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.

• Anar Khan vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1018 · Sindh High Court · 1975-02-18Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux and 2 Others vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1973-07-17Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 127 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-28Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 56 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-26Read full judgment →
• Ali Dost and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1094 · Sindh High Court · 1975-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ali Akber vs The State-Opponent1975 P Cr. L J 921 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-22Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs The State and ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-07Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali and Another vs Haji Suleman Ali Muhammad and Anuther1975 P Cr. L J 315 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali and Another vs Haji Suleman Ali Muhammad and Another1975 P Cr. L J 315 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-02Read full judgment →
• Agricultural Development Bank. of Pakistan, Karachi vs Staff Union1975 PLC 855 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Additional Advocate General & Ex Officio Public Prosecutor, Karachi vs Major Malik Muhammad Hanif and 4 Others1975 P Cr. L J 834 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-28Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 565 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-14Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs The State--1975 P Cr. L J 565 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-14Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The State and ANOTHERs1975 P Cr. L J 28 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The State and Another1975 P Cr. L J 28 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs The State1975 P Cr. L 1 163 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs The State Respondent1975 P Cr. L J 163 · Sindh High Court · 1975-02-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State-Opponent1975 P Cr. L J 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Shamshad Ali Jafri and 4 Others1975 P Cr. L J 158 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Shamshad Ali Jafri and 4 Others--1975 P Cr. L J 158 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1227 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1377 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir and Another vs Muhammad Raza and Another1975 P Cr. L J 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 897 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 515 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghan1 and 3 Others vs Muhammad Aslam and Another1975 P Cr. L J 558 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Alias Abdul Karim and Another vs The State1975 P Cr. L J 1077 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abbas vs Trot State1975 P Cr. L J 596 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-28Read full judgment →
• Abbas vs The State-1975 P Cr. L J 596 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-28Read full judgment →
• Wali Mohammad and Another vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 194 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-31Read full judgment →
• The State vs S. Ali Hussain and Another1974 PLD Karachi 403 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-16
  quashment of complaintsection 195 CrPCsection 476 CrPCforgery of documentsjudicial proceedingsbar to private complaintcognizance of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference was made by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, recommending the quashing of a criminal complaint filed by a private complainant against two accused under Sections 468, 471, 34, and 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the accused fraudulently obtained his signatures on blank papers and documents, which were subsequently used in a civil suit to obtain a compromise decree. The accused sought discharge under Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that a private complaint was barred under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because the alleged forged documents were produced and used in judicial proceedings.

  The High Court accepted the reference and quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Magistrate. The Court held that even if forgery was committed prior to the institution of civil proceedings, once the forged documents were produced and used in a court, the bar under Section 195(1)(c) read with Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies completely, excluding private prosecutions and empowering only the concerned civil court to file a complaint.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar under Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to documents forged prior to the institution of court proceedings if they are subsequently produced or used in court?
  • Can a private party maintain a criminal complaint for forgery when the forged document has been produced and used in a civil court proceeding?
  • What is the crucial date for determining whether a complaint by a court is necessary under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mahmood1974 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ashfaq Khan and 6 Other1974 PLD Karachi 146 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-27
  adulterycognizance of offencecomplaintSection 199 Cr.P.C.quashing proceedingsleave of courtdivorcecare and custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a reference from the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, recommending the quashing of a complaint filed under Section 497, Pakistan Penal Code, read with Sections 34 and 109, Pakistan Penal Code. The complaint, alleging adultery, was filed by Saeed Khan, who claimed care and custody of the woman on behalf of her husband. The core legal question was whether the Court could take cognizance of the offence, given the bar under Section 199, Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires a complaint by the husband or, in his absence, by a person having care of the woman with the leave of the Court. The High Court held that leave of the Court must be granted *before* cognizance is taken, not inferred from subsequent proceedings. It further noted that the woman was divorced in 1968, prior to the 1970 complaint, meaning she was not in the complainant's care on behalf of her husband. Consequently, the complaint was found to be barred by Section 199, Code of Criminal Procedure, and the proceedings were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • When must leave of the Court be obtained for a complaint under Section 199, Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Can leave of the Court under Section 199, Code of Criminal Procedure, be inferred from a Magistrate's subsequent actions?
  • Who is competent to file a complaint for an offence under Section 497, Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does a complaint for adultery remain valid if the woman was divorced prior to the complaint being filed?
  Read full judgment →
• The Controller of Estate Duty vs Sohrab Hommie Mehta1974 PLD Karachi 467 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-28Read full judgment →
• Tariq Shafaat vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 376 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahir Hassan Rizvi vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan1974 PLC 125 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Zaheer Ahmad Rizvi and Another vs The State through Advocate1974 PLD Karachi 477 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmed Mustafa vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 55 · Sindh High Court · 1974-11-12Read full judgment →
• Suleman and Other vs Smt. Asudi Bai1974 PLD Karachi 133 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-24Read full judgment →
• Standard Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karachi1974 PLC 138 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-07Read full judgment →
• Sony Kabushiki Kaisha, Japan vs The Assistant Registrar of TradePL D 1974 Karachi 136 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institute vs DR. Mumtaz Ali Taj and Another1974 PLC 73 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-15Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali and Another vs The State1974 PLD Karachi 179 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-17Read full judgment →
• Sharafuddin and 7 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 107 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-11Read full judgment →
• Shahoo and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 39 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-26Read full judgment →
• Samin Khan Bar at Law vs The State- Respondent1974 P Cr. L J 153 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-07Read full judgment →
• Saiyed Abu Miyan vs Haji Abdul Ghani and Another1974 PLD Karachi 39 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-06
  income-tax prioritysale proceedsexecution of decreerateable distributiongovernment debttax recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from execution proceedings where the Tax Recovering Officer filed a claim and notice under the Income-tax Act, 1922, seeking to recover income-tax and sales tax arrears from sale proceeds deposited with the nazir of the court. The decree-holder resisted the claim, arguing that the sale proceeds belonged exclusively to the decree-holders and creditors entitled to rateable distribution under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the Income-tax Department had no locus standi without a formal decree. The court held that government debts enjoy an independent right of priority saved by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the Income-tax Department could lawfully claim the undisputed debt directly from the funds deposited in court through statutory mechanisms without needing a separate decree. The key principle laid down is that undisputed government tax dues possess an independent right of priority and can be satisfied out of funds held by a court execution department pursuant to statutory recovery provisions, overriding exclusive rateable distribution among private decree-holders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sale proceeds of a judgment-debtor's property deposited in court belong to the judgment-debtor for the purpose of satisfying government tax dues?
  • Can the Income-tax Department claim priority and recover undisputed tax arrears from funds deposited in court without first obtaining a decree?
  • Does Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 preclude the government from asserting its independent right of priority for tax debts?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifee Development Corporation Ltd., Karachi vs M. A. Karim1974 PLD Karachi 426 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-15
  revision applicationexecuting courtconciliation courtpublic corporationjurisdictionexecution of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application under section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act was filed by a judgment-debtor challenging an order of the Small Causes Court directing the issuance of a writ of attachment in execution proceedings. The core legal questions involved whether a company registered under the Companies Act constitutes a "public corporation" excluded from the jurisdiction of a Conciliation Court under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, and whether an executing court can go behind a decree or entertain objections regarding its validity or service. The High Court held that a private company is not a public corporation under the Ordinance, and reaffirmed that an executing court cannot go behind a decree, nor can it entertain objections concerning the validity or nullity of the decree, as such matters must be raised before the original court or via a separate suit. The petition was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a company registered under the Companies Act constitutes a public corporation excluded from the jurisdiction of a Conciliation Court under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961?
  • Can an executing court go behind a decree or entertain objections regarding its validity, nullity, or fraud?
  • What is the proper remedy for a judgment-debtor seeking to set aside an ex parte decree passed by a conciliation court?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Zahoorul Hassan Zaidi vs Province of the Punjab through Member1974 PLC 179 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-20Read full judgment →
• Rasool Khan vs The State--Opponent1974 P Cr. L J 234 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-01Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 325 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-19Read full judgment →
• Ramzan and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 36 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-19Read full judgment →
• Qalam Khan vs TM State1974 P Cr. L J 279 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-16Read full judgment →
• Qaisar and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 380 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-17Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 559 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-15Read full judgment →
• Pissand and 12 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 77 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-20
  free fightculpable homicide not amounting to murdercommon intentionbenefit of doubteyewitness exaggerationcorroborationdying declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, convicting thirteen persons for offences including murder, attempt to murder, and rioting under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Arms Act. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony plagued by exaggerations, the validity of a dying declaration, the applicability of the right of private defence, and the existence of a common intention in a sudden free fight. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against ten of the appellants, leading to their acquittal, and found that the incident was a sudden free fight without premeditated intent to murder. The court laid down the principle that where eyewitness accounts are heavily exaggerated and lack external corroboration, individual criminal liability cannot be safely extended beyond those accused whose presence and participation are independently established by their injuries, and that in the absence of a common intention to kill arising from a free fight, convictions under section 302 must be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder or causing grievous hurt read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code.

  Questions settled

  • Whether convictions for murder can be sustained when eyewitness testimony is found to be heavily exaggerated and lacks external corroboration as to individual participation?
  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon when it directly conflicts with uncontradicted medical evidence regarding the time of death and physical capacity of the deceased?
  • Whether an appellate court can alter convictions to section 304(1) or section 326 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code in the absence of proof of a premeditated common intention to kill during a sudden free fight?
  • Is a previous statement made to a witness hours after the occurrence admissible under section 157 of the Evidence Act 1872 as being made 'at or about the time' of the fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Shah Mardan Shah and 3 Other vs Chief Land Commissioner, Sind1974 PLD Karachi 375 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-17
  land reformssuo motu reviewprinciples of natural justicevoid orderconstitutional petitionreasonable noticevested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions challenging the review order passed by the Land Commissioner, Sind, and the subsequent appellate order of the Chief Land Commissioner, Sind, modifying an earlier order that had declared certain alienations of land valid under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal questions relate to whether the rule-making power under the Regulation authorized suo motu review, whether the review proceedings violated mandatory procedural rules and the principles of natural justice by failing to issue proper notice to affected parties including donees, and whether void orders are protected by Article 281 of the Interim Constitution. The Sindh High Court held that while the rule-making authority validly provided for suo motu review, the impugned review orders were void ab initio due to lack of reasonable notice, absence of evidence or new material for certain districts, and a grave violation of the principles of natural justice and mandatory rules by not hearing affected co-owners and donees. The court further held that a void order possesses no legal existence and does not enjoy constitutional protection under Article 281. The petitions were disposed of, directing the matters to be examined under available statutory revisional remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether paragraph 6 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 empowers the rule-making authority to provide for suo motu review of orders?
  • Does an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and mandatory notice requirements constitute a void order in law?
  • Are orders vitiated by a violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction protected from judicial review under Article 281 of the Interim Constitution?
  • Whether the failure to afford an opportunity of hearing to affected co-owners and donees renders a review order passed by a Land Commissioner illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Industries vs Massrs Asian1974 PLD Karachi 155 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-23
  arbitration awarderror of law on the face of the awardexcess of jurisdictionseverability of awardletters patent appealsale of goodsarbitrator misconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal by the Government of Pakistan challenged a Single Judge's order making an arbitration award a rule of the court regarding a contract for the supply of pesticides. The core legal questions involved whether the arbitrators committed an error of law on the face of the award by directing the Government to return rejected goods to Rotterdam at its cost, and whether they acted in excess of their jurisdiction by deciding a matter not referred to them. The Sindh High Court held that the direction regarding the return of the goods was beyond the terms of reference and thus without jurisdiction, but since that portion was merely consequential and separable from the rest of the award, it could be struck off as surplusage. The court laid down that while an error of law on the face of an award requires the contract to be incorporated in the award to be examined, an arbitrator acts without jurisdiction when deciding matters outside the submission, and such excess portions can be severed if they are distinct and consequential.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court look into the terms of a contract to determine if there is an error of law on the face of an award when the contract is not expressly or impliedly incorporated in the award?
  • Does an arbitrator act without jurisdiction when issuing directions on a matter not included in the agreement of reference or pleadings?
  • Whether an unauthorized or excess portion of an arbitration award can be severed and struck off as surplusage if it is separable from the rest of the award?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Insurance Corporation vs British India Steam Navigation Co.1974 PLD Karachi 171 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-27Read full judgment →
• Noorali Pirmohammad Parsala vs MRS: Patricia Dinshaw1974 PLD Karachi 235 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-23
  adverse possessionlimitationejectmentmesne profitspermissive possessionburden of proofletters patent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This letters patent appeal arose from an ejectment and mesne profits suit concerning agricultural land. The appellant claimed to have acquired title to the land by adverse possession, asserting that his late father entered possession in 1947 and that he continued this possession upon his father's death in 1956. The respondent, as the sole heir of the original owner, contended that the possession was permissive and that the hostile claim was only asserted in 1960. The Court analyzed the distinction between Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act 1908, noting that under Article 144, once the plaintiff establishes title, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove adverse possession. The Court held that permissive possession cannot constitute adverse possession, and that the appellant failed to provide clear, continuous, and public evidence of hostile intent by his father. Consequently, the appellant's own adverse possession commenced only in 1956 or 1960, failing the twelve-year statutory requirement. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for ejectment and mesne profits was upheld with a minor modification regarding the calculation of post-decree mesne profits.

  Questions settled

  • What is the practical distinction between the application of Article 142 and Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908 regarding the burden of proof?
  • Can permissive possession of land, whether express or implied, ever mature into title by adverse possession?
  • What nature and quality of evidence is required to establish adverse possession over open, uncultivated, or waste land?
  • Whether an inquiry into post-decree mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is necessary if the rate has already been determined for the pre-decree period?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Dad and 11 Others vs The State-Opponent1974 P Cr. L J 231 · Sindh High Court · 1972-08-27Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 516 · Sindh High Court · 1973-06-12Read full judgment →
• Nazo Alias All Nawaz and 2 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 313 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-31Read full judgment →
• Nazir Muhammad Alias Nazir Ahmed vs The State1974 PLD Karachi 274 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-14
  murder referenceocular testimonymedical jurisprudencerigor mortisdecompositionstock mashirabandonment of motivecapital sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants appealed against their conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and death sentences imposed by the Sessions Judge, Khairpur, alongside a murder reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution alleged that the appellants killed the deceased near a brick kiln in the morning, witnessed by the complainant and another worker, following an illicit affair motive set out in the FIR. However, during trial, the complainant abandoned the motive and contradicted previous statements, while additional witnesses were improperly introduced. Medical jurisprudence evidence, elucidated by examining the medical officer under Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, showed decomposition and loss of rigor mortis indicating the death occurred significantly earlier during the night, and that death was not instantaneous. Discarding recovery evidence and finding ocular testimony inherently improbable and conflicted with medical findings, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, rejected the reference, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • What effect does the prosecution's abandonment and contradiction of an alleged motive at trial have on the credibility of eyewitness testimony?
  • Whether ocular testimony alleging instantaneous death at a specific morning hour can be relied upon when medical evidence regarding rigor mortis and decomposition establishes an earlier nocturnal time of death?
  • Does the evidence of a stock mashir who has acted as a recovery witness in multiple other police cases inspire sufficient confidence to sustain a conviction on a capital charge?
  • Whether the failure to lodge an FIR at an immediately accessible police post and subsequent introduction of unmentioned eyewitnesses justifies an inference of fabrication of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ali vs The State Opponent1974 PLD Karachi 369 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muller & Phipps (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs District Magistrate, Karachi and 4 Other1974 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-07
  Martial Law Order 52definition of workmandisjunctive interpretationjurisdictional factdirectory time limitvested rightsrepeal of lawsreinstatement awardconstitutional protection
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions were filed challenging the validity and execution of awards dated 17th and 20th April 1972 rendered by an arbitrator under Martial Law Order 52 (Zone 'D'), which ordered the reinstatement of terminated employees. The employers contested the jurisdiction of the arbitrator on grounds including the employee's status as a workman, the termination of Martial Law, the repeal of Martial Law Order 52, non-compliance with the prescribed statutory timeline for making awards, and procedural irregularities in enforcement. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that a sales representative performing varied duties fell within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, as 'skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work' must be read disjunctively. Furthermore, disputed jurisdictional facts not raised before the arbitrator cannot be agitated for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court also held that the Interim Constitution came into force prior to the withdrawal of Martial Law, the statutory time limit of seven days under paragraph 7(1) of M.L.O. 52 was directory, and substantive rights accrued under the awards remained enforceable via the District Magistrate by operation of Article 295 of the Interim Constitution 1972 and Article 269 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the phrase 'skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work' in the definition of 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 must be construed disjunctively?
  • Can a party raise a disputed question of jurisdictional fact for the first time in a constitutional petition when it was not raised before the subordinate tribunal?
  • Is the statutory time limit prescribed for a public authority or arbitrator to make an award under Martial Law Order 52 mandatory or directory when no consequences for non-compliance are provided?
  • Whether substantive rights accrued under an arbitration award prior to the repeal of Martial Law Order 52 remain executable after repeal pursuant to saving provisions like Article 295 of the Interim Constitution 1972?
  • Does an error of law committed by a tribunal acting within its jurisdiction render its decision coram non judice or without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 573 · Sindh High Court · 1973-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 612 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 254 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq- vs Mst. Khaliqunnissa and Another1974 PLD Karachi 20 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Juman vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 266 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The State1974 PLD Karachi 29 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-19
  post-arrest bailSpecial TribunalDefence of Pakistan OrdinanceDefence of Pakistan Rulesjurisdiction of High Courtouster of jurisdictionforumseditious speeches
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves multiple bail applications arising out of a First Information Report registered at Sanghar Police Station under rule 42(6) read with rule 49 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules and section 122/124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following alleged seditious speeches and activities. The core legal question addressed by the court is whether the High Court retains jurisdiction under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to entertain bail applications in cases that have been competently referred for trial to a Special Tribunal constituted under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance. The court held that once a case is validly withdrawn from the ordinary judicial field and remitted to a Special Tribunal, the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, including the High Court's power to grant bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, is completely ousted by virtue of the comprehensive bar contained in section 13(1) of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that the establishment of a special tribunal with its own independent procedure completely severs the contact of ordinary courts with the case, rendering applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail in a case referred to a Special Tribunal constituted under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance?
  • Does an accused person have a vested right to be tried by a particular forum or ordinary court?
  • Is a pre-reference notice required to be given to an accused person before the Federal Government refers a case to a Special Tribunal?
  • Does the bar on jurisdiction under section 13 of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance apply to proceedings for obtaining bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 1450 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aqil vs Chairman, Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal1974 PLC 194 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-29
  workmanemployerestablishmentaward vs decisionindustrial disputeappealconstitutional jurisdictionreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenged an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside a Labour Court's decision reinstating the petitioner under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions were whether an employee supervising a section of an establishment qualifies as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether an order passed under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 constitutes an 'award' or a 'decision' for the purpose of appeal. The High Court held that the petitioner, whose duties involved production planning, supervision, and canvassing, was not a 'workman' under the Standing Orders Ordinance and was thus not entitled to its benefits. The Court further held that an order under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is a 'decision' rather than an 'award', meaning no appeal lay to the Tribunal under Section 37. However, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to set aside the Tribunal's order, as doing so would perpetuate an illegal reinstatement order. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person employed in a supervisory capacity over a specific section of an establishment qualifies as a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does an order passed by a Labour Court under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 constitute an 'award' or a 'decision'?
  • Is an order of a Labour Court made on an application under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 appealable to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under Section 37?
  • Can the High Court refuse to interfere in its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction when setting aside an order without jurisdiction would perpetuate an illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Alias Anjum vs The State1974 PLD Karachi 459 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-21
  juvenile delinquencyjuvenile court jurisdictioncommittal proceedingsBombay Children Act 1924Code of Criminal Procedure 1898offences punishable with deathstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application concerns the jurisdiction of a Juvenile Court to try a juvenile offender for an offence punishable with death or transportation for life under the Bombay Children Act, 1924. The core legal question was whether the Juvenile Court possessed exclusive jurisdiction to try such heinous offences or if the case should have been committed to the Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the Bombay Children Act, 1924, did not confer exclusive jurisdiction on Juvenile Courts to try offences punishable by death or life imprisonment. Consequently, in the absence of express statutory provisions overriding the general law, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, governs, necessitating the committal of such cases to the Court of Session. The principle laid down is that where a special law does not explicitly oust the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts for serious offences, the general procedure for committal to the Court of Session remains applicable. Accordingly, the proceedings before the Juvenile Court were declared without jurisdiction and set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Bombay Children Act, 1924, confer exclusive jurisdiction on Juvenile Courts to try offences punishable with death or transportation for life?
  • Can a Juvenile Court try a juvenile offender for an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session in the absence of express statutory authority?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply to juvenile offenders when no special law provides a contrary procedure for serious offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Lal Jan vs Messrs Silver Paper Tube Co., Karachi1974 PLD Karachi 140 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-04
  workmen's compensationsocial security ordinanceimplied repealinconsistency of statutesdependentsdeath grantemployment injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under Section 30(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dismissing an application for compensation. The deceased workman died during employment, and his mother (the appellant) claimed compensation. The core legal question was whether Section 81 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 barred relief and impliedly repealed the compensation provisions under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 due to alleged inconsistency. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Commissioner. The Court held that the two enactments have different purposes, beneficiaries, and mechanisms; the Social Security Ordinance provides benefits, grants, and pensions rather than statutory compensation for employment injuries/death to dependents like a widowed mother. Consequently, Section 81 of the Social Security Ordinance 1965 does not bar claims or repeal Section 4 or Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 81 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 bar a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923?
  • Are the provisions regarding compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 inconsistent with the benefits provided under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • Does a 'death grant' under Section 37 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 constitute a substitute for 'compensation' under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jado and 3 Other vs The Province of West Pakistan through the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar1974 PLD Karachi 229 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima- vs The Federal Government of Pakistan through the1974 PLD Karachi 429 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwari Alias Baloo vs Civil Judge First Class, Karachi and Another1974 PLD Karachi 224 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-04Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Mansoor and 2 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1974 P Cr. L J 59 · Sindh High Court · 1973-06-10Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Hanif vs Tae State1974 PLD Karachi 22 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-11
  enhancement of sentencereview of judgmentinherent powers of High Courtnatural justicecriminal referencecriminal revisionbail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal reference and revision matter involves the enhancement of a sentence awarded to the accused Mohammad Hanif, who was convicted following an altercation over cycle hire charges. The core legal question addressed is whether a High Court can recall or review its own earlier final order or judgment enhancing a sentence under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly when the order was passed without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard or when a connected revision petition remained pending. The Sindh High Court held that Section 369 is strictly confined to judgments delivered in the exercise of original jurisdiction, and that in rare and exceptional circumstances—such as where an order is passed in violation of mandatory provisions of law or principles of natural justice—the High Court possesses inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to revoke, review, or alter its earlier decisions. Consequently, the court recalled its previous enhancement order, reviewed the prosecution's evidence, found significant discrepancies and lack of credible eye-witness testimony, set aside the conviction and sentence, and rejected the reference.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to judgments or orders passed by a High Court in the exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction rather than original jurisdiction?
  • Can the High Court invoke its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall or review its earlier final order in rare and exceptional circumstances?
  • Whether an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard justifies the recall of a previous criminal judgment?
  • Does the finality attached to appellate judgments under Section 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the High Court from altering an order passed without notice to the affected party?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Younica-- vs Joseph David1974 PLD Karachi 185 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-29Read full judgment →
• Mir Mumtaz Ali Khan vs The State and 2 Others1974 P Cr. L J 335 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mir Darya Khan vs Mehran Khan and 5 Oterrs1974 PLD Karachi 209 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-31Read full judgment →
• Minhoon vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 18 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ganisons Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Mirza Akhlaque Ahmed1974 PLD Karachi 339 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-31
  ex parte ordercivil revisioninherent powerssection 151 cpcreview of judgmentsufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two applications filed under Order XLI, Rule 21 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside ex parte orders passed in revision applications. The core legal question addressed is whether a High Court possesses the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex parte order or a dismissal for default passed in civil revision proceedings, in the absence of express statutory provisions analogous to those governing suits and appeals. The court held that once an order is properly made, a court cannot set it aside or review it unless such power is expressly conferred by statute, and inherent powers cannot be invoked to assume a jurisdiction not otherwise provided by law. The key principle laid down is that inherent powers are ancillary to existing jurisdiction and cannot be exercised to bypass the absence of specific statutory provisions for reviewing or setting aside ex parte orders or defaults in revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex parte order passed in a civil revision?
  • Can a court review, alter, or vary a final order or judgment in the absence of an express statutory provision?
  • Whether the principles governing the setting aside of ex parte decrees in suits and appeals apply mutatis mutandis to civil revision petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dada Ltd., Karachi vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Commerce and Another1974 PLD Karachi 254 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs D. B. Walker & Co. Ltd., Karachis vs Noor Elahi and Another1974 PLD Karachi 50 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Azad Papers Ltd. and Another vs Province of Sind through Secretary, Home1974 PLD Karachi 81 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-26
  preventive detentionfreedom of speechnewspaper prohibitionpublic orderex facie invalidconstitutional petitionlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order dated 11th March 1973 issued by the Government of Sind under Section 6(1)(d) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960, which prohibited the editing, printing, and publication of the daily newspaper "JASARAT" for a period of two months commencing from the date of the service of the order. The petitioners contended, inter alia, that the order was ex facie invalid because it was made effective from the date of service rather than from the date of the making of the order as mandated by the statute. The High Court of Sindh held that preventive actions are designed to curb specific situations rather than award punitive sentences. Under Section 6(1) read with its proviso, an order prohibiting the publication of a newspaper can only be effective for a maximum of two months from the date of making the order, not from the date of service. Consequently, the court declared the impugned order to be without lawful authority and quashed it.

  Questions settled

  • From what date must the statutory two-month limit for a preventive order under Section 6 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 be computed?
  • Does an owner of a newspaper have locus standi as an aggrieved person to challenge an order prohibiting its publication?
  • Is a petitioner required to exhaust an alternative remedy of executive representation before filing a constitutional petition when the impugned order is ex facie illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ahmed Food Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Sind Labour Appellate1974 PLC 225 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-28
  industrial disputereinstatementpower of reviewconciliation proceedingspublic utility servicetrade union officerwrit jurisdictiondiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions were filed to challenge orders passed by the Industrial Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal directing the reinstatement of five workmen who had been dismissed by the petitioner company. The core legal questions involved whether the Industrial Court possessed the power of review, whether the dismissal of trade union officers during conciliation proceedings violated Section 30 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, and whether certiorari should issue in discretionary writ jurisdiction when the impugned order cured an underlying illegality committed by the petitioner. The Sindh High Court held that the Industrial Court has no inherent or implied power of review unless expressly conferred by statute, and that the dismissal of the workmen during conciliation proceedings violated Section 30 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959. However, the Court refused to interfere in its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction, holding that granting relief would perpetuate the petitioner's initial illegal act and that a writ will not issue to aid a party in retaining ill-gotten gains or to foster injustice. The key principle laid down is that while an Industrial Court lacks review powers and jurisdiction to entertain certain individual complaints directly under the statute, the High Court will decline to exercise extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an order that rectifies a manifest illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Industrial Court possess an inherent or implied power of review under the Industrial Disputes Ordinance?
  • Whether the dismissal of a trade union officer during the pendency of conciliation proceedings without the permission of the court violates Section 30 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can the High Court refuse to issue a writ under constitutional jurisdiction when setting aside an order would perpetuate an antecedent illegality committed by the petitioner?
  • Does participation in proceedings before a tribunal without raising an objection to jurisdiction bar a party from subsequently challenging that jurisdiction in a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Majeed vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 437 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-22Read full judgment →
• M. Munawar Malik vs The State through State Bank of Pakistan1974 P Cr. L J 144 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-18Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Abdul Rashid vs The Bank of Tokyo Ltd., Karachi1974 PLD Karachi 411 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-08Read full judgment →
• Khairuddin and 2 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 219 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-29
  stolen propertynon-production of case propertybenefit of doubtrevision applicationdishonestly receiving stolen propertycriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application arises from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, which set aside the applicants' convictions under sections 457 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and convicted them under section 411 of the same Code. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the conviction under section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could be sustained when the alleged stolen property recovered from the applicants was never produced or exhibited during the trial and lacked proper description by prosecution witnesses. The court held that the non-production of the case property before the trial court creates a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt. The key principle laid down is that failure to produce and exhibit alleged recovered stolen property during trial invalidates a conviction for dishonestly receiving stolen property under section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as the corpus delicti is missing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the alleged recovered stolen property is not produced and exhibited during the trial?
  • Does the failure to produce case property in court entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Whether vague descriptions of recovered items by prosecution witnesses without production of the actual property are sufficient to prove an offense under section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Kazi Abdul Majid vs The Province of Sind through Secretary, Excise &1974 PLD Karachi 417 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-05
  constitutional lawordinance-making powertaxationentertainment dutyinterpretation of statutesnon-obstante clausetransitional provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a cinema proprietor, challenged the constitutional validity of the West Pakistan Entertainment Duty (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1974. The petitioner raised two primary contentions: first, that the Governor lacked the competency to promulgate the Ordinance under Article 128 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 as no emergency or immediate circumstances existed; and second, that Article 279 of the Constitution, which contains a non-obstante clause, mandates that existing taxes can only be varied or abolished by an 'Act of the appropriate Legislature', thereby excluding executive Ordinances. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the petition. It held that the Governor is the sole judge of the existence of circumstances requiring immediate action under Article 128. Furthermore, interpreting Article 279 in light of the definition clause in Article 260(2), the Court ruled that the term 'Act of the appropriate Legislature' includes an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor or President. The Court concluded that the non-obstante clause in Article 279 was intended to clarify the continuation of existing taxes rather than to restrict the legislative power of the executive to issue tax-related Ordinances.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Governor the sole judge of the existence of circumstances requiring immediate action to promulgate an Ordinance under Article 128 of the Constitution?
  • Does the expression 'Act of the appropriate Legislature' in Article 279 of the Constitution include an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor or the President?
  • Does the non-obstante clause in Article 279 of the Constitution prevent the variation or abolition of existing taxes through an executive Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Karamullah vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-14Read full judgment →
• Karam Khan and 15 Others vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 246 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-12Read full judgment →
• Karachi Municipal Corporation & Statutory Body vs Eduljee Dinshaw1974 PLD Karachi 328 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kalandar Bux vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 425 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-28Read full judgment →