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.

• Haji Ghulani Hussain Alias Sharbat Khan vs The State1976 PLD Karachi 1160 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Hussain alias Sharbat Khan vs Tee State1976 PLD Karachi 1160 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-15Read full judgment →
• Haider Ali vs Khuda Dino and Another1976 P Cr. L J 195 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-18
  quashment of proceedingscriminal breach of trustabuse of process of courtcivil liabilitypromissory noteinherent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of proceedings pending before the Resident Magistrate, Tando Adam, arising from a direct complaint for an offence under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the facts stated in the complaint disclosed an offence of criminal breach of trust or merely constituted a civil dispute arising from a business loan secured by a promissory note, and whether continuing the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. The Sindh High Court held that the transaction was a pure business loan and that the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were absent. The court laid down the principle that initiating criminal proceedings to enforce a civil liability or to coerce a party through pressure, where no criminal offence is disclosed, constitutes a clear abuse of the process of the court warranting quashment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Do the facts of a case disclosing a pure business loan and a promissory note constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust?
  • Whether criminal proceedings initiated merely to enforce a civil liability amount to an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any offence under the Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Hanif vs Niazuddin1976 PLD Karachi 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-29Read full judgment →
• Hadi Bux and Another vs The State1976 PLD Karachi 4 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-14Read full judgment →
• H. Rashiduddin and 2 Others vs Muhammad Habib and 2 Others1976 PLD Karachi 142 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
• H. Rashiduddin and 2 Other vs Muhammad Habib and 2 Other1976 PLD Karachi 142 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
• Gullan and 2 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
• Gulf Iran Co. and Another vs Pakistan Refinery Ltd. and Others1976 PLD Karachi 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
• Gulf Iran Co. and Another vs Pakistan Refinery Ltd. and Other1976 PLD Karachi 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1975-06-25Read full judgment →
• Gul Bahar vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 593 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 615 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rabbani Butt and 5 Others vs Pakistan International Airlines1976 PLD Karachi 363 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1332 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
• Foot Note}} Muhammad Azam Khan vs State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi1976 PLD Karachi 778 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-03Read full judgment →
• Foot Note}} Hotel Intercontinental, Karachi vs VTH Sind Labour1976 PLD Karachi 301 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-09
  industrial relationsgrievance noticeillegal strikedomestic enquiryreinstatementback benefitsjurisdiction of labour court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V, which directed the reinstatement of several workers with full back benefits after setting aside the decision of the Junior Labour Court. The core legal questions involved whether a grievance notice under Section 25-A(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is mandatory for all employment termination applications, whether subsection (6) of the said section provides a permanent alternative option bypassing the grievance notice, and to what extent a Labour Court can scrutinize the findings of a domestic enquiry. The High Court held that the mandatory requirement of serving a grievance notice under Section 25-A(1) applies to all cases not specifically covered by the transitional timeline of subsection (6), making the workers' applications before the Junior Labour Court incompetent due to non-compliance. It further held that Labour Courts cannot act as appellate courts to re-examine findings of valid domestic enquiries without plausible reasons or patent irregularities. The petition was consequently allowed and the impugned reinstatement order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service of a grievance notice under Section 25-A(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is mandatory before approaching a Junior Labour Court?
  • Does subsection (6) of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 provide an perpetual alternative option allowing workers to bypass the grievance notice requirement at any time?
  • To what extent can a Labour Court scrutinize or interfere with the findings of a domestic enquiry conducted by an employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Foot Note}} Chhappar Khan and Another vs The Chief Land1976 PLD Karachi 747 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-11
  Martial Law Regulation 64part performancebar of jurisdictionland reformswrit jurisdictiontransfer of propertylessee possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the orders of the Chief Land Commissioner, which declared a land transaction invalid under Martial Law Regulation 64. The petitioners claimed ownership based on an agreement of sale and argued that their possession constituted part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The core legal questions were whether the petitioners’ possession, initially held as lessees, satisfied the requirements of part performance to validate the transaction, and whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to review the Land Commissioner's decision despite the statutory bar. The Court held that the petitioners failed to establish part performance, as their possession remained referable to their status as lessees rather than the contract of sale, and no acts were done in furtherance of the contract. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Land Commissioner's order was within the scope of the Regulation, thereby attracting the bar of jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the judiciary cannot interfere with decisions made by authorities acting within their lawful jurisdiction under the Martial Law Regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the continued possession of a lessee constitute part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 in the absence of acts done in furtherance of a contract of sale?
  • Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to review an order passed by an authority under Martial Law Regulation 64 if the order is within the scope of the Regulation?
  • Is the payment of price a sine qua non for the completion of a sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• Foot Note}} Ahmad Hadi Shah and micas vs Rashid Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi and Another1976 PLD Karachi 799 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-17Read full judgment →
• First National City Bank; Karachi vs Income-Tax Officer, Karachi and Another1976 PTD 174 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• First National City Bank, Karachi vs Incometax Officer, Karachi and Another1976 PLD Karachi 552 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-07Read full judgment →
• First National City Bank, Karachi vs Income 'Fax Officer, Karachi and Another1976 PLD Karachi 552 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-07Read full judgment →
• Fazal Elahee vs Province of Sind and Another1976 P Cr. L J 634 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-04Read full judgment →
• Farid Majid and Another vs Mohammad Nawab1976 PLD Karachi 891 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-09
  arbitration awardcivil procedureappeal competencysuo motu revisionburden of prooflimitation perioddismissal for want of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal seeks to question the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge dismissing an application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for want of evidence under Order XVII, rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal questions involve the competency of an appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against such a dismissal, the exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and the legality of treating an arbitration application as an ordinary suit. The court held that an appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is not competent against an order merely dismissing an application for want of evidence rather than setting aside an award, but elected to treat the memo of appeal as a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The key principles laid down include that the trial court must follow the procedure prescribed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 rather than ordinary suit procedures, that the burden to challenge an award lies on the objector, and that the High Court may suo motu exercise revisional powers notwithstanding limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is competent against an order dismissing an application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for want of evidence?
  • Can the time spent prosecuting an appeal in a wrong court due to counsel's mistake be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Whether a trial court can follow the procedure of an ordinary suit when dealing with an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can the High Court treat an incompetent memo of appeal as a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 suo motu?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Najmuddin Abdul Ali vs The Capital Development Authority, Rawal1976 PLD Karachi 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-03Read full judgment →
• Employees' Welfare Union vs R. B. Industries Ltd., Karachi and Another1976 PLD Karachi 297 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-30
  cost of living allowancebasic salaryindustrial settlementlabour lawwrit jurisdictionerror of lawstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges the decision of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding whether a wage increase granted to workers via a settlement dated 15th May 1974 constituted a 'cost of living allowance' or a general increase in basic salary. The core legal question was whether this increase, which the employer argued was intended to offset statutory cost-of-living relief, fell under the proviso to Section 8 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973. The Court held that the settlement explicitly designated the increase as an addition to the 'basic monthly salary' rather than cost-of-living relief. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the Explanation to Section 8, added by the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Act, 1974, mandates that wage increases not specifically designated as cost-of-living relief cannot be deemed as such. Consequently, the Tribunal’s failure to consider this statutory Explanation constituted an error of law patent on the record. The Court ruled that the increase was a basic salary adjustment, not cost-of-living relief, and set aside the Tribunal's decision as being without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does a wage increase granted in a settlement constitute a 'cost of living allowance' if not explicitly designated as such?
  • Can the High Court interfere with an administrative tribunal's decision if there is an error of law patent on the record?
  • Under the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, what constitutes an increase intended to provide relief due to a rise in the cost of living?
  Read full judgment →
• Eastern Federal Union Insurance Workers' Union, Karachi vs VT H Sind1976 PLD Karachi 274 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-23Read full judgment →
• Eastern Federal Union Insurance Workers Union, Karachi vs VTH Sind1976 PLC 256 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-23Read full judgment →
• DR. Zubeda Hamid Ali Trust through Its Trustees vs Additional1976 PLD Karachi 777 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-09Read full judgment →
• DR. Zubeda Hamid Ali Trust through Irs Trustees vs Additional1976 PLD Karachi 777 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-09Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan and 3 Others1976 PLD Karachi 1078 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan and 3 Other1976 PLD Karachi 1078 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 137 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-19Read full judgment →
• Dildar Shah vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 232 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-19Read full judgment →
• Dewan Textile Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan and Others1976 PLD Karachi 1368 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dewan Textile Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan and Other1976 PLD Karachi 1368 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-22Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner, Karachi vs Umer and 23 Others1976 PLD Karachi 614 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner, Karachi vs Umer and 23 Other1976 PLD Karachi 614 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
• Delhi Jamiatul Quraish vs Karachi Municipal Corporation, Karachi1976 PLD Karachi 865 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-05Read full judgment →
• Crescent Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan and 21976 PLD Karachi 732 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-25Read full judgment →
• Cooperative Development Funds and Projects through ns Project1976 PLD Karachi 808 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-12
  fair rentunregistered firmpartnership actrent controllerquasi-judicialtenant definitionmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from an application filed by an unregistered partnership firm under Section 4 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 seeking the fixation of fair rent. The landlord contested the application, arguing that the proceedings were barred under Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act 1932 because the firm was unregistered. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, but the District Judge reversed this decision on appeal. The High Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, holding that the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932 applies only to suits in civil courts to enforce contractual rights. The Court observed that a Rent Controller is a quasi-judicial authority and not a civil court, and that the right to seek fair rent is a statutory right under Section 4 of the Ordinance, not a contractual one. Additionally, the Court ruled that an unregistered firm falls within the definition of a 'tenant' under Section 2(i) of the Ordinance, read with the General Clauses Act, and is therefore competent to maintain such an application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act 1932 apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  • Is a Rent Controller considered a civil court for the purposes of applying the provisions of the Partnership Act 1932?
  • Does an application for the fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 constitute the enforcement of a right arising from a contract?
  • Can an unregistered partnership firm maintain an application for the fixation of fair rent as a 'tenant' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Incometax vs Messrs National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi1976 PLD Karachi 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Incometax vs Messrs Habib Bank (Overseas) Ltd.1976 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi1976 PTD 237 · Sindh High Court
  bad debtsincome taxbanking businessmethod of accountingreference applicationprofits and gains
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax reference case addresses whether a commercial bank is entitled to set off bad debts against its profits under section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, when utilizing a specific method of account-keeping prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue. The Income-tax Officer had disallowed the respondent bank's claims for bad debts across multiple assessment years, contending that maintaining a provision account and reversing entries upon unexpected recoveries rendered the write-off provisional rather than final. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision and allowed the claims. Upon a reference to the Sindh High Court, the Court held that the system of maintaining accounts in accordance with the Central Board of Revenue circular is proper, and the reversal of entries upon a subsequent windfall or recovery does not invalidate the initial write-off of a bad debt as irrecoverable. The Court laid down that a bank's method of accounting following official departmental guidelines cannot be penalized, and subsequent unexpected recoveries of written-off debts must properly be accounted for as profits in the year of realization rather than retroactively invalidating the deduction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim of an assessee on account of alleged bad debts was admissible within the meaning of section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, when accounts were maintained through a provision account system?
  • Whether a bank's claim for bad debts can be rejected merely because its system of accounts permits reversing entries upon the unexpected recovery of a debt?
  • Can the High Court resettle questions referred under section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to bring out the real controversies between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Choohar and 3 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 623 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-24Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator of Waqfs, West Pakistan Government, Lahore vs Sain Abdul Haq1976 PLD Karachi 845 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chibhar Machi vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 660 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-06Read full judgment →
• Chhappar Khan and Another vs The Chief Land Commissioner, WestPLD 1976. Karachi 747 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Haleem Ahmad vs The State and Others1976 P Cr. L J 709 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-23Read full judgment →
• Central Insurance Co. vs Khyber Textile Mills Ltd. and Others1976 PLD Karachi 540 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
• Central Insurance Co. vs Khyber Textile Mills Ltd. and Other1976 PLD Karachi 540 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
• Burmahshell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Excise & Taxation Officer, _L_ Division, Karachi and Another1976 PLD Karachi 1238 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-18Read full judgment →
• Burmah-Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi1976 PLD Karachi 1238 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-18Read full judgment →
• Beg Mohammad vs Mst. Iqbal Begum and 4 Others1976 PLD Karachi 888 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
• Beg Mohammad vs Mst. Iqbal Begum and 4 Other1976 PLD Karachi 888 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
• Beach Luxury Hotel Ltd. vs First Sind Labour Court, Rarachi and 81976 PLC 432 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-17Read full judgment →
• Beach Luxury Hotel Ltd. vs First Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 81976 PLD Karachi 787 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-17Read full judgment →
• Badruddin Hasan Farooqui through His 5 Legal Representatives vs Manghi Industrial Home1976 PLD Karachi 620 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-14
  rent evictionbona fide requirementdefault in renttentative rent orderpleadingslandlord-tenant disputestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an eviction application filed by the landlord against the respondent-tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The landlord sought possession on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement for his family. While the Rent Controller granted the application based on personal need, the first appellate authority reversed this decision, questioning the landlord's bona fides and noting a failure to plead the absence of other residential properties. The High Court held that a tentative rent order cannot serve as proof of default, which requires independent evidence. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the statutory requirement regarding the non-occupation of other suitable residential buildings is a matter of proof rather than a mandatory pleading requirement. The Court emphasized that the statute prohibits the occupation of other suitable premises, not merely the ownership of property. Consequently, the Court found the personal bona fide need established, set aside the appellate order, and restored the eviction decree, affirming that a prior demand for increased rent does not negate a proven bona fide requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tentative rent order be used as conclusive proof of default in rent payment?
  • Is a landlord required to specifically plead in the rent application that they do not occupy another suitable residential building?
  • Does a prior demand for increased rent invalidate a landlord's claim of personal bona fide requirement?
  • What is the distinction between 'having' a house and 'occupying' a residential building under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Australasia Bank Ltd./DecreeHolder vs Messrs Juma Khan Agha Javed1976 PLD Karachi 414 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-19Read full judgment →
• Aun Saieed Hashmi and Another vs The State and 2 Others1976 PLD Karachi 706 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-28Read full judgment →
• Aun Saieed Hashmi and Another vs The State and 2 Other1976 PLD Karachi 706 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-28Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Raja vs Duncan Stratton & Co. (U.K.) Ltd.1976 PLC 643 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Raja vs Duncan Stratton & Co. (U.K.) Ltd. and 21976 PLD Karachi 1096 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-15Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Raja vs Duncan Stratton & Co. (U.K.) Ltd. and 2 Other1976 PLD Karachi 1096 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
• Assistant Personnel Officer (Workshop), Pakistan Railways, Lahore1976 PLC 849 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-23Read full judgment →
• Asim Farooqui vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1261 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-14Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmed and Anothers vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 332 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-10Read full judgment →
• Asghar Husain and 6 Others vs Mst. Husan Ara and Another1976 PLD Karachi 885 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
• Asghar Husain and 6 Other vs Mst. Husan Ara and Another1976 PLD Karachi 885 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali and 3 Other vs Haji Khamiso and 3 Other1976 PLD Karachi 659 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali and 3 omERs vs Haji Khamiso and 3 Others1976 PLD Karachi 659 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
• Arsala Khan vs Province of Sind through Secretary, Government of Sind, Karachi and 3 Others1976 PLD Karachi 848 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-02Read full judgment →
• Arsala Khan vs Province of Sind through Secretary, Government of Sind, Karachi and 3 Other1976 PLD Karachi 848 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-02Read full judgment →
• Ark Ocean Lines Ltd. (a Private Co.), Karachi vs The Director of Industries & Mineral Development (Coal Control Wing) and Another1976 PLD Karachi 610 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-19Read full judgment →
• Ark Ocean Lines Ltd. (a Private Co.), Karachi vs The Director of Industries & Mineral Develop Ment (Coal' Control Wing) and Another1976 PLD Karachi 610 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-19Read full judgment →
• Arbab Shah and 3 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 40 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-16Read full judgment →
• Amreliwala Hardware Industries, Karachi vs Collectcr of Customs1976 PLD Karachi 196 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-23Read full judgment →
• Amnabai and 15 Others vs Abdul Wahid and 6 Others1976 PLD Karachi 824 · Sindh High Court · 1966-12-22Read full judgment →
• Amnabai and 15 Other vs Abdul Wahid and 6 Other1976 PLD Karachi 824 · Sindh High Court · 1966-12-22Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali vs Muhammad Hashim and 2 Others1976 PLD Karachi 857 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-09Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali vs Muhammad Hashim and 2 Other1976 PLD Karachi 857 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-09Read full judgment →
• Ameen Tareen vs The Settlement Commissioner, Karachi and 3 Others1976 PLD Karachi 668 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-23Read full judgment →
• Ameen Tareen vs The Settlement Commissioner, Karachi and 3 Other1976 PLD Karachi 668 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-23Read full judgment →
• Aludo alias Ali Bux vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 329 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-01
  murderright of private defenceself-defenceunlicensed firearmapprehension of dangerbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and section 13-D of the Arms Act 1965 for possession of an unlicensed firearm. The core legal question was whether the appellant acted in the right of private defence when he shot the deceased during a prolonged chase amidst strained relations and background enmity. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution version of an unprovoked initial attack followed by a mile-long chase was dubious, and that the deceased being armed with a hatchet and aggressively pursuing the appellant created a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger to life. The Court established that a person exercising the right of self-defence is not required to have sustained actual injuries before entertaining such apprehension, thereby extending the benefit of section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to the appellant, setting aside his murder conviction, while maintaining the conviction under the Arms Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused claiming the right of private defence must receive actual injuries before entertaining an apprehension of danger to life?
  • Does a determined pursuit of the accused by an armed complainant party in the background of enmity justify the exercise of the right of self-defence?
  • What is the legal effect of the non-production of an independent material witness by the prosecution during a murder trial?
  • Whether the conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable when the evidence establishes a valid plea of self-defence under section 100?
  Read full judgment →
• Allahdino vs The State1976 PLD Karachi 1202 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-18Read full judgment →
• Allah Obahyo and Another vs The State1976 PLD Karachi 260 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-28Read full judgment →
• All and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-08Read full judgment →
• Alimuddin alias Abdul Aleem and 2 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 485 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-03Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs The State1976 PLD Karachi 529 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-16Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1397 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad and 2 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 520 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State and 2 Others1976 P Cr. L J 43 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-26Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain vs District Magistrate and Tribunal, Karachi and Another1976 P Cr. L 7 127 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-23Read full judgment →
• Akram Moquim Ansari vs Mst. Asghari Begum1976 PLD Karachi 542 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-07Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ibrahim Shamsi vs Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi and Another1976 PLC 293 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hadi Shah vs Rashid Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi and Another1976 PLC 444 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-17Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hadi Shah and Other vs Rashid Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi and Another1976 PLD Karachi 799 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-17Read full judgment →
• Adloo alias Abdul Karim and 3 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 564 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-23Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs MRS. Afsar Jehan Siddiqui and Another1976 PLD Karachi 836 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-29Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs MR,. Afsar Jehan Siddiqui and Another1976 PLD Karachi 836 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-29Read full judgment →