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.

• Muhammad Ibrahim Versus The State1976 PCRLJ 1450 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Versus State1976 PCRLJ 1424 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-21Read full judgment →
• Sheroo Alias Shah Room Versus State1976 PCRLJ 1408 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-04Read full judgment →
• Peer Bux Versus State1976 PCRLJ 1383 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-16Read full judgment →
• Pario Versus State1976 PCRLJ 1374 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sultan Versus Seth Abdur Rehman1976 PCRLJ 1358 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-30Read full judgment →
• The State Versus Muhammad Waris1976 PCRLJ 130 · Sindh High Court · 1975-01-28Read full judgment →
• Asim Farooqui Versus Mirza Dildar Hussain1976 PCRLJ 1293 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Hussain Versus District Magistrate and Tribunal, Karachi1976 PCRLJ 127 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-24Read full judgment →
• Sikander Versus State1976 PCRLJ 1240 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-25Read full judgment →
• The State Versus Abdul Aziz1976 PCRLJ 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-08Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General, Sind and Ex-Officio Public Prosecutor Versus Juwan1976 PCRLJ 122 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-29Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Versus Mst. Sharifan1976 PCRLJ 1212 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-03Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ali Versus State1976 PCRLJ 1180 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-08Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Versus State1976 PCRLJ 114 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-10Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Versus State1976 PCRLJ 1122 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Versus State1976 PCRLJ 1089 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-10Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Versus The State1975 PCRLJ 936 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddik Versus The State1975 PCRLJ 925 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Versus The State1975 PCRLJ 812 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus Ghulam Kadir1975 PCRLJ 80 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdullah Versus The State1975 PCRLJ 1331 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-30Read full judgment →
• Allahdino Versus The State1975 PCRLJ 1281 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, Sind & Ex-Officio Public Prosecutor, Karachi Versus Mirza Muhammad Din1975 PCRLJ 1184 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-17Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bux Versus The State1974 PCRLJ 302 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Versus The State1974 PCRLJ 283 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-02Read full judgment →
• Anwer Ali Shah Versus The State1973 PCRLJ 969 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-15Read full judgment →
• Azizullah K. Shaikh, Bar-at-Law Versus The State1973 PCRLJ 965 · Sindh High Court · 1973-06-13Read full judgment →
• Samad Hussain Versus The State1973 PCRLJ 952 · Sindh High Court · 1972-07-26Read full judgment →
• Begum Silvat Sher Ali Versus The State1973 PCRLJ 935 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Mahmood Versus The State1973 PCRLJ 913 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-19Read full judgment →
• The State Versus A. K. Muhammad Ali1973 PCRLJ 755 · Sindh High Court · 1972-08-21Read full judgment →
• The State Versus Azizurrehman1973 PCRLJ 225 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haseemuddin Versus The State1973 PCRLJ 116 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-01Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux Versus The State1973 PCRLJ 104 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khan Jatoi Versus The State1973 PCRLJ 1023 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bachal Versus The State1973 PCRLJ 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-07Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali Versus The State1971 PCRLJ 956 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-25Read full judgment →
• The State Versus The State1971 PCRLJ 921 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jannat Bibi Versus The State and 6 Others1971 PCRLJ 489 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus State1970 PCRLJ 97 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Jan Versus Jamaluddin1970 PCRLJ 878 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-02Read full judgment →
• State Versus Vishandas1970 PCRLJ 774 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed Versus State1970 PCRLJ 493 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zamin Versus State1970 PCRLJ 397 · Sindh High Court · 1958-01-04Read full judgment →
• Saindad Versus State1970 PCRLJ 347 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-11Read full judgment →
• Dur Mohd. Versus State1970 PCRLJ 25 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Versus State1970 PCRLJ 217 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-18Read full judgment →
• Piral Shah Versus The State1970 PCRLJ 1111 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-03Read full judgment →
• Azim Versus State1970 PCRLJ 1039 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-28Read full judgment →
• Piral Shah Versus State1970 PCRLJ 1013 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Shah Versus State2025 MLD 797 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-12
  criminal appealmurderSection 302(b) PPCacquittal of co-accuseddelay in FIRquality of evidencenon-recovery of weaponappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal questions concern the impact of a co-accused's acquittal on the appellant's case, the effect of delayed FIR lodgment, and the significance of non-recovered crime weapons. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. It established that the acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically merit acquittal for an appellant whose role in the crime is distinct. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the quality of evidence is superior to its quantity, and a delay in filing an FIR is not fatal when plausibly explained by factors such as community-led attempts at private settlement. Additionally, the Court ruled that the non-recovery of a weapon does not invalidate a conviction where other ocular and medical evidence remains consistent and credible. The appellant's failure to examine himself on oath or provide a defense further solidified the trial court’s findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically entitle an appellant to acquittal when their roles in the crime are distinct?
  • Is a delay in the lodgment of an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case if the delay is plausibly explained?
  • Does the non-recovery of a crime weapon invalidate a conviction when other ocular and medical evidence is consistent?
  • Is the quality of evidence preferred over the quantity of witnesses in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Imtiaz Ali Khan Versus Mrs. Syeda Tatheer Fatima2025 MLD 789 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Versus State2025 MLD 781 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-21
  pre-arrest baildishonour of chequeprohibitory clausefundamental rightscriminal procedureliberty of citizen
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the dishonor of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail, considering the complainant's persistent non-appearance before the trial court and the nature of the alleged offense. The court held that the application should be allowed and the interim bail confirmed. The ratio of the decision emphasizes that the object of bail is not punitive or preventive but is intended solely to ensure the accused's presence at trial. The court noted that the alleged offense carries a maximum sentence of three years, placing it outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the liberty of a citizen is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 4, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, and that refusing bail in circumstances where the applicant is cooperating while the complainant delays proceedings would only facilitate harassment.

  Questions settled

  • Is the object of bail punitive or preventive in nature?
  • Does an offense under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the complainant fails to appear before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Bahar Versus State2025 MLD 775 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-12
  post-arrest bailattempted murdertentative assessmentprima facie casenon-bailable offensecriminal procedureexpedited trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by applicants Gul Bahar and Ghulam Murtaza, who were nominated in an FIR for offenses including attempted murder and assault under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants contended that the FIR was delayed, the medical evidence did not support the severity of the allegations, and the case was a result of a dispute over cotton sales rather than a genuine criminal incident. Conversely, the prosecution argued that the applicants were specifically named in the FIR, weapons were recovered, and witness statements corroborated the complainant's version of events. Upon a tentative assessment of the record, the Court observed that the applicants were linked to the crime through specific roles, supported by medical reports and witness testimony. The Court held that a prima facie case existed against the applicants and that the offenses charged were non-bailable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings by examining the complainant and injured parties within two months and ensuring the framing of charges.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a prima facie case based on FIR, witness statements, and medical reports preclude the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the recovery of weapons and specific role attribution in an FIR are sufficient grounds to deny bail in non-bailable offenses?
  • Can a court direct the trial court to expedite the examination of witnesses and framing of charges while dismissing a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Alam Versus State2025 MLD 770 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-07
  pre-arrest bailbailable offencesindefeasible right to bailfurther inquiryanticipatory bail
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 339 of 2024 registered at Police Station Mominabad, Karachi, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, and 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after their bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail when charged with bailable offences. The Sindh High Court held that grant of bail in bailable offences is an indefeasible right of the accused and cannot be refused on flimsy grounds. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that liberty is a precious asset and that bail in bailable offences cannot even be cancelled once granted, while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether grant of bail in bailable offences is an indefeasible right of an accused?
  • Can bail once granted in a bailable offence be cancelled?
  • Does a case require further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused are charged with bailable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Versus State2025 MLD 753 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-31
  murdersuicidebenefit of the doubtmedical jurisprudenceligature markcriminal appealexhumationappellate acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Court, Thatta, which convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) and Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder and disposal of evidence concerning his wife, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the deceased was murdered by the appellant rather than having committed suicide. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, noting inconclusive medical evidence regarding homicidal versus suicidal hanging, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR following an anonymous tip, lack of motive, and corroboration of the defense's version through an independent witness. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical evidence alone regarding a ligature mark can conclusively distinguish between homicidal hanging and suicide without heavy prosecution burden being discharged?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR based on an untraced anonymous tip render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the defense of suicide is corroborated by an independent witness and no eye-witness or direct motive is established?
  • What is the legal effect of missing independent mashirs and relying solely on related witnesses from a distance in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Hemoon Versus State2025 MLD 740 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-26
  fair trialright to confrontationcapital punishmentremandcriminal appealevidencecross-examinationconstitutional right
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing that the trial was fundamentally flawed. The core legal question was whether recording the examination-in-chief of key prosecution witnesses in the absence of the accused's defense counsel violated the constitutional right to a fair trial. The Court held that the right to confront one's accuser is an integral element of the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the trial court's failure to ensure the presence of defense counsel during the examination of witnesses in a capital case vitiated the proceedings. Furthermore, significant inconsistencies regarding the presence of blood on the alleged crime weapon necessitated judicial intervention. The Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to re-record the evidence of the specified witnesses in the presence of defense counsel and to examine the Chemical Examiner to resolve evidentiary discrepancies. The principle established is that procedural requirements, particularly those safeguarding the right to counsel and confrontation, must be strictly observed in capital trials to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses in the absence of defense counsel violate the right to a fair trial in a capital case?
  • Is the right to confront one's accuser an integral element of the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a conviction be set aside and remanded for a trial where procedural requirements regarding the presence of defense counsel were not met?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousif Versus State2025 MLD 730 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-13
  post-arrest bailnarcotics controlfurther inquirycharas recoverymandatory use of modern devicesprohibitory clausestatutory bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application seeks post-arrest bail for the applicant, who was charged under Section 9(i)3-C of the CNS Act with the alleged possession of 2240 grams of charas. The core legal questions involve whether discrepancies between gross and net weights, the absence of independent witnesses, and the police's failure to use modern recording devices during arrest as mandated by the Supreme Court create grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., thereby overcoming the statutory bar under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Sindh High Court held that the police's non-compliance with the Supreme Court's directive regarding modern devices for search and seizure, alongside weight discrepancies and contentions of false implication, brought the case within the ambit of further inquiry. The court granted post-arrest bail, reaffirming that heinousness of an offense alone is no ground to refuse bail and that bail should not be used as a punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of police to use modern devices or techniques during search and arrest as mandated by the Supreme Court warrants the grant of bail?
  • Do discrepancies between gross and net weights in a chemical report constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the Sessions Court and High Court retain the power to grant bail despite the bar contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the heinousness of the offense when the case otherwise falls within the scope of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Kabeer Ahmed Brohi Versus State2025 MLD 364 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-15
  pre-arrest baildishonest issuance of chequefurther inquirymala fidedelayed FIRbusiness disputes
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail in view of delayed registration of the FIR, prior business disputes, previous litigation between the parties, and allegations of mala fide. The court held that the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with disputed financial transactions and prior litigation, establishes arguable grounds of mala fide and a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant, laying down that disputed facts requiring evaluation through evidence and established mala fide on the part of the complainant warrant the concession of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR without a plausible explanation justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when parties are engaged in prior litigation and business disputes raising the element of mala fide?
  • Does a dispute regarding financial transactions and cheques require further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqlain Haider Versus State2025 MLD 2005 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-09
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequefurther inquirycivil liabilitybusiness relationshipSection 489-F PPCprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the accused in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of dishonoured cheques issued in connection with property transactions. The core legal question was whether the dishonour of cheques issued as security or guarantee within an ongoing business relationship constitutes a criminal offence under Section 489-F, or if the dispute is essentially civil in nature, warranting further inquiry. The Court held that the case falls within the scope of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the determination of fraudulent intent and the nature of the financial obligations require evidence to be recorded at trial. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, and the accused's medical condition and the existence of parallel civil litigation supported the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that Section 489-F is not intended for the recovery of debts, and where cheques are issued as security or within a complex business relationship, the matter is typically one for civil adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dishonour of a cheque issued as security or guarantee constitute an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a case be considered one of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the dispute involves complex civil transactions and pending litigation?
  • Does the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against an accused automatically disentitle them from the grant of bail?
  • Is the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhund Haji Ali Muhammad Versus Syed Shoukat Ali Shah2025 MLD 1996 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aijaz Ahmed Bangulani Versus State2025 MLD 1984 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Mehmood Versus State2025 MLD 1976 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zia Ansari Versus Hafiz Muhammad Ashraf2025 MLD 1968 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mehdi Ishaque Versus IV Judicial Magistrate East at Karachi2025 MLD 1958 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mustafa Khan Versus State2025 MLD 1950 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali Versus Waris Ali2025 MLD 1939 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Waseem Ahmed Versus State2025 MLD 1930 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Versus State2025 MLD 1918 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmed Siddiqui Versus Khalid Maudod Siddiqui2025 MLD 1906 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Versus Muhammad Saleem2025 MLD 1399 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Amjad Versus Khuda Bano2025 MLD 1379 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Versus Province of Sindh, through Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad2025 MLD 1371 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mansoor Ali Khoso Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad2025 MLD 1365 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Galaxy Impex Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue2025 MLD 1359 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saqib Hussain Soomro Versus Baddaruddin Soomro2025 MLD 1354 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Crescent Star Insurance LImited Versus Eduljee Dinshaw (Private) LImited2025 MLD 1340 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ismail Jatoi Versus Deputy Commissioner, Larkana2025 MLD 1325 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• GulSher Versus State2025 MLD 1290 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Global Aviation (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus M/s Saudi Gulf Airlines2025 MLD 1276 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Anwer Majid Versus Emirates Bank International PJSC (formerly Union Bank of the Middle East Ltd.)2025 MLD 1208 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Noman Khan Versus State2025 MLD 1196 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-20
  pre-arrest bailattempted murdernon-vital part injuryfurther inquirycounterblast FIRcriminal procedurebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicants seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 184 of 2024 registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Haidry Market, Karachi. The core legal question revolved around whether the essential ingredients of attempted murder under Section 324 were prima facie made out when injuries were sustained on non-vital parts of the body and without repetition of fire, and whether the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court held that since the injuries were on non-vital parts, the specific attribution of the firearm shot was lacking, and an ongoing conflict existed between the parties, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants. The key principles laid down include that the absence of injury on a vital part and lack of repeated gunfire raise questions as to the applicability of Section 324 at the bail stage, and that consistency in bail considerations applies when co-accused share identical roles.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injury on a non-vital part of the body without repetition of fire negate the intention necessary for an offense under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the bail stage?
  • When can a case be considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to a prior cross-firing or background conflict between parties?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply to grant pre-arrest bail when co-accused are ascribed the same role in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Alishba Gulzar Versus Professor Anjum Rehman2025 MLD 1159 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-19Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmed Versus State2025 MLD 1152 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-13
  narcoticschain of custodyfair trialguilty pleasafe custodycontrabandacquittalprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 5000 grams of Charas. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized contraband and whether the trial court’s reliance on an alleged written admission of guilt, without procedural safeguards, violated the right to a fair trial. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and transmission of the contraband from the point of recovery to the chemical laboratory, a deficiency that vitiates the conviction. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court’s reliance on an unverified admission of guilt, without informing the accused of the legal consequences, violated the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must strictly prove the unbroken chain of custody in narcotics cases, and any failure to do so, coupled with procedural irregularities in recording a guilty plea, necessitates acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove the safe custody and transmission of seized contraband in a narcotics case vitiate the conviction?
  • Is a trial court required to inform an accused of the legal consequences of a guilty plea to satisfy the requirements of a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on an alleged written admission of guilt when the prosecution fails to establish the chain of custody of the case property?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed Versus State2025 MLD 1136 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-27
  post-arrest bailjurisdictionbhang recoveryCNS Acttransfer of caseshow cause noticeliberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application arising from Crime No. 122/2023 registered under Section 9(1)(3)(D) of the CNS Act, 2022, involving the alleged recovery of 1600 kg of bhang. The core legal question revolved around the jurisdictional shift of the case between the Magistrate Court and the Special Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, and the validity of bail granted to the accused prior to the case being transferred back to the Special Court under Section 347, Cr.P.C. The Sindh High Court held that the initial order of the Special Judge returning the case to the Magistrate was unlawful, that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to try an offence carrying punishment beyond Section 32, Cr.P.C., but that the accused could not be prejudiced regarding their liberty without a show-cause notice regarding bail cancellation. The Court laid down that procedural fairness mandates issuing a show-cause notice before altering the forum or revisiting bail when a case's gravity increases, and confirmed the bail granted to the applicants subject to enhanced surety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate can try an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when the punishment exceeds the sentencing powers under Section 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Is a show-cause notice necessary before recalling or affecting a bail order when a case is transferred to a court of higher jurisdiction due to more serious charges?
  • Can bail be denied to an accused who has not misused the concession of bail merely due to jurisdictional changes between courts?
  • Whether an unlawful order passed by a Special Judge returning a CNS case to a Magistrate can be set aside by the High Court in bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Nagori Versus Muhammad Ayub2025 MLD 1122 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-06Read full judgment →
• Qasim Versus Dawood2025 MLD 1115 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-19Read full judgment →
• Ameer Jan alias Bablu Versus State2025 MLD 1096 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-06
  explosive substancesillegal possession of weaponsanti-terrorismalteration of convictionsentencing reductionrifle grenades
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for possessing rifle grenades and a pistol without a launcher. The core legal question was whether the possession of rifle grenades without a launcher constituted an offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or fell under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The High Court held that since the grenades were without a launcher and incapable of immediate explosion, terrorist intent under the Anti-Terrorism Act and intent under Section 4 were not made out; however, possession under suspicious circumstances attracted Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The court set aside the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, altered the conviction from Section 4 to Section 5, and reduced the sentence, establishing that Section 4 requires intent to cause an explosion, whereas Section 5 applies to mere possession under suspicious circumstances without such proven intent.

  Questions settled

  • Does possession of rifle grenades without a launcher attract the provisions of Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • When does an offence fall under Section 5 as opposed to Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
  • Are rifle grenades without a launcher capable of causing an explosion sufficient to attract Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ali Versus State2025 MLD 1080 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-06
  jail appealanti-corruptionmisappropriation of wheatfair trialright to cross-examinede novo trialremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Sukkur, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for the alleged misappropriation of government wheat. The core legal question revolves around whether the appellant was denied the fundamental right to a fair trial and due process due to lack of proper representation and failure to afford a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. The Sindh High Court held that the trial proceedings suffered from fatal flaws, notably the cross-examination of key witnesses by unauthenticated counsel or without proper legal representation, violating the constitutional right to a fair trial. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the trial court for a de novo trial with proper legal representation and cross-examination. The key principle laid down is that cross-examination conducted by a person not duly engaged by the accused is legally void, and denial of a genuine opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses vitiates the trial and renders any resulting conviction unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to afford an accused a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses through counsel of choice violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does cross-examination conducted by an unengaged counsel or a stranger to the accused hold any legal sanctity or evidentiary value?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained when the testimony of prosecution witnesses remains untested through proper and legitimate cross-examination?
  • What is the appropriate legal recourse when fundamental procedural defects and denial of due process are observed in the trial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdar Khan Versus Shahid2025 MLD 1066 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalid Saleem Versus Imran Hyder2025 MLD 1033 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-26Read full judgment →
• Jeendal Shah Versus State2025 MLD 1019 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-04
  plea of guiltynarcoticscriminal revisionappellate jurisdictionsecond appealsentence reductionmitigating factors
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application arose from the conviction of the applicant under Section 9(1)(3)(a) of the Control of Narcotics Substance (Amendment) Act, 2022, following his voluntary plea of guilt before a Judicial Magistrate. The applicant's subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Court of Session, leading to the instant revision before the High Court. The High Court examined the statutory framework governing criminal appeals and revisions, clarifying that a second appeal to the High Court under Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is legally barred once an appeal under Section 408 has been exhausted before the Sessions Court. Furthermore, the Court held that under Section 412 of the Code, an appeal against a conviction based on a voluntary plea of guilt is strictly barred, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence. Finding no illegality in the conviction, the Court dismissed the revision but reduced the applicant's sentence to that already undergone, considering mitigating factors such as his status as a first offender and sole breadwinner.

  Questions settled

  • Does a second appeal lie to the High Court under Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after an appeal has been dismissed by the Court of Session under Section 408?
  • To what extent does Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar an appeal where the accused has voluntarily pleaded guilty?
  • Can an appellate court entertain an appeal against a conviction based on a plea of guilt if the facts alleged by the prosecution do not constitute an offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hassan Fatima, Sindh Medical Centre Versus Pakistan Red crescent society through Provincial Secretary2025 MLD 1001 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Versus State2024 MLD 862 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-01
  police encountercriminal appealbenefit of doubtcontradictory evidencerecovery of emptiesmedical evidenceillegal armsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal appeals challenge a consolidated judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for offences relating to a police encounter, firing at police, and illegal possession of arms. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and whether material contradictions in ocular, medical, and recovery evidence vitiate the conviction. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeals, holding that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account regarding the firearm injury, no police personnel or police vehicle sustained any bullet marks despite a close-range shootout, and severe discrepancies existed regarding the recovery and deposition of crime empties. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable evidence, and any doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused, without relying on weaknesses in the defense.

  Questions settled

  • Does medical evidence contradicting the ocular account of a police encounter create a reasonable doubt warranting the accused's acquittal?
  • Whether material discrepancies between recovery memos and malkhana register entries regarding crime empties vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove its case through unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Multix International Corporation Versus Karachi Metropolitan Corporation2024 MLD 66 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ramesh Kumar Versus State2024 MLD 608 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-08
  explosive substancessafe custodychain of custodybenefit of doubtpolice witnessindependent corroborationanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Anti-Terrorism Court for possession of explosive substances. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the recovery of explosives and established the chain of custody, and whether a conviction can be sustained solely on police testimony when independent witnesses were available but not associated. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to significant evidentiary gaps, including the failure to associate independent witnesses despite prior information, the absence of Malkhana records to prove safe custody of the recovered items, unexplained delays in sending samples to the expert, and unexplained overwriting on the clearance certificate. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that where the fate of an accused hinges solely on police testimony, the court must exercise caution; if independent witnesses could have been associated but were not, and if the chain of custody for recovered incriminating material is not proven, the prosecution's case becomes unsafe, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained based solely on police testimony when independent witnesses were available but not associated?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of recovered explosive substances to the expert?
  • Does the failure to produce Malkhana records to prove the safe custody of recovered items entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed Versus State2024 MLD 246 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-20
  criminal appealmurder convictiondelayed FIRocular evidenceinterested witnessmedical evidencerobbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Zahoor Ahmed, for murder and robbery under sections 302(b), 393, 394, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the delay in lodging the FIR, the delayed recording of statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and minor contradictions in prosecution evidence rendered the conviction unsafe. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction was sound. The court affirmed that a delay in FIR registration is not fatal when reasonably explained by the priority of medical treatment and funeral rites. Furthermore, the court held that minor contradictions in testimony do not invalidate evidence if the witnesses remain consistent on material facts. It also established that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased does not automatically render them interested or partisan if they are natural witnesses whose presence is established. The court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in the registration of an FIR automatically render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Are statements of witnesses recorded with delay under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 inherently valueless?
  • Does the relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically classify them as an interested witness?
  • Do minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses warrant the rejection of their entire evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• M.F.M.Y Industries Limited Versus Federation of Paistan2024 MLD 1149 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mashooque Ali Versus State2023 MLD 931 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-02
  narcotic possessionconscious possessionpolice witness credibilityappraisal of evidencebenefit of doubtchemical examiner report delayControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 90 KG of charas and 02 KG of opium. The appellant contended that the recovery was false, witnesses were not independent, and the delay in sending samples to the Chemical Examiner was fatal. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of police testimony, the effect of non-examination of certain witnesses, the impact of the acquittal of a co-accused, and the validity of the conviction based on police evidence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony cannot be discarded solely due to their profession. The Court ruled that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's conscious possession of the narcotics. It further held that the acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically benefit the appellant when the cases are distinguishable, and that minor procedural delays or omissions, such as the timing of Chemical Examiner reports or non-examination of certain police staff, do not invalidate the prosecution's case when material evidence is consistent.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely on the ground that they are police employees?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically entitle the appellant to acquittal when the cases are factually distinguishable?
  • Is the non-examination of a police official who was present at the time of the incident fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does a delay in sending narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner automatically vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →