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.

• Amir Bux and others vs Ibrahim and others1990 MLD 1145 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-16Read full judgment →
• Amir Bux and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1765 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-09
  murderattempted murderocular testimonyinterested witnessescorroborationenmityrecovery of weaponcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court arises from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, convicting the appellants under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, sentencing them to death and prison terms. The core legal question involved the reliability of ocular testimony and corroborative evidence in a case marked by deep-seated prior enmity, related and partisan witnesses, and material contradictions between statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and depositions in court. The High Court held that while the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not discredit their testimony, the evidence of related and inimical witnesses must be scrutinized with extreme caution and requires corroboration from independent and unimpeachable sources. Finding the ocular and recovery evidence shaky, contradictory, and uncorroborated, the court laid down that unconvincing corroborative evidence and doubtful recoveries cannot sustain a capital conviction in the face of deep party enmity, leading to the setting aside of the convictions and the acquittal of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and inimical eyewitnesses requires independent corroboration before it can form the basis of a conviction?
  • Can a statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to corroborate or explain any part of the prosecution evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an alleged weapon recovery when the weapon and empties are not sent to a ballistic expert and recovery witnesses are interested and from a different locality?
  • How should omissions and minor discrepancies between an F.I.R. and testimony in court affect the credibility of an eyewitness?
  Read full judgment →
• American President Lines Ltd. and anothers vs The Eastern Federal1990 PLD Karachi 156 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 834 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan vs The State1990 MLD 2076 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-17Read full judgment →
• Akbar Shah and anothers vs The State1990 MLD 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
• Akbar and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1697 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
• Akbar and 3 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 350 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Fahim Mughal vs Muhammad Saleem Khan, District Magistrate1990 PLD Karachi 474 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-23
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderobjective satisfactionjudicial reviewvague grounds of detentionhabeas corpusdetention order quashed
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, a P.C.S. Officer serving as Private Secretary to the erstwhile Prime Minister of Pakistan, challenging his order of detention dated 12th August 1990 passed by the District Magistrate (South), Karachi, under section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding public safety and maintenance of public order requires objective verification and sufficient material support before the High Court in judicial review. The Sindh High Court held that the satisfaction required under section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 is not absolute or whimsical but must be objective in nature, supported by sufficient material and specific instances rather than vague allegations. The key principle laid down is that detention orders passed without material support, adequate particulars, or in the absence of a counter-affidavit rebutting the claims in the petition are unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed under judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the satisfaction of the detaining authority under section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 is subjective or objective in nature?
  • Can a detention order be sustained when the grounds of detention are vague and unsupported by any material or specific instances?
  • Does the High Court have the power in judicial review to insist on the disclosure of materials upon which an executive detention order is based?
  • What is the legal effect when respondents fail to file a counter-affidavit denying the facts alleged in a detention challenge petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Authority under Payment of Wages Act1990 PLC 26 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-03
  Constitutional jurisdictionPayment of Wages ActAlternate remedyMaintainability of writ petitionCondition precedentStatutory appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition challenged an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, which directed the petitioner to deposit wages for its employees. The petitioner argued that the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court should be invoked because the statutory appeal provided under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act required a pre-deposit of the disputed amount, rendering the remedy inadequate and inefficacious. The Court examined whether the existence of this conditional right of appeal barred the maintainability of the writ petition. The High Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It affirmed that the requirement to deposit the amount as a condition precedent for an appeal does not destroy the efficacy of the statutory remedy. The Court emphasized that Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot be utilized to circumvent clear legislative provisions or to nullify statutory requirements. Consequently, as the impugned order was not challenged on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or patent illegality, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the necessity of exhausting the provided alternate remedy.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Constitution petition maintainable when an adequate alternate statutory remedy exists?
  • Does the requirement to deposit a disputed amount as a condition precedent for an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act render the appellate remedy inefficacious?
  • Can Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan be used to circumvent statutory provisions regarding appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bin Saleem vs The State and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 838 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-29
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictioncriminal and civil proceedingsfraud and forgerybona fide purchaserstay of criminal proceedingsprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a trial court under sections 420, 447, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from allegations of impersonation, forgery, and fraudulent transfer of a plot. The core legal questions addressed are whether criminal proceedings should be quashed when a civil suit concerning the same subject matter is pending, and whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should be invoked at an early stage to halt a prosecution where prima facie evidence exists. The Sindh High Court held that the inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should not be used to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure or stifle prosecution when a prima facie case is disclosed, and established that the mere pendency of civil litigation or concurrent civil proceedings does not operate as an automatic bar to the continuation of criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a prima facie case is disclosed against the accused?
  • Does the mere filing or pendency of a civil suit operate as an absolute bar to the continuation of a criminal case involving similar subject matter?
  • Should criminal proceedings be automatically stayed or postponed until the final disposal of concurrent civil litigation between the same parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Khalid Shaikh vs Ali Ghulam and another1990 MLD 1733 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
• Afroz Ilahi and 2 others vs KARAcHl Metropolitan Corporation and another1990 MLD 828 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-05Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar vs The State1990 MLD 56 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 469 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-03Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Haji Abdul Ghani1990 MLD 2284 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-31Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Shamim vs The State1990 MLD 1524 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Zahir and another vs Directorgeneral, Pakistan Coast Guards1990 PLD Karachi 412 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-15
  customs confiscationsmuggled goodsshow-cause noticespeaking orderseizure of goodshire-purchase agreementpersonal penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges orders passed by customs authorities and tribunals regarding the confiscation of a bus and the imposition of personal penalties under the Customs Act, 1969, following the recovery of smuggled goods from the vehicle. The core legal questions involve whether the extension of time for issuing a show-cause notice under section 168(2) of the Customs Act is a speaking order, whether failure to issue a valid notice under section 168(2) vitiates confiscation under section 180, and the validity of service of notice under section 171. The Sindh High Court held that while an order granting an extension of time under section 168(2) must be a speaking order containing reasons recorded in writing by the Collector, the absence of a valid seizure notice under section 168 does not render a subsequent confiscation order under section 180 void or illegal, as confiscation is not strictly dependent on prior seizure. The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the confiscation and penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order granting extension of time under the proviso to section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 requires a speaking order with reasons recorded in writing by the Collector?
  • Does the absence of a valid notice or seizure under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 render a subsequent confiscation order under section 180 invalid?
  • Can an officer of the Pakistan Coast Guards, invested with powers of Customs, seek an extension of time under section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State and others1990 MLD 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and others vs The State1990 MLD 1522 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaque vs The Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Government of Pakistan (Ports and Shipping Wing) through the Director-General and 3 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 20 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Sirajuddin1990 MLD 754 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak and 7 others vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1990 PLC 261 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razak and 4 otherss vs Standard Insurance Company Ltd.1990 MLD 1842 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rab Jaffery vs Rashid D. Habib and others1990 MLD 546 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs Haji Noor Ali and 4 others1990 MLD 887 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qaddus vs Mst. Shabana Parveen and another1990 MLD 68 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-27
  court feesfamily court appealdiscretionary powerconstitutional jurisdictionlate payment of court feeslimitationcondonation of delaydissolution of marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the dismissal of an appeal by the District Judge, Karachi (South), which was deemed time-barred due to the late payment of court-fees. The original appeal arose from a Family Court judgment concerning dissolution of marriage, dower, and maintenance. The petitioner had initially filed the appeal without court-fees, believing them unnecessary for Family Court appeals, a common misconception prior to a Supreme Court ruling. An application for time to pay court-fees under Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was granted tentatively, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed as time-barred. The High Court held that while the circumstances might have warranted the exercise of discretion under Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate court had declined to exercise it. The High Court emphasized its reluctance, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973, to interfere with a lower court's decision regarding its statutory discretionary powers. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Are court-fees payable on appeals arising out of judgments of Family Courts?
  • Can a court revoke its tentative exercise of discretion under Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a High Court interfere with a lower court's decision not to exercise its discretionary powers under Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the exemption from court-fees for plaints under Section 19 of the Sind Family Courts Act, 1964, extend to appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mehdi vs Mrs. Abdul Hakim1990 MLD 2182 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Maroof Khan Afridi vs Karachi Development Authority through DirectorGeneral, Civic Centre GulshaneIqbal, Karachi1990 MLD 2252 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-19
  constitutional petitionalternative adequate remedysuppression of material factsdiscretionary jurisdictionpending civil suitinterim injunctionmultiplication of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from the demolition of a structure by the Karachi Development Authority (K.D.A.) on a disputed plot of land in Karachi, which the petitioner claimed was part of a Katchi Abadi and protected by an interim injunction in a pending civil suit. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with demolition actions when a properly instituted civil suit concerning the same property and parties was already pending and material facts had been suppressed. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and should be denied where the petitioner suppresses material facts, fails to implead necessary parties, and where an equally efficacious alternative remedy—specifically a pending civil suit—is already available. The court established that litigants invoking constitutional remedies must approach the court with clean hands, fully disclose all relevant facts, and utilize existing civil proceedings rather than multiplying litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained when an equally efficacious suit is already pending between the parties regarding the same subject matter?
  • Does the suppression of material facts and failure to implead necessary parties justify the dismissal of a constitutional petition?
  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge actions that have a direct nexus with an ongoing civil suit instead of seeking relief within the suit itself?
  • Is a constitutional petition liable to be dismissed as infructuous if the impugned demolition work has already been completed?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik alias Bhora and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 753 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs The State1990 PLD Karachi 448 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-09
  suppression of terrorist activitiesbail pending appealinherent jurisdictionstatutory interpretationspecial courtssuspension of sentenceabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  The Full Bench of the Sindh High Court considered whether the appellate court could grant bail or suspend sentences under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the express bar in Section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The Court held that Section 7 explicitly prohibits the exercise of powers under Section 426, Cr.P.C. during the pendency of an appeal, reflecting the legislative intent for the expeditious disposal of cases within three months. The Court distinguished this from cases where special laws are silent on interim relief, noting that an express statutory bar cannot be bypassed by invoking ancillary powers. However, the Court clarified that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. remains intact, as it is neither expressly nor impliedly excluded. Therefore, while the appellate court cannot grant bail under Section 426, it retains the authority to grant relief in exceptional cases of hardship or to prevent the abuse of the court's process, thereby securing the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the express bar in Section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, preclude the High Court from granting bail under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 excluded by the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Can an appellate court grant interim relief in cases where the governing special law is silent regarding such power?
  • Does the term 'no Court' in Section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, include the High Court hearing an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Noor Muhammad and 3 others1990 MLD 2073 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 991 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Khan and 25 others vs Nawabdin and 52 others1990 PLD Karachi 328 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haseeb and 51 others vs Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment1990 PLC (C.S.) 741 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Haque alias Dost Muhammad vs District Magistrate and 4 others1990 PLD Karachi 481 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-28
  preventive detentionjudicial reviewpublic ordermala fideconstitutional petitiondetention orderobjective satisfaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the detention of the detenu, Noor Muhammad, ordered by the District Magistrate under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The detention order was based on vague allegations of prejudicial conduct and providing support to dacoits. The core legal question was whether the executive authority's 'satisfaction' for detention was based on sufficient material, or if it was arbitrary and mala fide. The Court held that the detention order was unsustainable and quashed it. The ratio of the decision is that the 'satisfaction' required under the Ordinance must be objective, not merely subjective or based on whims. Executive authorities must possess sufficient, specific material to justify a detention order, and the High Court, in its power of judicial review, is entitled to examine the materials relied upon by the detaining authority. Vague allegations unsupported by evidence, particularly when the petitioner's assertions of political victimization remain uncontroverted, render a detention order unlawful.

  Questions settled

  • Is the 'satisfaction' of the detaining authority under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, subjective or objective in nature?
  • Can the High Court examine the materials relied upon by the executive authority to issue a detention order?
  • Does a detention order based on vague allegations without supporting material satisfy the requirements of law?
  • Is a detention order sustainable if the detaining authority fails to provide sufficient material to support the grounds of detention?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khan & Sons vs Karimji Ebrahimji & Sons1990 MLD 840 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Muhammad Zaki and 3 others1990 MLD 1129 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Kiranvi vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1990 PLC 213 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-04
  termination simpliciterlabour lawmala fidesburden of proofworkmansurplus staffgrievance petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the decision of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which set aside a Labour Court order reinstating the petitioner. The petitioner, an Empty Godown Supervisor, had his services terminated by the respondent employer citing the off-season closure of the factory. The core legal question was whether the termination was lawful under the relevant labour laws and whether the petitioner successfully discharged the burden of proving mala fides or victimization. The High Court held that the termination was a case of termination simpliciter, which complied with the statutory requirement of providing written reasons. The Court affirmed that while an employer must state reasons for termination in writing, the decision to declare an employee surplus remains the employer's prerogative unless proven to be colourable or in contravention of law. The Court ruled that the petitioner failed to establish mala fides or victimization, and thus, the Appellate Tribunal's decision to uphold the termination was correct. The key principle laid down is that in cases of termination simpliciter, the burden lies on the employee to prove mala fides, and an employer's decision regarding surplus staff cannot be questioned merely because the job was permanent.

  Questions settled

  • Does Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 require an employer to do more than state the reasons for termination in writing?
  • In a case of termination simpliciter, upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish mala fides?
  • Can an employer's decision to terminate an employee on the grounds of being surplus be challenged solely on the basis that the employee's job was of a permanent nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Government Of Pakistan Through Ministry Of Interior, Islamabad And 3 OtherPTCL 1990 CL. 678 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Fatah and others vs The State1990 MLD 1087 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basit and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Inspector-General of Police, Sindh and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 637 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
• A. Fateh Din and others vs The State1990 MLD 1572 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
• A & B Beverages Ltd. (Private) through Managing Director vs Government of Pakistan and 3 others1990 PTD 569 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
• A & B Beverages Ltd. (Private) through Managing Director vs GovernmentPTCL 1990 CL. 967 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 21 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
• Zamir Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1953 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-06Read full judgment →
• Zaman Khan vs Muhammad Yasin1989 MLD 571 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
• Zakir Hussain And 9 Others vs Trustees of Jamia Masjid Through Its1989 MLD 2368 · Sindh High Court · 1089-03-07Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs The State1989 MLD 680 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
• Zahid Khan vs Abdul Latif1989 MLD 592 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1055 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-13Read full judgment →
• Zafar Usman vs The Income-Tax Officers and others1989 PTD 547 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
• Zafar and Associates, Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 275 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
• Z a Z Ay vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 93 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-15Read full judgment →
• Yusuf Haji Ismail vs Hussain Mumtaz and another1989 PTD 551 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Yusuf Haji Ismail vs Hussain Mumtaz and another--Defendants1989 PLD Karachi 299 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Yousuf vs Muhammad Bashir And 4 Other1989 MLD 3200 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Yousuf Textile Mills Ltd. vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1403 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Yasmin vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 161 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-27Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad Rind vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1954 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
• Yaq00b and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 257 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
• Yakoob And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 1684 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
• West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation vs Commissioner1989 PTD 215 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Wasimuddin and anothers vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 345 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
• Wasim Ansari vs Liaquat Medical College And Other1989 MLD 1903 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-07Read full judgment →
• Waris vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 619 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Government of Sind Through Secretary, Local Government, Karachi And Other1989 MLD 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 852 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bux vs The State And 7 Other1989 MLD 2799 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Wadero Muhammad Tayyab vs Akbar Hussain And Another1989 MLD 10 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
• Vazir Ali And Others vs Hanif1989 MLD 1966 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-12Read full judgment →
• Union Council, Darya Khan Sooho, Mirpur vs Messrs Dewan Sugar1989 MLD 385 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• Umer Din vs Muhammad and others1989 P Cr. L J 1559 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
• Umar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1950 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-15Read full judgment →
• Umar Bakhsh vs Government of Sind And 13 Other1989 MLD 1585 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ubedullah vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 245 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-05Read full judgment →
• Ubedullah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 626 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-05Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Central Board of Revenue and another1989 PTD 1048 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-08
  Income Tax Ordinance 1979advance taxpublic auctionKarachi Port Trustauctioneer liabilityprincipal and agentassessee in defaultstatutory interpretationmachinery provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court arose from a reference to a third Judge following a division of opinion between Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J. and Mamoon Kazi, J. on the interpretation of Section 50(7A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Income Tax authorities raised an advance tax demand against the Trustees of the Port of Karachi for sales of surplus goods by public auction, asserting that the petitioner as principal was liable for the default of its auctioneers. The petitioner contended that statutory responsibility to collect advance tax rested entirely upon the person conducting the public auction. Saleem Akhtar, J. held that under Section 50(7A) read with Section 52, the obligation to collect advance tax from buyers is specifically imposed on the person making the sale by public auction. Consequently, where an independent professional auctioneer conducts the auction, the auctioneer, and not the owner of the goods, is responsible for collecting the tax; conversely, if the owner's own officers or employees conduct the auction or public tender, the owner remains liable. The impugned demand was declared without lawful authority, and the department was directed to conduct an inquiry into how the sales were executed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether under Section 50(7A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 the statutory liability to collect advance tax rests upon an independent auctioneer or upon the owner whose goods are sold?
  • Whether the owner of auctioned property can be treated as an assessee in default under Section 52 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 if an independent auctioneer fails to collect advance tax?
  • Does the responsibility to collect advance tax fall on an entity where the sale of property is conducted directly through its own employees or officers rather than via an independent professional auctioneer?
  Read full judgment →
• Town Committee, Sujawal vs Hakim Murtaza Khan And Other1989 MLD 1955 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
• Total and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 615 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Sikander Hayat and others1989 P Cr. L J 1179 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-01Read full judgment →
• The State vs Nayar Mirza and others1989 P Cr. L J 1005 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-23Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Sachal and another1988 P Cr. L J 254 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Nasim Baig1989 P Cr. L J 1842 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-13
  criminal acquittal appealmaintainability of appealpublic prosecutorfederal government employeespecial judgecorruptioncompetent authoritysanction for prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several Criminal Acquittal Appeals filed by the State against respondents who were employees of the Federal Government and had been acquitted by the Special Judge (Central) in corruption-related cases. A common preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of these appeals, specifically whether they were filed by a competent authority. The Court examined the provisions of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, which governs the prosecution of Federal Government employees. The Court held that under Section 10(2) of the Act, an appeal against an acquittal must be filed by a Public Prosecutor specifically directed by the Federal Government. The Court determined that the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding Public Prosecutors appointed by the Provincial Government do not apply to these cases. Because the appeals were filed by individuals not authorized by the Federal Government as Public Prosecutors for these specific proceedings, the Court concluded that the appeals were incompetent. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for lack of proper authorization, regardless of the merits of the underlying acquittal orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against an acquittal of a Federal Government employee under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, can be filed by a Public Prosecutor appointed by the Provincial Government?
  • Does the definition of 'Public Prosecutor' under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to prosecutions conducted under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958?
  • Is a direction from the Federal Government a condition precedent for filing an acquittal appeal against a Federal Government employee under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958?
  • Can an advocate appointed in a private capacity to file an appeal be deemed a 'Public Prosecutor' for the purposes of Section 10(2) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Ashraf and another1989 P Cr. L J 1480 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mahboob Ali1989 P Cr. L J 1951 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-06Read full judgment →
• The State vs Lal Khan and another1989 P Cr. L J 1366 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ehsan Shah and 4 others1989 P Cr. L J 2234 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
• The State vs Amanullah1989 P Cr. L J 191 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ali Akber alias Akoo and another1989 P Cr. L J 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Aziz1989 P Cr. L J 1486 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abbas AliK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 550 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-08Read full judgment →
• The Controller of Estate Duty vs Abdul Jalil1989 PTD 475 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Central Zone 'A' vs Chemdyes1989 PTD 763 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-13Read full judgment →
• Wazir and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2419 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-27Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi vs Arshad Javed1989 PTD 226 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Karachi vs Atlas1989 PTD 1248 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi vs Mushtaq1989 PTD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →