of the notice was already challenged in court?
- Petrocon (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Hyderabad Development Authority, Hyderabad1990 MLD 1675 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application was filed under section 5 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention Act, 1937 by the petitioner, Petrocon (Pvt.) Limited, seeking to make an international arbitration award the rule of court against the respondent, Hyderabad Development Authority. The core legal questions involved whether an arbitration award rendered in Paris between Pakistani nationals under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce qualifies as a 'foreign award' under the 1937 Act, whether such an award requires stamping under the Stamp Act, 1899, and whether it is governed by the limitation period prescribed in the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Sindh High Court held that the award constitutes a valid 'foreign award' because the definition under section 2 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention Act, 1937 does not require one party to reside outside Pakistan as a condition precedent. The court further held that foreign awards are exempt from the stamping requirements of the Stamp Act, 1899 and the limitation period of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The award was accordingly made the rule of the court.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration award rendered between Pakistani nationals outside Pakistan under International Chamber of Commerce rules qualifies as a 'foreign award' under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention Act, 1937?
- Are provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 applicable to a 'foreign award' that relates to matters to be performed in Pakistan?
- Does the ninety-day limitation period prescribed under Article 178 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 apply to an application for filing a foreign award under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention Act, 1937?
- Pervaiz alias Puttar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 956 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-21Read full judgment →
- Panjal vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2051 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application was filed by Panjal before the Sindh High Court seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay, facing trial under sections 307, 353, 332, and 333 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an accused person is entitled to bail on the statutory delay ground under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the trial has been delayed and charge has not yet been framed, despite adjournments sought by the accused. The court held that until a charge is framed, no delay in the trial can be attributed to the accused person even if adjournments were sought by them. Finding that the applicant had remained continuously in custody for almost two years without a charge being framed, the court granted bail, establishing the principle that the statutory exception withholding bail due to delay caused by an accused only applies after the framing of the charge.
Questions settled- Can delay in trial be attributed to an accused person before the framing of the charge for the purpose of denying statutory bail?
- Whether an accused who remains in continuous custody for nearly two years without a charge being framed is entitled to bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Do adjournments sought by an accused prior to the framing of the charge disentitle them to the concession of statutory bail?
- Pan Ocean Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited vs Thai Rayon Company Limited1990 PLD Karachi 395 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application for an interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to restrain the defendants from claiming and making payments under an irrevocable Letter of Credit. The plaintiff-company contracted with defendant No. 1 for the import of Viscose Rayon Staple Fibre through an established Letter of Credit. The plaintiff subsequently discovered that the bills of lading contained false and fraudulent shipping dates and vessels, and that trans-shipment had occurred contrary to the terms of the Letter of Credit. The core legal question was whether the buyer, having taken delivery of the goods following protests, was entitled to an interim injunction restraining the encashment of the Letter of Credit on the ground of fraudulent and inaccurate shipping documents. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of fraud regarding the misdated bills of lading, which violated the terms of the Letter of Credit, and that taking delivery of the goods to inspect or minimize loss did not preclude the buyer from seeking injunctive relief against fraudulent encashment. The court laid down the principle that a letter of credit is a transaction independent of the underlying sales contract, and where bills of lading are prima facie fraudulent or fail to strictly comply with credit terms, an injunction may be granted, subject to the defendants furnishing a bank guarantee.
Questions settled- Whether a buyer under a letter of credit is precluded from seeking an injunction against encashment after taking delivery of the goods?
- Does a false and inaccurate bill of lading regarding shipment dates constitute sufficient ground to restrain the encashment of an irrevocable letter of credit?
- Are the obligations under a letter of credit independent of the underlying sales contract between the buyer and the seller?
- Whether taking delivery of goods following a protest preserves the buyer's right to challenge the accuracy of shipping documents?
- Pakistan Services Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone1990 PTD 832 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Services Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central ZonePTCL 1990 CL. 984 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (Pvt.) Limited vs Chairman, Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi and others1990 PLC 264 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-12Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Herald Workers' Union through General Secretary vs Sindh1990 PLC 802 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
- Oshaque vs The State1990 MLD 1090 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-04Read full judgment →
- Obaidullah vs Messrs Ulbricht's (Pakistan) Ltd1990 PLC 89 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-31Read full judgment →
- Noordin alias Katore vs The State and another1990 MLD 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-19Read full judgment →
- Nooral alias Noor Muhammad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1298 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-27Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs District Magistrate, Hyderabad Sindh and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 2052 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged a detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the detenu, Bachoo, under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the detention order, based on allegations of harboring dacoits, involvement in past criminal cases, and general anti-social activities, was legally sustainable. The Sindh High Court held that the detention order was invalid. The court found that the allegations regarding the harboring of dacoits were vague and lacked specific particulars, rendering them unsustainable. Furthermore, the reliance on past criminal cases, in which the detenu had either been acquitted or the proceedings were stale, was insufficient to justify detention. The court reiterated the established principle that detention grounds must be precise and provide sufficient particulars to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. It further held that if any ground of detention is found to be unsustainable or vague, the entire detention order is vitiated, as it is impossible to determine the extent to which the invalid ground influenced the authority's decision.
Questions settled- Does the inclusion of vague or unsustainable grounds in a detention order vitiate the entire order?
- Are detention grounds legally sufficient if they fail to provide specific particulars regarding the time, place, and manner of the alleged activities?
- Can a detention order be sustained based on stale criminal cases where the detenu has already been acquitted?
- Niaz Muhammad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 331 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-19Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ahmad vs Government of Sindh through Secretary Home1990 P Cr. L J 1267(1) · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-26Read full judgment →
- New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Special Officer, Income Tax, Central ZonePTCL 1990 CL. 356 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Special Officer, Central Zone ---a---, Karachi and another1990 PTD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a re-assessment notice and order issued under the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 for the assessment year 1972-73. The core legal question was whether the petition remained maintainable after the impugned order was set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), despite the Department filing a further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that the petition had become infructuous because the impugned notice and order had merged into the favourable appellate decision, which removed the immediate detriment to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court found it could not grant relief on the current petition format. However, the Court laid down the principle that Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is only available where no adequate alternative remedy exists; if such a remedy has already succeeded, the constitutional petition is rendered infructuous. Additionally, the Court observed that vested rights accrued under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act 1922 could not be retroactively extinguished by the extended limitation periods provided in the Income-tax Ordinance 1979.
Questions settled- Does a constitutional petition become infructuous when the impugned order has been set aside by an appellate authority?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 if an alternative remedy has already been successfully pursued?
- Do the limitation provisions of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 apply retrospectively to extinguish vested rights accrued under the Income-tax Act 1922?
- Nazir Ahmad and others vs The State1990 MLD 2084 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which issued process against the applicants following a direct complaint. The applicants contended that the trial court erred in issuing process after the police had previously declared the case untraced and a Magistrate had recommended against proceeding under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions were whether a court can issue process despite prior negative reports and whether the issuance of non-bailable warrants without recorded reasons is illegal. The Court held that for the purpose of issuing process under Section 204, only a prima facie case is required, and the court is not obligated to conduct a preliminary trial or be bound by prior police or inquiry reports. Furthermore, the Court determined that the requirement in Section 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to record reasons in writing for issuing a warrant is directory, not mandatory. However, considering the circumstances, the Court modified the non-bailable warrants to bailable warrants.
Questions settled- Is a court required to conduct a preliminary trial before issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a prior police report declaring a case untraced prevent a court from taking cognizance of a direct complaint?
- Is the requirement under Section 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to record reasons in writing for issuing a warrant mandatory or directory?
- Can a High Court interfere with a trial court's decision to issue process if a prima facie case is disclosed?
- Nazar Hussain and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 658 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-12Read full judgment →
- Nawab Khatoon vs Sadardin1990 MLD 1096 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
- Nawab Chandio and another vs The State1990 MLD 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
- Naveed Hussain. vs Mrs. A.Mirza1990 MLD 1662 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
- National Construction Co. (Pakistan) Limited, Etc. vs Government Of Pakistan EtcPTCL 1990 CL. 217 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1990 PLC 197 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Eight constitutional petitions were filed by the National Bank of Pakistan challenging concurrent judgments of the Labour Court and Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal reinstating penalised bank employees. The core legal questions pertained to whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 and the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 applied to the bank's employees, and whether the Labour Court possessed jurisdiction under Section 25-A of the IRO 1969. The Sindh High Court held that the bank is carried on under the authority of the Federal Government and governed by the statutory National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules 1973, rendering the Ordinance of 1968 inapplicable pursuant to its first proviso to Section 1(4). However, the Court ruled that the 1973 statutory rules constitute 'law' under Section 25-A of the IRO 1969, thereby entitling the employees to seek redress of grievances before the Labour Court. Consequently, the Labour Court had jurisdiction, and the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the National Bank of Pakistan is an establishment carried on by or under the authority of the Federal Government for the purpose of the first proviso to Section 1(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Whether non-statutory staff rules framed without Federal Government approval supersede earlier statutory service rules framed under the National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance 1949?
- Whether statutory service rules governing employees of a nationalised bank constitute 'law' under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, conferring jurisdiction on the Labour Court?
- Does the existence of internal departmental appeal provisions under statutory service rules bar a workman from invoking the remedy under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 21990 PLC 593 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the National Bank of Pakistan challenging an order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal which dismissed its appeal against a Labour Court decision reinstating an employee (respondent No. 3) with full back benefits. The employee's service had been terminated for non-compliance with a transfer order via a notice declaring he had vacated his appointment pursuant to Rule 15(3) of the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules 1980. The core legal question was whether the 1980 Service Rules constituted statutory rules governing the bank's workmen, or whether the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules 1973 applied to the exclusion of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. The High Court, relying on its prior precedent, held that the 1980 Rules are non-statutory and any action initiated under them is without lawful authority. Instead, the statutory 1973 Rules govern the bank's workers, rendering the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 inapplicable. The court dismissed the petition in limine, granting liberty to the bank to proceed against the employee under the 1973 Rules.
Questions settled- Are the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules 1980 statutory rules having the force of law?
- Whether disciplinary proceedings or termination initiated under non-statutory service rules are legally valid against bank employees?
- Are bank workers governed by the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules 1973 rather than the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Alhabib Garments Ltd. through Chairman and 8 others1990 MLD 1792 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan and 4 otherss vs Gammon Pakistan Limited1990 PLD Karachi 209 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application for leave to defend in a recovery suit instituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 for the recovery of Rs. 29,653,306 by the National Bank of Pakistan against Gammon Pakistan Limited. The core legal questions relate to the territorial jurisdiction of the court when loan transactions and securities are situated abroad, the validity of a promissory note executed prior to loan disbursement, the admissibility of bank statements issued by a foreign branch of a domestic bank under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, and whether unconditional leave to defend should be granted where the defendant admits the receipt of the loan and execution of security documents but raises unconvincing defenses. The court held that part of the cause of action arose in Pakistan, conferring jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, that a promissory note executed as security for subsequent credit facilities is supported by consideration, and that a branch of a Pakistani bank abroad remains a Pakistani bank for the admissibility of its accounts. Consequently, the court granted conditional leave to defend subject to the deposit of the suit amount or furnishing a bank guarantee.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court in Pakistan has jurisdiction to entertain a banking recovery suit where the loan agreement was entered into within Pakistan but the loan amount was disbursed and hypothecated machinery were situated abroad?
- Is a promissory note executed as security for credit facilities to be disbursed subsequently considered without consideration?
- Does the statement of accounts issued by a foreign branch of a Pakistani bank remain admissible under section 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act?
- Can conditional leave to defend be granted in a banking recovery suit where the defendant admits the loan and the execution of security documents?
- Nathir and others vs The State1990 MLD 1067 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
- Nasir Ahmad Shaikh vs The State Life Insurnace Corporation of Pakistan and another1990 MLD 1261 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nasim Akhtar Soofi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 336 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition questions the registration of a criminal complaint under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code against the petitioner for allegedly filing a false complaint of corruption against a public servant. The core legal question is whether prosecution under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be initiated without properly registering and investigating the original information, failing to record the statement of the accused official, and without complying with the mandatory complaint requirements under section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution was incompetent and without jurisdiction because the mandatory legal steps—such as proper investigation, recording the statement of the official against whom allegations were made, and lodging of the complaint by the competent public servant to whom the recipient authority was subordinate—were not fulfilled. The court laid down the principle that failure to satisfy mandatory jurisdictional preconditions renders subsequent criminal proceedings illegal, and that penal provisions must be strictly construed to prevent discouraging members of the public from reporting grievances.
Questions settled- Can a prosecution under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code be initiated without proper registration and investigation of the original complaint?
- Whether a complaint under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code requires compliance with the bar contained in section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does a body of persons rather than an individual public servant qualify to lodge a complaint under section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- What is the effect of non-fulfillment of mandatory jurisdictional conditions on subsequent criminal proceedings?
- Najmuddin vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 980 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Nagina Cotton Mills Limited vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 othersPTCL 1990 CL. 922 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nafeesur Rehman Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1089 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-13Read full judgment →
- Nadeem Ahmed Mirza and another vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 859 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
- Nabidad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1000 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
- Nabi Bux and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1018 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 148, 302/149, and 324/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the trial court. The core legal question involves the sustainability of convictions and the application of constructive liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a large number of co-accused have already been acquitted on the same evidence, and whether the testimony of partisan and interested witnesses can form the basis of a capital conviction without independent corroboration. The Sindh High Court held that where eyewitnesses have been disbelieved with regard to several co-accused, and independent injured witnesses were withheld by the prosecution, it is unsafe to rely on their tainted testimony without unimpeachable corroboration. The court established that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not strictly apply, but evidence must be meticulously sifted to separate grain from chaff, and the acquittal of multiple co-accused renders the application of unlawful assembly provisions unsustainable.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable after the acquittal of a majority of the co-accused charged in the same incident?
- Can the uncorroborated testimony of interested and partisan witnesses be relied upon for a capital conviction when they have been disbelieved regarding several other accused persons?
- What is the duty of the trial court when material independent eyewitnesses who sustained injuries are withheld by the prosecution?
- Does the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to criminal trials in Pakistan, or must the court sift the evidence to separate the grain from the chaff?
- M/s. Yaseen Sons vs Federation Of Pakistan And AnotherPTCL1990 CL. 438 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
- M/s. Sultan Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central ZonePTCL 1990 CL 709 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Jennings Private School vs Income Tax Officer, Salary Circle-III, CentralPTCL1990 CL. 995 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) Pakistan. vs The Commissioner OfPTCL 1990 CL. 1168 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd. vs The Collector Of CustomsPTCL 1990 CL. 875 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Banque Del' Indochine El De Suez. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,PTCL 1990 CL. 705 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Abdul Aziz Ayoob vs Assistant Collector Of Customs And 3 OtherPTCL 1990 CL. 1041 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-15Read full judgment →
- Mustoo alias Ghulam Mustafa Kalhoro vs The State1990 MLD 1994 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, an undertrial prisoner facing over 40 criminal cases across various districts in Sindh, petitioned the High Court seeking an arrangement for the expeditious disposal of his cases, citing prolonged incarceration. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its transfer powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to consolidate these cases, or if other legal mechanisms exist to address the prisoner's grievance. The Court held that while it possesses the power to transfer cases under Section 526, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it is not the necessary forum for this specific administrative relief. The Court determined that the Provincial Government is fully empowered under Sections 9, 14, 178, and 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to designate specific venues, including prisons, for trials and to appoint Special Magistrates to handle cases across different districts. Consequently, the Court declined to pass a transfer order, instead directing the Home Secretary to take appropriate administrative steps to consolidate the trials as permitted by the statutory provisions identified.
Questions settled- Is the High Court the only authority empowered to consolidate criminal cases pending against an accused in different districts?
- Does the Provincial Government have the authority to order that criminal cases be heard at a specific venue, such as a prison?
- Can the Provincial Government appoint a Special Magistrate to try cases originating from different districts at a single venue?
- Mustafa and anothers vs The State1990 MLD 59 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-25Read full judgment →
- Mussarat Jabeen vs Dr. Khalid Nawab and another1990 P Cr. L J 686 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 raises important questions regarding the powers of the High Court in relation to the habeas corpus custody of minors residing with their natural guardian father. The core legal question involves whether a High Court can entertain a habeas corpus petition for minor custody when the Family Court or Guardian Judge provides an alternative remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The Sindh High Court held that while ordinary guardianship disputes are best decided under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, the High Court retains jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in exceptional cases or for minors of tender age where the remedy is more efficacious and speedy, without prejudice to regular adjudication. The key principles laid down are that habeas corpus proceedings are summary in nature, that a mother's lap is God's own cradle especially for children of tender age under personal law, and that the High Court may order restoration of custody to a mother while leaving parties to seek final adjudication before a Guardian Judge.
Questions settled- Does a petition under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lie for the custody of minors residing with their natural guardian father?
- Are the jurisdictions under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 mutually exclusive?
- Can the High Court order the restoration of custody of minors of tender age in summary habeas corpus proceedings?
- What is the effect of personal law regarding the right of a mother to the custody of minor children of tender age?
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Altaf Hussain and 3 others1990 MLD 1258 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application filed by the defendants under Order 37, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex-parte decree passed in a summary suit for recovery of money initiated by the plaintiff bank under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the service of summons by publication alone, without service of Form No. 4 of Appendix B of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 along with the plaint, constituted sufficient service to trigger the limitation period. The Court held that while service by publication is a valid mode under Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules 1980, the limitation period for filing an appearance does not commence until the defendant is served with the summons in the prescribed form along with the plaint. Consequently, the Court set aside the decree, emphasizing that the law favors adjudication on merits and that an application to set aside a decree under Order 37, Rule 4 does not require the defendant to establish a defense on merits at that preliminary stage.
Questions settled- Does service by publication alone satisfy the requirements for service of summons in a summary suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- When does the limitation period for filing an appearance begin to run if a defendant is served by publication?
- Is a defendant required to establish a defense on merits when applying to set aside an ex-parte decree under Order 37, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Must a defendant be served with Form No. 4 of Appendix B of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 along with the plaint for service to be considered complete?
- Mureed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 470 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-12Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmed Memon vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum1990 MLD 1689 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-19Read full judgment →
- Zahoor vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 841 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad Siddiqui and anothers vs Feroze Ahmed Siddiqui and 21990 MLD 1776 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil suit for declaration, injunction, and cancellation of documents filed by plaintiffs against the defendants, including a banking company, regarding a property transaction. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the suit or if it was barred by the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that the suit was barred under Section 6 of the Ordinance. Although the plaintiffs argued that the suit did not fall within the specific category of a claim by a borrower against a banking company or vice versa, the Court rejected this interpretation. It held that Section 6(4) of the Ordinance explicitly excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts not only in suits between borrowers and banks but also regarding any decision concerning the existence or otherwise of a loan. Consequently, the Court ruled that the suit, which sought to challenge the validity of a loan transaction, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Banking Court, and ordered the plaint returned for presentation to the proper forum.
Questions settled- Does the jurisdiction of a Civil Court extend to matters concerning the existence or otherwise of a loan under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Is a suit challenging the validity of a loan transaction barred from being heard by a Civil Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Does the ouster of jurisdiction in Section 6(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 apply only to suits filed directly between a borrower and a banking company?
- Mumtaz Hussain vs District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner,1990 P Cr. L J 1784 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the cancellation of a No-Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) issued for the installation of a petrol filling station. The core legal question was whether a District Magistrate could cancel an N.O.C. once granted and refuse to reconsider the site location after the Federal Government amended the initial sanction due to a minor variation in distance from the highway. The court held that while the District Authority possesses subjective satisfaction under the rules and is not bound to blindly follow federal directives, an N.O.C. once acted upon cannot be arbitrarily cancelled without proper consideration, fair hearing, and adherence to the principles of locus poenitentiae. The court set aside the cancellation order, ruling it to be without lawful authority, and directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner and relevant functionaries.
Questions settled- Can a District Magistrate arbitrarily cancel a No-Objection Certificate once it has been issued and acted upon for the installation of a petrol filling station?
- Whether the rule of locus poenitentiae prevents an authority from withdrawing a decision after it has been carried into effect?
- Do the words 'subject to control of Central Government' under Rule 131-A of the Petroleum Rules 1937 curtail the discretionary power of a District Magistrate to issue or refuse a No-Objection Certificate under Rule 115(3)?
- Is a District Magistrate bound to reconsider a site location for a filling station upon a request for amendment by the Federal Government?
- Mumtaz H. Hadayatullah and 2 others vs Trinity Private School and another1990 MLD 1855 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ahmed and 2 others vs The State and anothers1990 PLD Karachi 478 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-08Read full judgment →
- Mulla Dur Muhammad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1741 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
- Mulazim Hussain and others vs The State and others1990 P Cr. L J 44 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zechariah and others vs The Government of Sindh through Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Karachi East and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 704 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-29Read full judgment →
- N/A vs State Bank of Pakistan1990 PLD Karachi 332 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an objection filed by Mst. Samina Akhtar against the Official Liquidator’s report regarding the sale of property (Room No. 411, Sunny Plaza) by Syed Mohsin Ali Naqvi, a director/manager of M/s. Allied Syndicate, which was undergoing liquidation. The core legal question was whether the property transfer, occurring after the commencement of liquidation proceedings and the publication of a declaration under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, was valid. The Court held that the transaction was mala fide and void, as the property belonged to a subsidiary of the company in liquidation and the transfer was executed to defraud creditors. The Court affirmed that under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, any transaction involving the property of a company or its subsidiary after the publication of a declaration of insolvency is void. Furthermore, the Court established that property transferred within two years of the commencement of liquidation proceedings, without good faith and sufficient consideration, is subject to attachment and restoration for the benefit of creditors, rendering the applicant's claim invalid.
Questions settled- Is a property transfer made by a director of a company in liquidation void if it occurs after the commencement of liquidation proceedings?
- Does the High Court have the authority to attach property transferred by a director of a banking company within two years of the commencement of winding-up proceedings?
- Can a property transfer be declared void if the Court is satisfied that the transfer was made without good faith and sufficient consideration?
- Muhammad Yaseen and 4 others vs Abdullah Niazi1990 MLD 2287 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yameenullah Per Vez Malik vs Mrs. Syeda Habiba Rizvi1990 MLD 2356 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Usman vs Mushtaq Ahmad and others1990 P Cr. L J 567 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Usman vs Meer Khurshid and others1990 P Cr. L J 609 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Uris vs The State1990 MLD 1583 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns criminal applications filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of proceedings against a former Station House Officer accused of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the failure to enter seized case properties into the police register, absent evidence of dishonest misappropriation, constitutes a criminal offence. The High Court held that the proceedings must be quashed, reasoning that the essential element of mens rea was absent. The applicant had merely been negligent in record-keeping, and the case properties were eventually returned. The court emphasized that criminal breach of trust requires proof of dishonest misappropriation or conversion, not merely administrative oversight. Consequently, the court established the principle that where allegations, even if accepted at face value, fail to constitute the essential ingredients of the charged offence, the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be exercised to prevent the abuse of the court's process and unnecessary harassment of the accused.
Questions settled- Does the failure to enter case properties in a police register automatically constitute criminal breach of trust?
- Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings before the trial court has decided an application under Section 249-A?
- Is mens rea an essential ingredient for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Muhammad Toufique Chotani vs Muhammad Hussain Bawani and 31990 P Cr. L J 627 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Shareef vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 357 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →