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.

• ABDULLAH/Complainant vs Din Muhammad Shah and 4 Other Opponent1976 PLD Karachi 1184 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-04Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Din Muhammad Shah and 4 OTHERSOpponent/1976 PLD Karachi 1184 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Bhatti and Another vs Government of Sind through Secretary, Ministry Of Health, Karachi and Another1976 PLD Karachi 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and 6 mums vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 945 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State1976 PLD Karachi 762 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-08
  criminal breach of trusthandwriting expertadmissibility of confessionperson in authoritymisappropriationevidence evaluationprevention of corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a Sub-Overseer at the Karachi Municipal Corporation, for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a handwriting expert’s opinion versus eyewitness testimony and the admissibility of a confession made to a departmental officer. The prosecution alleged the appellant misappropriated a cheque intended for clearing agents by opening a fraudulent bank account. The Court held that the conviction was sound, dismissing the appeal. It established that an expert’s opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1872 is not conclusive proof and may be rebutted by overwhelming independent evidence from persons acquainted with the accused's handwriting. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a confession made to a person in authority is admissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act 1872 unless it is proven that the statement was obtained through inducement, threat, or promise, thereby establishing that the burden of proving involuntariness lies with the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is the opinion of a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1872 conclusive proof of the facts stated therein?
  • Can a confession made to a departmental officer be considered voluntary and admissible in evidence?
  • Does the burden of proving that a confession was involuntary lie with the prosecution or the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Karachi Municipal Corporation through the Chief1976 PLD Karachi 508 · Sindh High Court · 1957-01-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Abdul Razzak and 2 Others1976 P Cr. L J 116 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Jan Muhammad and Another1976 PLD Karachi 640 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Jan Muhammad Ahd Another1976 PLD Karachi 640 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim and Another vs Abdul Ghafoor and Another1976 PLD Karachi 504 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-25
  partnership dissolutionappointment of receivercivil revisionwinding upattachment before judgmentrendition of accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged the appointment of a Receiver in a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and rendition of accounts. The petitioners argued that a prior application for attachment before judgment, which included an alternative prayer for a Receiver, precluded the subsequent application for the appointment of a Receiver. The Court rejected this contention, finding no legal bar to filing a separate, subsequent application for a Receiver. The core legal question concerned whether the appointment of a Receiver was "just and convenient" following the admitted dissolution of the partnership. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that once a partnership is dissolved, the appointment of a Receiver is a matter of course to facilitate the winding-up process. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that any delay or obstruction in winding up the partnership business constitutes sufficient grounds to warrant such an appointment. Finding that the impugned orders adhered to judicial principles, the Court dismissed the revision application, thereby upholding the appointment of the Receiver to manage the dissolution and accounting process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party file a subsequent application for the appointment of a Receiver if a prior application containing an alternative prayer for a Receiver was filed?
  • Is the appointment of a Receiver a matter of course upon the dissolution of a partnership?
  • Do delay and obstruction in the winding-up of a partnership business constitute sufficient grounds for the appointment of a Receiver?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hai vs Messrs S. N. M. Industries, Karachi and Anufher1976 PLC 723 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghapoor and 2 Other vs The State1976 PLD Karachi 986 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and 3 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1462 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-17
  murderocular evidencecorroborationinterested witnessjoint recoverybenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by four appellants against their conviction under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, who sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellants attacked the deceased with hatchets due to prior blood enmity, witnessed by three ocular witnesses. The High Court analyzed the evidentiary value of the ocular testimony, noting that one co-accused had already been acquitted on the same evidence and that the witnesses were interested. Applying established legal principles, the court held that where ocular evidence is unreliable or doubtful regarding one accused, it cannot sustain the conviction of co-accused without independent, unimpeachable corroborative evidence. The court found that the medical evidence contradicted the witness accounts of four simultaneous hatchet attacks, the failure to secure items bought by the witnesses cast doubt on their presence, and the joint recovery of hatchets from buried land was inadmissible against individual accused. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted all four appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the ocular evidence of interested witnesses which has already been found unreliable as to one co-accused without independent corroboration?
  • Whether joint recoveries of crime weapons made at the pointation of multiple accused persons are admissible in evidence against them?
  • What degree of independent corroborative evidence is required to sustain a capital charge when ocular testimony originates from interested witnesses and lacks physical connection to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and 2 Others vs The State1976 PLD Karachi 986 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Secretary. Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee and 13 Other1976 PLD Karachi 701 · Sindh High Court · 1975-01-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Secretary, Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee and 13 Others1976 PLD Karachi 701 · Sindh High Court · 1975-01-14Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Hussain vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 473 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-30Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Hussain vs The State--1975 P Cr. L J 473 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-30Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ullah Khan vs Fahimuddin Khokar and Another1975 P Cr. L J 494 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ullah Khan vs Fah Imuddin Khokar and Another1975 P Cr. L J 494 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmad Khan vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1300 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-07Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 63 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-20Read full judgment →
• Uris and 6 Othetrs vs The State-1975 P Cr. L J 945 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-26Read full judgment →
• Umar and 4 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1389 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-08Read full judgment →
• Tooh vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 440 · Sindh High Court · 1973-07-18
  murdercapital sentenceretracted judicial confessionocular testimonybenefit of the doubtmotiverecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Darya Khatoon, which was referred to the Sindh High Court along with a murder reference under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the appellant murdered the deceased due to a grudge arising from her refusal to let the appellant marry her daughter. Upon appeal and reference, the High Court evaluated the ocular testimony, judicial confession, and recovery evidence. The court found the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses unreliable due to distance and contradictions, ruled out the retracted judicial confession recorded after a delay, and rejected the recovery of the hatchet due to procedural flaws and lack of credible corroboration. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction and sentence, and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses situated at a considerable distance during agricultural work can be safely relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Whether a delay of over twenty-four hours in recording a judicial confession renders it fatal to its acceptance?
  • Whether the recovery of a weapon produced before formal arrest satisfies the legal requirements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted judicial confession and a weak motive when ocular and circumstantial evidence fail?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad1975 P Cr. L J 1374 · Sindh High Court · 1975-06-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Jan Muhammad and 3 Others1975 P Cr. L J 1257 · Sindh High Court · 1975-07-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Fakir Muhammad and Another1975 P Cr. L J 571 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Fakir Muhammad and and-Tim1975 P Cr. L J 571 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdullah1975 P Cr. L J 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-16Read full judgment →
• The State through the Additional Advocate General, West Pakistan &1975 P Cr. L J 105 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-12Read full judgment →
• The State through 1118 Additional Advocategeneral, West Pakistan &1975 P Cr. L J 105 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Naim Hyder vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 213 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Mahmood Hussain vs Sind Labour Court No. 4. Karachi And Another1975 PLC 546 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sunder Das vs The State and Another1975 P Cr. L J 511 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-23Read full judgment →
• Sunder Das vs The State and Another-1975 P Cr. L J 511 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-23Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1031 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• State vs Shahan and ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 630 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-31Read full judgment →
• State vs Shahan and Another1975 P Cr. L J 630 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-31Read full judgment →
• State through Advocategeneral (Sind) and Exofficio Public1975 P Cr. L J 70 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate General (Sind) and Ex Officio Public1975 P Cr. L J 70 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Wasiuddin Ahmad1975 P Cr. L J 707 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-05Read full judgment →
• Stanley Young and 3 Others vs Deputy Commissioner, Karachi and 21975 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-02Read full judgment →
• Sind Road Transport Corporation And 2 Other vs Staff Union And 21975 PLC 361 · Sindh High Court
  administration of the Stateroad transport corporationindustrial disputeLabour Court jurisdictionaward versus decisionstatutory corporation employeesappealability
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petition filed by the Sind Road Transport Corporation challenging an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which held that the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain applications filed by the respondent workers' Union under sections 32 and 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The petitioners contended that Corporation employees were employed in the 'administration of the State' and thereby excluded from the Ordinance under section 1(3), and further argued that the Labour Court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was an unappealable decision rather than an award. The High Court dismissed the petition. It held that 'administration of the State' must be narrowly construed to cover only core executive, regal, or sovereign functions of government, and does not extend to statutory commercial corporations. The Court further held that while an order under section 34 is an unappealable decision, an order disposing of an industrial dispute under section 32 on jurisdictional grounds constitutes an appealable award under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of a statutory road transport corporation are persons 'employed in the administration of the State' under section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Does an order of a Labour Court dismissing an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 constitute an appealable award or a final unappealable decision?
  • Whether a Labour Court's dismissal of an application relating to an industrial dispute under section 32 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction amounts to an appealable award?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddik vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 353 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali and 4 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1410 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-28Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin vs The State and 2 Others- Respondents1975 P Cr. L J 1448 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-18Read full judgment →
• Sham Muhammad vs The State-Opponent1975 P Cr. L J 293 · Sindh High Court · 1975-02-27Read full judgment →
• Shahidul Haq alias Moto vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 409 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-10Read full judgment →
• Shahidul Haq Alias Moto vs The State--1975 P Cr. L J 409 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-10Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 179 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-08Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 587 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-27Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs The State-Opponent1975 P Cr. L J 293 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-27Read full judgment →
• Seth Akbar Ali and Another vs Sirichand and Another1975 P Cr. L J 704 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-30Read full judgment →
• Seth Akbar Ali and Another vs Sirichand and Another-1975 P Cr. L J 704 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-30Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 552 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-07Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmad and Another vs The State and Another1975 P Cr. L J 552 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-07Read full judgment →
• Sardar Hussain vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 825 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-08Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Mir and 2 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 532 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-08Read full judgment →
• Saijad Mir and 2 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 532 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-08Read full judgment →
• Saboo and 6 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 227 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-04Read full judgment →
• Sabir vs The State and Another-Opponents1975 P Cr. L J 222 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-08Read full judgment →
• Sabir vs The State and Another---Opponents1975 P Cr. L J 222 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-08Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali and 3 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 450 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-16Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali and 3 Others vs The State and Another1975 P Cr. L J 450 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-16Read full judgment →
• Rukanuddin vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 189 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-16Read full judgment →
• Raziqdino vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 590 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-12Read full judgment →
• Raziqdino vs The State--1975 P Cr. L J 590 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-12Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1379 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-07Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1210 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-09Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs The State-1975 P Cr. L J 1202 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-23Read full judgment →
• Qamar Ali vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 797 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-15Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Mehmud vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 103 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-19Read full judgment →
• Qaim and Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1434 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-03Read full judgment →
• Piyare Muhammad vs The State and ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 816 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-23Read full judgment →
• Pinyo and 3 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-23Read full judgment →
• Paroo and 3 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 540 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-11Read full judgment →
• Pak News Ltd. vs Sind Labour Court No. 2, Karachi And 2 Others1975 PLC 802 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-22Read full judgment →
• P. W. Railway, Lahore vs Qutubuddin1975 PLC 310 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Alias Noorul vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-30
  quashing of proceedingsgood behavior securitypreventive proceedingscriminal procedureprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to quash proceedings initiated against the applicant under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate upon a report by the Station House Officer. The core legal questions involved the legality of initiating proceedings and issuing process without first complying with the mandatory requirement of passing an order under section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether a vague police report citing general reputation and past crime numbers without specific instances or local witnesses sustains such proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the proceedings were void ab initio and misconceived due to procedural irregularities and a defective police report, noting that a belated order under section 112 cannot cure initial defects. The court laid down the principle that the liberty of a subject cannot be jeopardized on vague police reports, and mandatory statutory procedures under preventive provisions must be strictly adhered to.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings initiated under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a prior or contemporaneous order under section 112 are void ab initio?
  • Can a belated order under section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cure the initial illegality of proceedings?
  • Does a police report lacking specific instances of criminal acts and local witnesses justify initiating preventive proceedings under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed Qadri vs Jamil Ahmed and Another1975 P Cr. L J 75 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-20Read full judgment →
• Nawazish Ali vs The State and Another1975 P Cr. L J 510 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-17Read full judgment →
• Nawazish Ali vs The State and Another-1975 P Cr. L J 510 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
• Nawab vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 237 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-07Read full judgment →
• National Shipping Corporation vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others1975 PLC1 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan, Peoples' Federation vs National Industrial1975 PLC 56 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nasreen Begum and 3 Others vs Muhammad Younis and Another1975 P Cr. L J 647 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-13Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed vs The State--1975 P Cr. L J 526 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-28Read full judgment →
• Naseeb Khan and 2 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-29Read full judgment →
• Naeemuddin Khan vs The State and ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-26Read full judgment →
• Nabu vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 96 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-19Read full judgment →
• Nabu vs The State-1975 P Cr. L J 96 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhamniad Afzal vs The State-Opponent1975 P Cr. L J 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1267 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Soofan vs The State and 2 Others1975 P Cr. L J 255 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Soofan vs The State and 2 Others-----1975 P Cr. L J 255 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddik vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Syed vs The State and 3 Others1975 P Cr. L J 101 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Syed vs The State and 3 Others--1975 P Cr. L J 101 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-03Read full judgment →