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.

• Rahman Hafeez and 4 others vs S.M. Yusuf and 2 others1986 MLD 261 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bux and Others vs The State1986 PLD Karachi 224 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-02
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaythird provisofourth provisohardened desperate criminalunder-trial prisonerinterpretation of provisos
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants, facing trial under Sections 302, 395, 342, and 332 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 alongside Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance 1965, sought post-arrest bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of continuous detention exceeding two years without trial delay attributable to them. The trial court refused bail under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), deeming them hardened and desperate criminals solely based on F.I.R. allegations involving the murder of two persons and injury to police personnel. The High Court considered whether unproven allegations in an F.I.R. suffice to declare an accused a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' under the fourth proviso. Granting bail, the High Court held that the fourth proviso, being an exception, must be construed strictly. The term 'criminal' refers to a person convicted or legally adjudged guilty. Unproven accusations in an F.I.R. cannot classify an under-trial prisoner as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unproven allegations in an FIR or complaint can classify an under-trial prisoner as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the word 'criminal' in the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to an accused person who has not yet been convicted?
  • Is the grant of bail on the ground of statutory delay under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a matter of right rather than judicial discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiullah vs Messrs Amin Traders1986 MLD 2968 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-01Read full judgment →
• Rafiuddin Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Noor Jehan1986 MLD 1606 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-14Read full judgment →
• Rafique Muhammad Khan vs Federal Land Commissioner and others1986 MLD 786 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
• Rafiquddin Ahmed vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and another1986 MLD 1619 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
• Rafi Bakht Nafees Siddiqui vs Mst. Qamar Jehan1986 MLD 1354 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs The Election Tribunal & 2ND Sind Labour Court and Another1986 PLD Karachi 46 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-08
  election petitiondisqualification of candidateElection Tribunalscrutiny of nomination papersthrown away votesfresh electionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an Election Tribunal order unseating him as an elected member of the Karachi District Council and declaring the runner-up candidate (respondent No. 2) elected. The petitioner was disqualified under Section 37(3) of the Sind Local Government Ordinance 1979 for holding office in a political party. He contended that his acceptance during scrutiny by the Returning Officer was final and could not be re-agitated before the Election Tribunal. The High Court held that the Election Tribunal is an original proceeding empowered to independently determine questions of candidate qualification and disqualification regardless of whether an objection was raised at the scrutiny stage or appealed. However, regarding the relief, the Court held that because the petitioner's disqualification was not notorious or within the voters' knowledge, the votes cast for him could not be deemed thrown away to automatically seat the minority candidate. Consequently, the High Court modified the Tribunal's order, unseating the petitioner but declaring the seat vacant to be filled through a fresh election.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to appeal a Returning Officer's order accepting a nomination paper bar an election petition before the Election Tribunal challenging the candidate's qualification?
  • Is the Election Tribunal bound by determinations made during summary scrutiny proceedings by Returning Officers?
  • Can a runner-up candidate be automatically declared elected when the winning candidate is subsequently disqualified for a non-notorious disqualification?
  • Under what circumstances are votes cast for a disqualified candidate treated as thrown away to allow the minority candidate to take the seat?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 626 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-24Read full judgment →
• Qurb an Ali and 2 others vs Province of Sind and 2 others1986 MLD 312 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →
• Qassim Shah Khan And 4 Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1265 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali and 5 others vs Fazal and another1986 MLD 2997 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
• Qamrul Islam And Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1705 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Saleem And 2 Others vs Hashim Hussain And Another1986 P Cr. L J 133 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-09Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Ali and 2 OTHERSs vs Karachi Road Transport Corporation1986 PLD Karachi 489 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29
  fatal accidentsrash and negligent drivingquantum of damagesapportionment of compensationIslamic law of inheritancelimitation periodtort liabilityMotor Vehicles Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns seven consolidated suits filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, seeking damages for the deaths of seven individuals resulting from a bus accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of an employee of the defendant, Karachi Road Transport Corporation. The core legal questions involved the limitation period for filing such suits, the burden of proof regarding negligence, the impact of prior compensation received under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, on claims under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, and the appropriate method for apportioning damages among legal heirs. The Court held that the suits were within time, the defendant was liable for the negligence of its driver, and the receipt of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, did not bar the present claims but would be deducted from the final award. Crucially, the Court determined that in the absence of specific statutory guidance on apportionment, the distribution of damages among legal heirs should be guided by the principles of Islamic Law of inheritance rather than English common law precedents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the receipt of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, bar a legal heir from pursuing a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  • Is the apportionment of damages awarded under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, governed by the Islamic Law of inheritance?
  • Does the burden of proof regarding negligence in a fatal accident claim lie with the plaintiff?
  • Can a suit filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, be considered time-barred if the last day of the limitation period is a court holiday?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 481 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs The State1986 MLD 1926 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
• Punhoon Alias Rahim Bux Jatoi vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1454 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
• Province of West Pakistan and another vs Baboo Khan1986 MLD 387 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
• Province of Sind through Secretary, Ministry of Works and Communications vs Messrs Umar Khan and 3 others1986 MLD 1421 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
• Province of Sind and 2 others vs Muhammad Yousuf and another1986 MLD 125 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
• Province of Sind and 2 others vs Hajjan Shah1986 MLD 1275 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
• Prem .Kewal Shahani vs The State1986 MLD 1200 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
• Playboy Enterprise Inc. vs Registrar of Trade Marks and another1986 M L D1312 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-21Read full judgment →
• Piar Muhammad vs Abdul Khaliq And 5 Others1986 P Cr. L J 1825 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
• Photo And 2 Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1543 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-14Read full judgment →
• Philip Morris Incorporated vs Lakson Tobacco Company Ltd. and Another1986 PLD Karachi 482 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-29Read full judgment →
• Perwaiz Iqbal vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 835 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
• Partab Rai and another vs Kabir Khan1986 MLD 2743 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan vs Standard Insurance Company Ltd.1986 MLD 2762 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-23Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation Appellant vs Nizamuddin and Others1986 PLD Karachi 616 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. vs Messrs1986 MLD 2983 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Central Homoepathic Medical College and Hospital Board, Karachi vs The Additional District and Sessions Judge1986 MLD 1396 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Battery Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs The Deputy Director-I, Collectorate of Central Excise and Land Customs and 3 others1986 MLD 107 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
• Omer Katchi And Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 753 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
• Ohn Dias vs Mst. Suraya Begum1986 MLD 845 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Hussain And Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1218 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-06Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The StatePLD 1986 Karachi 157(1) · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Karachi Development Authority and 2 others1986 MLD 298 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-14Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Motiwala and another vs Muhammad Ghaus1986 MLD 174 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad alias Shishoo vs Station House' Officer and Another1986 PLD Karachi 648 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin vs Deputy Commissioner and Additional Settlement1986 MLD 1309 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-10Read full judgment →
• Nishat Mills Limited. vs Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 39 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed vs Asghar Hussain And 5 Others1986 P Cr. L J 1803 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
• Nimro and 3 others vs The State and another1986 MLD 1840 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
• Nazir Printing Works vs Ebrahim and 3 others1986 MLD 2936 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-27Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain Ansari And Others vs The State and others1986 P Cr. L J 2097 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 464 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Masih vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1224 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-04
  inherent jurisdictionreview of judgmentcriminal revisionbar on reviewabsence of counselbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking a review of a High Court order that had dismissed the applicant's criminal revision application on merits. The applicant contended that the revision was dismissed without providing him an opportunity of being heard under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as his counsel was absent on the hearing date. The High Court observed that the case was duly listed, but the applicant's counsel failed to appear or seek an adjournment, leading the court to decide the revision on merits with the assistance of the State counsel. The Court held that under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court is precluded from reviewing or altering its own judgment once signed, except to correct a clerical error. Consequently, the application for review of the order passed on merits was deemed incompetent and dismissed, and the applicant's bail was cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to review its own final order passed on merits in a criminal revision?
  • Does Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the High Court from altering or reviewing its judgment once it has been signed?
  • Is a criminal revision order passed on merits in the absence of the applicant's counsel, after notice was duly served, liable to be set aside on the ground of lack of hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed And Another vs Presiding Officer And 5 Others1986 PLC 1052 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-12Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1232 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad Khan vs Pakistan and 2 Others1986 PLD Karachi 301 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-09Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain and 5 others vs The State1986 MLD 2641 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
• Nayar Khan vs Mst. Farha Shahwar1986 MLD 193 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Ali Alias Muhammad Nawaz vs The State-.1986 P Cr. L J 2439 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
• Nawab Qadirdad Khan and 12 other vs Chairman, Federal Land1986 MLD 979 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-16Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ali and another vs Khan Muhammad and 4 others1986 MLD 105 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
• National Insurance Corporation vs Stolt Nielson Inc. and 2 others1986 MLD 1433 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
• National Insurance Corporation vs Juma Khan and Another1986 PLD Karachi 563 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• National Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Capital Construction Co.1986 MLD 2512 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-09Read full judgment →
• National Beverage Employees' Union vs Registrar, Trade Unions, Government of Sind And 2 Others1986 PLC 533 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-10
  trade union registrationlocus standicollective bargaining agentwrit jurisdictionindustrial relationslabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a registered trade union challenging the registration of a rival trade union by the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner contended that the registration violated the statutory provisions against dual membership and the minimum membership requirements for establishments with multiple unions. The High Court of Sindh examined the statutory scheme of the Ordinance and held that the registration of a trade union is strictly a matter between the applicant union and the Registrar. The Court ruled that other trade unions have no locus standi to object to or interfere with the registration process, as the law provides a separate mechanism for determining the Collective Bargaining Agent through a secret ballot where membership disputes are resolved. Furthermore, the Court held that factual disputes regarding worker membership cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does an existing registered trade union have the locus standi to object to or challenge the registration of a new trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can factual disputes regarding the dual membership of workers in trade unions be adjudicated by the High Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction?
  • Is the registration of a trade union strictly a bilateral matter between the applicant union and the Registrar of Trade Unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Senior Member, N.I.R.C. And Another1986 PLC 985 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-15
  constitutional petitiontransfer of employeeNational Industrial Relations Commissioninterim prohibitory orderindustrial relationsjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 by the National Bank of Pakistan challenging an interim order passed by the Senior Member, National Industrial Relations Commission, which kept in abeyance the transfer order of an employee from Hyderabad to Mirpurkhas. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission to suspend an administrative transfer order under Section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with Regulation 32(2) of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Function) Regulations, 1973, when the transfer had already been completed and final. Following previous Division Bench judgments of the High Court, the court held that since the transfer order was complete and final with no threat of an intended transfer, the interim order passed by the Commission was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The key principle laid down is that the National Industrial Relations Commission cannot interfere with a completed and final transfer order under its interim regulatory powers where no element of an intended or threatened unfair labour practice relating to a pending complaint exists.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has the jurisdiction to suspend a completed and final employee transfer order under Section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can an employee maintain a complaint against a transfer order that has already been fully executed and implemented?
  • Does an interim prohibitory order passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission under Regulation 32(2) survive when the underlying transfer is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Sarfraz Khan and another1986 MLD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Employees Front Sind Karachi vs The Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No.v And 2 Others1986 PLC 939 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-05Read full judgment →
• Natho And Another vs The State--1986 P Cr. L J 2049 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
• Nasiruddin and 3 others vs Najmuddin and 6 others1986 MLD 163 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
• Nasim Iqbal vs CH. Muhammad Aslam and 4 others1986 MLD 1203 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-03Read full judgment →
• Nasim Ahmad vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 203 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-22Read full judgment →
• Naseebullah Khan and Another vs The State1986 PLD Karachi 417 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-01
  bank fraudabetmentcriminal negligenceSpecial Courtsuo motu cognizanceOffences in Respect of Banks Ordinancecriminal breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of two bank cashiers for abetment under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 403, for allegedly facilitating a bank fraud. The trial court convicted the appellants for criminal negligence in processing cheques without the requisite dual signatures. The core legal questions were whether the Special Court could take suo motu cognizance of the appellants as accused under the Offences in Respect of Banks Ordinance, 1984, and whether criminal negligence constitutes abetment under the Penal Code. The High Court held that the Special Court lacked suo motu powers to join the appellants as accused, as the Ordinance omits the provisions of Section 190(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court held that mere criminal negligence in failing to follow internal bank procedures does not satisfy the requirements of abetment, which necessitates proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. Consequently, the convictions were set aside due to insufficient evidence and procedural irregularities in the trial court's handling of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Offences in Respect of Banks Ordinance, 1984, empower a Special Court to take suo motu cognizance of an accused person?
  • Can criminal negligence in processing bank cheques be equated with abetment under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the presence of an accused mandatory during the framing of a charge under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the Special Court under the Offences in Respect of Banks Ordinance, 1984, possess the power to grant bail on oral request?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmad vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 629 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-03Read full judgment →
• Nabiqasim Industries Limited vs Additional Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance (Central Board of Revenue) C.D.A. Office, Islamabad and 2 others1986 MLD 63 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bux vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 202 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sterling Plywood Industries. , M/s. Pakistan Wood Crafts. vs CentralPTCL 1986 CL. 84 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Premier Tobacco Industries Limited. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,PTCL 1986 CL. 96 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Kausar Trading Co. vs Government Of Pakistan, Central Board OfPTCL 1986 CL. 300 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• M/s. Abdul Razzak & Company vs Assistant Collector of CustomsPTCL 1986 CL. 369 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
• M/s United Distributors Ltd. vs Monopoly Control Authority And Two OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 419 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
• Mutwalli vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 24 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-19Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Raza Khan vs Anwarur Rehman and 5 others1986 MLD 123 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-26Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ali Jummani and Another vs Mst. Amina Khatoon1986 PLD Karachi 94 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Murtaza ALl Khan vs The State1986 PLD Karachi 121 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1052 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar vs Mehr Dil1986 P Cr. L J 1977 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Hussain vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 781 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ali vs The State1986 MLD 1809 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad, Riaz vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2233 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs The State1986 PLD Karachi 26 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid Hussain and 11 others vs Messrs National Sanitary1986 MLD 1371 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf vs Khuda Bakhsh1986 MLD 1679 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs The State1986 MLD 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs The State and another1986 P Cr. L J 1246 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-04
  bail cancellationthird proviso to Section 497successive bail applicationsjudicial improprietystatutory delayaggregation of detentionmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This application sought the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 by an Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner challenged the order on three grounds: the impropriety of entertaining a third bail application on identical grounds after two prior rejections; the non-aggregation of detention periods; and the inclusion of delay caused by the accused’s own adjournments in the statutory calculation. The Court held that entertaining successive bail applications on the same grounds without new circumstances constitutes judicial impropriety and such applications should be dismissed in limine. Regarding the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court affirmed that while interrupted periods of detention can be aggregated for the purpose of the two-year requirement, the benefit of the proviso is unavailable if the trial delay is attributable to the accused's own acts or omissions. Consequently, the Court cancelled the bail, finding that the trial delay was partly caused by the accused, and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within four months.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Sessions Court entertain a third bail application on the same grounds after two previous applications have been dismissed?
  • Can interrupted periods of detention be aggregated to satisfy the two-year requirement under the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should delays in trial caused by the accused's own requests for adjournments be deducted when calculating the two-year period for bail under the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Baloch vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1415 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Mrs. Muhammad Mohsin and 5 another1986 MLD 342 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus vs Salim Raza and another1986 P Cr. L J 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yawar Khan vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1871 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The State--Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 2985 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqeenuddin vs S. Akhtar Hussain Zaidi1986 MLD 2771 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin vs The State1986 MLD 1078 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin vs Ghulam Rasool1986 MLD 1341 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The State1986 MLD 1810 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →