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 Tufail And Others vs The State and another1986 P Cr. L J 2749 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-29
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictioncriminal breach of trustcheatingcivil vs criminal liabilitymens reabreach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application sought the quashment of proceedings pending before a Magistrate regarding a direct complaint filed under sections 406, 409, and 420/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the petitioner first exhausting the remedy under section 249-A, and whether a failure to supply goods after receiving payment constitutes a criminal offence or a civil breach of contract. The Court held that while approaching the trial court under section 249-A is generally proper, the High Court may entertain a section 561-A application directly in appropriate cases. On the merits, the Court quashed the proceedings, ruling that the dispute was essentially civil in nature. It established the principle that a mere failure to perform a contract or return advance payments, absent evidence of mens rea or dishonest intention at the time of the transaction, does not satisfy the ingredients of criminal breach of trust or cheating.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court entertain an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 directly without the petitioner first exhausting the remedy under section 249-A?
  • Does the failure to supply goods after receiving payment constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the inherent power of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 wider in scope than the powers of a Magistrate under section 249-A?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sulleman vs Mst. Maharunisa and another1986 MLD 237 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 325 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs The State1986 MLD 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs S.M. Enamal Haq and another1986 MLD 912 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Nizam-Ur-Rehman Siddiqui1986 MLD 1674 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Abdul Shakoor and 2 others1986 MLD 1515 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaffi vs The State1986 PLD Karachi 647 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 412 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh vs Abdullah And Another1986 P Cr. L J 2599 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh And Another vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 67 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Mst. Parveen Akhtar and another1986 MLD 1307 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar Chaudhary vs The State1986 MLD 1849 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Roshan vs Deputy Commissioner and Additional1986 MLD 837 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1986 PLD Karachi 567 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Raja Abdul Munaf and another1986 P Cr. L J 2511 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Bhatti vs K. D. A. through Its Secretary and Another1986 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court
  rejection of plaintpermanent injunctiongovernment departmentstatutory corporationKarachi Development AuthoritySpecific Relief Actpublic duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenges the concurrent orders of the lower courts rejecting the applicant's plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for permanent injunction against the Karachi Development Authority and an Assistant Commissioner. The trial and appellate courts had rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877, viewing the respondents as government departments. The core legal question was whether the Karachi Development Authority and an individual government officer (Assistant Commissioner) constitute a "Department of the Government" under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877 so as to bar injunctive relief. The Sindh High Court held that neither the Karachi Development Authority, being a corporate body established under President's Order V of 1957, nor individual government functionaries like the Assistant Commissioner constitute a "Department" of the federal or provincial government under Section 56(d). The Court ruled that individual officers and statutory corporations are distinct entities from government departments, and injunctions may lie against them if their actions are alleged to be illegal, without jurisdiction, or mala fide. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Karachi Development Authority constitutes a Department of the Government under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Can individual government officers or functionaries be considered a 'Department of the Government' for the purpose of immunity from injunctions under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the basis of facts and documents introduced by the defendant through affidavits without relying solely on the averments in the plaint?
  • Whether a plaint can be rejected in part against only one of several co-defendants for want of statutory notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Messrs Fikree Development Corporation1986 MLD 1297 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rais and 6 others vs Haji Ni2 Amuddin and another1986 MLD 326 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1055 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1100 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Messrs Karachi Gymkhana Through Its Secretary1986 PLC 868 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and another vs The State1986 MLD 2638 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2523 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nuruddin Qureshi represented by Legal Heirs and otherss vs Badrul Hassan1986 MLD 1437 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and 3 others1986 MLD 570 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1414 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir And 7 Others vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1812 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustafa vs Syed Muhammad Yusuf1986 PLD Karachi 100 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murad vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 64 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtazali And Another vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1423 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moosa vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 578 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-05
  bail applicationSpecial CourtOffences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984jurisdiction of High Courtpre-trial bailCode of Criminal Procedure 1898
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for bail filed in the High Court by an accused facing trial before a Special Court (Banks). The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to grant bail under sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the pendency of a trial before a Special Court, given the restrictive language of section 10 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984. The Court held that the High Court retains the power to grant bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while the trial is pending. The ratio of the decision is that the bar on jurisdiction contained in section 10 of the Ordinance applies exclusively to appeals against sentences passed by the Special Court, not to pre-conviction proceedings. The Court established the principle that because a Special Court is empowered to grant bail, the High Court concurrently retains its inherent jurisdiction to grant bail during the pendency of the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to grant bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to an accused facing trial before a Special Court?
  • Does the bar on jurisdiction in section 10 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 apply to bail applications filed during the pendency of a trial?
  • Is the power to grant bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 available to an accused facing trial in a Special Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moosa and another vs The State and another1986 MLD 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohsin vs The State1986 MLD 1798 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malook Mangsi vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2764 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahmood vs Fazalur Rehman1986 MLD 902 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahfooz vs Collector of Customs (Preventive), Customs1986 PLD Karachi 28 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-21
  constitutional petitionsearch and seizuresearch without warrantterritorial jurisdictionCustoms Act 1969confiscation of goodsgrounds of beliefburden of proofsmuggling
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 challenged the search, seizure, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalty by customs authorities. The primary legal questions were whether customs officers possessed territorial jurisdiction to search premises situated outside their designated port limits, whether mandatory requirements for conducting a search without warrant under Section 163 of the Customs Act 1969 were fulfilled, and whether the burden of proving lawful import rested on the petitioner. The High Court declared the search, seizure, and subsequent adjudication orders illegal and without lawful authority. The Court held that customs officers cannot exercise search and seizure powers beyond their notified territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, under Section 163 of the Customs Act 1969, an officer conducting a search without warrant must apply their mind and explicitly record written grounds of belief regarding both the presence of contraband and the danger of immediate removal before search. Failure to satisfy these statutory safeguards renders the search invalid. Regarding onus, the Court clarified that under Section 187, the burden of proving lawful import and duty payment rested on the person in possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can customs officers lawfully exercise powers of search and seizure outside their notified territorial jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure to record written grounds of belief regarding the danger of removal of goods invalidate a search without warrant under Section 163 of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie under Section 187 of the Customs Act 1969 when a question arises as to the lawful import and payment of duty on seized goods?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahfooz vs Collector Of Customs (Preventive), CustomPTCL 1986 CL. 270 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ji vs Muhammad Akhtar1986 MLD 2510 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil And Another vs The State---Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 462 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaffar vs Mst. Khairan and 6 others1986 MLD 306 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Abdul Sattarr and another1986 MLD 1814 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2237 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs Salimullah1986 MLD 910 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Alam vs The State and 3 others1986 MLD 2813 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Alias Bali vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 420 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imtiaz vs Abdul Aziz and another1986 MLD 1630 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 344 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17
  criminal revisionrevisional jurisdictionFederal Shariat Courtjurisdiction barProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979maintainability of revisionHudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed before the High Court of Sindh by the applicant, who was sent up for trial before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The applicant sought to set aside the order taking cognizance and requested that the case be tried by a Magistrate of the First Class. The core legal question before the High Court was whether it retained revisional jurisdiction over cases relating to the enforcement of Hudood following the insertion of Article 203-DD into the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The High Court held that under Article 203-DD read with Article 203-G of the Constitution, revisional jurisdiction in respect of any case decided or proceedings pending before any criminal court under any law relating to the enforcement of Hudood is exclusively vested in the Federal Shariat Court. Consequently, the High Court held that the revision application was not maintainable before it and dismissed the application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a revision application in a case relating to the enforcement of Hudood after the insertion of Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether Article 203-DD read with Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 confers exclusive revisional jurisdiction on the Federal Shariat Court in Hudood matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas And Another vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1630 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idris and another vs Mst. Saeeda Amin and another1986 MLD 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain And Another vs The State and another1986 P C r. L J 1198 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Alias Mulla vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 337 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan vs The State and 8 others-1986 P Cr. L J 470 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 422 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon vs Deputy Commissioner (East), Karachi and 111986 MLD 2933 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon and another vs F.Y. & Brothers and another1986 MLD 930 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanna N vs S.M. Amman1986 MLD 1331 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Mumtaz Ahmad1986 PLD Karachi 16 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-12
  Pagrigoodwillejectmentpersonal needrent restrictionlandlord-tenant relationshipestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal challenged an ejectment order granted on the ground of personal bona fide need under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether a landlord who has accepted 'Pagri' (goodwill) from a tenant is legally entitled to seek eviction under the provisions of the said Ordinance. The Court held that the acceptance of 'Pagri' constitutes a violation of Section 7 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which prohibits the demand or acceptance of premiums or fines in addition to rent. Consequently, such an agreement is unenforceable under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, as it is forbidden by law. The Court established the principle that a landlord who accepts 'Pagri' creates a relationship distinct from the standard landlord-tenant relationship contemplated by the Ordinance, thereby disentitling the landlord from seeking relief, including eviction, under the Ordinance. The impugned eviction order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord who has accepted 'Pagri' seek eviction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does the acceptance of 'Pagri' by a landlord violate the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Is an agreement involving 'Pagri' enforceable under the Contract Act, 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and others vs D.B.Ghadialy and another1986 MLD 913 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haiiif vs The State1986 MLD 1730 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habibullah And Another vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 95 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooque and another vs The State1986 MLD 1853 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din Shah vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 636 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The Federal Government of Pakistan and 4 others1986 MLD 81 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Shadir vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 213 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Khan And Another vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1541 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub alias Lakhpati vs The State1986 MLD 2912 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Abdul Hamid Khan1986 MLD 995 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Siddiqui vs Mst. Hasina Begum1986 MLD 735 · Sindh High Court · 1958-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2804 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Shami vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1809 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Butt vs Mrs. a Bi Da Sa La Hud Din alias Benish H1986 MLD 1750 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 656 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and another vs Government of Sind through Secretary, Home Department and 2 others1986 MLD 1440 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-18
  constitutional petitiondisputed questions of factvehicle seizureinterim custodycivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking the release of a motor vehicle seized by the police following a dispute over its ownership and possession between the petitioners and respondent No. 3. The core legal question was whether disputed questions of fact regarding the ownership and seizure of a vehicle can be resolved through constitutional jurisdiction when a civil suit and a magistrate's application are already pending. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petition raises disputed questions of fact that cannot be enquired into under Article 199, especially when the title of the vehicle is the subject-matter of a pending civil suit and an application for interim custody is already before the criminal court. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction will not be invoked to resolve disputed factual controversies regarding property ownership or to direct the delivery of possession when alternative remedies through civil and criminal courts are available and pending.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the ownership and seizure of a vehicle be resolved under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether a constitutional petition for the recovery of a seized vehicle is maintainable when a civil suit concerning its title is already pending?
  • Is it appropriate for the High Court to grant possession of property through a constitutional petition when rival claims of custody are raised by private parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alim vs Ahmed Mian1986 MLD 1610 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alias Jhari vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2535 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2528 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Mst. Habiba and 6 others1986 MLD 1291 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Deputy Commissioner, Dadu and 2 others1986 MLD 1506 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam And Another vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1827 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Another vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 207 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs Rana Muhammad Rafique1986 MLD 1759 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs Pakistan And Another1986 PLC 788 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal, S.H.O. vs Abdul Hafeez Qazi And Another1986 P Cr. L J 1651(2) · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adam vs The State and 10 others1986 MLD 1224 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-07Read full judgment →
• Mubashir vs Badshah Hussain1986 MLD 1634 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Begum vs Wilayatullah and 4 others1986 MLD 99 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tasneem Bano Usmani vs Mst. Akhtar Sultana and 6 others1986 MLD 325 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Swaleha Khatoon vs The Trustees of Hussaini Trust1986 MLD 249 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Khatoon vs Collector and D.C. East, Karachi and another1986 MLD 186 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwat Jehan Begum vs Syed Usman and another1986 MLD 243 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salma Bi and 11 others vs Ephrahim Joseph and another1986 MLD 1644 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadiqa Begum Waheeduddin vs Crescent Pak Industries Ltd. and another1986 MLD 1788 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabra Khatoon through her Legal Heirs vs Additional Deputy1986 MLD 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Robina Shamim vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1588 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raisa Begum vs Muhammad Hussain and 3 others1986 MLD 1418 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rahiman vs Mst. Shahjahan through her Legal Heirs1986 MLD 296 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rahat Parwin vs Mir Shaukat Faizi1986 MLD 238 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Sultana vs Muhammad Yousuf Qureshi1986 MLD 909 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →