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.

• Aijaz Hussain--Appellant vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 738 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-24Read full judgment →
• Agha Muhammad-Objector vs Haji Maula Dad Decree Holder1972 PLD Karachi 436 · Sindh High Court · 1972-06-07Read full judgment →
• Additional Advocate General, Karachi And 2 Others vs Jumma1972 P Cr. L J 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-08Read full judgment →
• Acharya Davendra Prasadji and 2 Other vs Tirathdas and 10 Other1972 PLD Karachi 251 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs Mst. Afsar Jehan Begum and Another1972 PLD Karachi 54 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid And 3 Others--Appellants vs The State1972 PCr. L J 1144 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 491 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Mst. Chaman Ara1972 PLD Karachi 164 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-18
  supervisory jurisdictionsubordinate courtsconstitutional petitionscourt-feeadministrative controljudicial reviewrevision
  Summary & questions settled

  This Full Bench reference before the Sindh High Court addresses the nature, scope, and proper procedure governing applications filed under Article 102 of the Constitution of 1962, particularly regarding court-fees and bench jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether Article 102 confers a remedy akin to writ jurisdiction under Article 98, attracting a higher court-fee and Division Bench hearing, or whether it constitutes an administrative and supervisory power over subordinate courts. Delivering the opinion, the court held that Article 102 is exclusively a supervisory and control provision directed at ensuring subordinate courts function properly and adhere to jurisdiction, rather than providing an appellate or revisional remedy for individual litigants. Consequently, it is distinct from Article 98, does not require a higher court-fee of Rs. 100, and does not necessitate a Division Bench hearing. The key principle laid down is that the supervisory power under Article 102 is designed to keep the administration of justice pure by supervising subordinate courts, and cannot be invoked as a substitute for ordinary appeals, revisions, or constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Article 102 of the Constitution of 1962 is analogous to Article 98 regarding the nature of remedies provided to litigants?
  • Does Article 102 of the Constitution of 1962 empower the High Court to interfere with the merits of orders passed by subordinate courts as an appellate or revisional authority?
  • What is the correct amount of court-fee payable on applications filed under Article 102 of the Constitution of 1962?
  • Should applications under Article 102 of the Constitution of 1962 be heard exclusively by a Division Bench or a Single Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Moinuddin and Another1972 P Cr. L J 724 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Alias Kamuc vs The State1972 PLD Karachi 201 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghayoor Khan And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 632 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zardullah Khan vs The State and Another1971 PLD Karachi 906 · Sindh High Court
  superdariinterim custodycriminal proceduredisposal of propertyquestion of titlebona fide purchaserrevision application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application arises from an order regarding the interim custody of an auto-rickshaw seized by the police during a criminal investigation under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves the power of a criminal court under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to determine questions of title or ownership regarding property produced before it, and the proper scope of interim custody versus final disposal under Sections 516-A, 517, and 523. The Sindh High Court held that criminal courts are not empowered to adjudicate complex questions of civil title or ownership when disposing of property, and that entitlement to possession pending or upon the conclusion of an inquiry or trial cannot be equated with ownership, which must be resolved by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The court established that interim custody should generally remain with the person from whom the property was recovered unless exceptional circumstances exist, and set aside the lower courts' orders directing the delivery of the vehicle to the respondent, while conditioning the applicant's continued custody on the furnishing of adequate security.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal court determine questions of civil title and ownership when disposing of property under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • At what stages can property regarding which an offence has been committed be disposed of by a criminal court under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether entitlement to possession under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be equated with ownership of the property?
  • Under what exceptional circumstances can a criminal court depart from the general rule of restoring seized property to the person from whose possession it was recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaibtun Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi and Others vs Central Board of Revenue and Others1971 PLD Karachi 333 · Sindh High Court
  production capacity taxdelegated legislationexcessive delegationcentral excise dutyconstitutional validitytaxation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns 24 petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the production capacity tax imposed on textile and sugar mills under Section 3(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as amended by the Finance Act, 1966. The core legal question was whether the amended provisions constituted an impermissible delegation of essential legislative power to the Central Board of Revenue, and whether the administrative determination of production capacity was procedurally valid. The Court held that the legislation is intra vires and constitutional. It established that the Legislature did not abdicate its essential functions; rather, it delegated the implementation of a complex fiscal policy to an expert body. The Court affirmed that delegated legislation in taxation matters is permissible, and the absence of rigid standards is not fatal where procedural safeguards, such as the Review Board, exist. The key principle laid down is that the constitutionality of delegated legislation must be judged by whether the Legislature has abdicated its essential authority, applying the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat to ensure the statute's effectiveness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the delegation of power to the Central Board of Revenue to levy production capacity tax constitutes an impermissible abdication of legislative authority?
  • Can the absence of explicit standards in a statute render delegated legislation unconstitutional if procedural safeguards exist?
  • Does the fixation of tax rates by an executive authority instead of the Legislature violate the Constitution?
  • Is an administrative order passed without a prior hearing valid if a statutory review mechanism exists?
  Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 971 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-21Read full judgment →
• Yakoob and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 890 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-07Read full judgment →
• Yacoob and Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-08Read full judgment →
• Wajahat Ali vs Ali Gauhar Shaikh and Another1971 P Cr. L J 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-03Read full judgment →
• Waheed Khan vs Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad and Another1971 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-22Read full judgment →
• Umaid Ali Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 67 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-21Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Masood Ahmed1971 P Cr. L J 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-07Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mumtaz Ali and 4 Others1971 P Cr. L J 808 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-05Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Ghufran and 5 Others1971 P Cr. L J 792 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mst. Jamila Khatoon and 3 Others1971 P Cr. L J 357 · Sindh High Court · 1969-04-08Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mirza Mohiuddin Ahmad and 15 Others1971 P Cr. L J 412 · Sindh High Court · 1969-06-23Read full judgment →
• The State vs Jhamandas and 3 Others1971 P Cr. L J 796 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-02Read full judgment →
• The State vs Iqbal Ahmed and Others1971 P Cr. L J 745 · Sindh High Court · 1966-01-31Read full judgment →
• The State vs Bachal and 8 Others1971 P Cr. L J 1129 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ashiq and 4 Others1971 P Cr. L J 849 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-04Read full judgment →
• The Secretary of State of the United States of America vs Messrs1971 PLD Karachi 314 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-02Read full judgment →
• The Parker Pen Company vs Ero-Fullhalter Fabrik Ludwig1971 PLD Karachi 579 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-01Read full judgment →
• The Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Muhammad1971 PLD Karachi 671 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner. of Income-Tax-Applicant vs Messrs Shennihon1971 PTD 429 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-10Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Shennihon Steamship Co.1971 PLD Karachi 605 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Taurgul vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 474 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-20Read full judgment →
• Tanzeem-E-Mulazamin Baldiya and 2 Others vs Government of West1971 PLD Karachi 535 · Sindh High Court
  Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969Collective Bargaining AgentTrade Union referendumdirectory vs mandatory provisionsvoter list irregularitiesstatutory interpretationelection prejudice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a referendum conducted by the Registrar of Trade Unions to determine the Collective Bargaining Agent for the Karachi Municipal Corporation under Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioners alleged procedural irregularities, specifically regarding the timely supply of voter lists, the omission of certain particulars in those lists, and improper conduct during the polling process. The core legal questions concerned whether the procedural requirements of Section 22 were mandatory or directory, the proper interpretation of the worker exclusion clause in Section 22(8)(a), and whether minor irregularities vitiated the election result. The Court held that the provisions requiring specific particulars in the voter lists were directory rather than mandatory; thus, non-compliance did not invalidate the poll absent proof of prejudice. Furthermore, the Court clarified that workers with less than three months of service are excluded only if they are not union members. Finally, the Court established that minor polling irregularities, such as broken ballot boxes or time variations, do not vitiate an election unless they materially affected the outcome or caused demonstrable prejudice to the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Are the procedural requirements for voter lists under Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to include specific particulars in voter lists automatically vitiate a collective bargaining agent referendum?
  • Under Section 22(8)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which workers are excluded from the voter list?
  • Can minor polling irregularities vitiate an election result in the absence of demonstrated prejudice?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ziaul Hassan Zaidi vs The State and ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Razi Shah vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 19 · Sindh High Court · 1970-06-27
  confiscation of propertydisposal of propertycriminal procedureinstrument of crimevehicle confiscationmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Karachi, ordering the confiscation of a jeep involved in a criminal case while convicting the accused for murder and attempted murder. The appellant, who had previously sold the jeep under an agreement, re-acquired ownership through a civil court compromise decree and obtained interim custody via a magistrate under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon the conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Judge ordered the confiscation of the vehicle on the ground that it was used in the commission of the offence. The core legal question was whether a vehicle used merely to transport assailants to the scene of a crime and to facilitate their escape can be legally classified as property 'used for the commission of any offence' under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation order, holding that the phrase refers strictly to instruments directly employed in committing the crime, such as weapons, rather than means of transport only remotely connected to the principal offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vehicle used merely to carry assailants to the scene of a crime and to facilitate their escape constitutes property used for the commission of an offence under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a criminal court order the confiscation of property that is only remotely or indirectly connected to the actual commission of the offence?
  • What is the legal import and scope of the phrase 'used for the commission of any offence' under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Musharraf Ali vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1293 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Kazim Hussain vs Mst. Aziz Fatima and Another1971 PLD Karachi 759 · Sindh High Court · 1970-09-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohammad Kazim Hussain vs Mst. Aziz Fatima and Another1971 P Cr. L J 720 · Sindh High Court · 1970-09-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Hasanhaider vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 433 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Shah (Represented by 7 Heirs) vs Syed Jahandar Shah1971 PLD Karachi 708 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Azizuddin vs Islamuddin1971 PLD Karachi 701 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-18Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 850 · Sindh High Court · 1970-08-07Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali vs The State1971 PLD Karachi 78 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-13
  illegal gratificationanticorruptionbribe-giver corroborationstatutory presumptionburden of proofland revenue recoverycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a Tapedar, under section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 for allegedly accepting illegal gratification in connection with the recovery of land revenue. The core legal question concerns whether the tainted money recovered from the appellant constituted a bribe or legitimate land revenue collected on behalf of the complainant and other Khatedars, and how statutory presumptions under anti-corruption laws interact with the standard of proof required from an accused. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence and surrounding circumstances—including a letter written by the complainant—rendered the defense explanation reasonably probable. The court laid down the principle that uncorroborated testimony of a bribe-giver/decoy witness must be scrutinized with extreme caution, and that an accused seeking to rebut a statutory presumption under the anti-corruption laws need only establish a reasonable probability of their innocence or raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case, discharging a lighter burden of proof than the prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for accepting illegal gratification can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a decoy or bribe-giver?
  • What is the standard and nature of proof required for an accused to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947?
  • Does the mere recovery of marked tainted money from a public servant conclusively establish the offense of bribery without proof of corrupt motive?
  • How should an accused's explanation regarding the receipt of money be evaluated when weighed against the testimony of the complainant in anti-corruption cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 63 · Sindh High Court · 1969-01-17Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Emmanuel Toby Ebiember and Another1971 P Cr. L J 749 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-03Read full judgment →
• Sodho vs The State-Opponent1971 P Cr. L J 898 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-15Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Shah vs The Tribunal and District Magistrate, Karachi1971 P Cr. L J 6 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-26Read full judgment →
• Sharbat Gul vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1039 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-11Read full judgment →
• Shamshad vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 1301 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-11Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Ramzani vs Pakistan Western Railway and 6 Others1971 PLD Karachi 654 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-18Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Iqbal and 3 Others vs Amir Bux and Another1971 PLD Karachi 285 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-09Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs The State1971 PLD Karachi 721 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-06
  dacoity with murderidentification paradehostile witnessrecovery of stolen propertyfootprint evidencereasonable doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity with murder, and Section 13(d) of the Arms Act for possession of an unlicensed firearm. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given that the primary eyewitnesses turned hostile and failed to identify the appellant in court, the recovery of the alleged stolen watch was procedurally flawed, and the footprint identification was deemed weak. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The ratio establishes that identification in a test parade is merely corroborative and cannot substitute for identification in court; that recovery evidence is unreliable if the property lacks distinguishing features and is not mixed with similar items during identification; and that footprint evidence is inherently weak without casts or scientific comparison. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that criminal precedents must be applied with particularity to the specific facts of each case rather than as rigid rules.

  Questions settled

  • Is identification of an accused in a test parade sufficient to sustain a conviction if the witness fails to identify the accused in court?
  • Can the recovery of stolen property be considered reliable evidence if the property is not mixed with similar items during the identification test?
  • Does the identification of naked footprints constitute sufficient evidence to establish the identity of an accused in a criminal case?
  • Should criminal precedents be applied as rigid rules or understood with reference to the specific facts of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Yousuf vs The State-Opponent1971 P Cr. L J 786 · Sindh High Court · 1970-08-31Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Ministry of Home and Kashmir Affairs and States and Frontier Regions and 3 Others vs Nasreen Banu1971 PLD Karachi 209 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-05Read full judgment →
• Secretary, B. & R., Government of West Pakistan and 4 Others vs Fazal1971 PLD Karachi 625 · Sindh High Court
  civil proceduresuit against public officersofficial designationnecessary partymeasure of damagesmaintainability of suittrespass
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, which decreed a suit for damages and injunction brought by the respondent against various government officials designated by their official titles. The core legal questions involved whether a suit could be maintained against public officers by their official designations rather than their individual names, and whether the Provincial Government was a necessary party when no application under Order XXVII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was made by the Government Pleader. The court held that public officers cannot be sued by their official titles unless they constitute a corporation sole, and that failing to name the Provincial Government or to follow statutory requirements rendered the suit not maintainable and bad in form. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the suit dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public officer be sued by their official designation or title rather than their individual name?
  • Does a suit against public officials fail if the Provincial Government is a necessary party and is not properly impleaded?
  • What is the proper measure of damages for injury caused to land by trespass?
  • When does a suit against public officers proceed as a suit between private parties under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad vs The State and ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-16Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ahmed vs Messrs Caltex Oil Pakistan Ltd.1971 PLD Karachi 305 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-16Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 910 · Sindh High Court · 1970-08-28Read full judgment →
• S. Iqbal Ahmed vs Wazir Ali1971 PLD Karachi 783 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rustam vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-04Read full judgment →
• Roshan Shah vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1071 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-25Read full judgment →
• Riyazuddin and 2 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-24Read full judgment →
• Raza Ali and 3 Others vs The State and Another-- s1971 P Cr. L J 1296 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-30
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powerscheatingcriminal breach of trustcivil loanmisrepresentationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending under Sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before a Magistrate. The core legal question concerned whether the transaction of a civil loan and subsequent unfulfilled marriage promises constituted criminal offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust, and whether inherent powers should be exercised to quash the process. The court held that a pure and simple loan does not constitute cheating merely because it is unpaid, absent initial dishonest intention or misrepresentation. Furthermore, the court held that criminal breach of trust and cheating are mutually exclusive offences, as trust and entrustment are absent in cheating where property is obtained by deception. The application for quashment was dismissed with the observation that process under Section 406 was misconceived, while leaving the factual controversies regarding the marriage dispute to be resolved through trial evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to repay a friendly loan constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the offences of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 and cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply simultaneously to the same set of facts?
  • Should criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when disputed questions of fact require recording of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Hasan Siddiqui vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1207 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-26Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Alias Hiro vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 953 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-30Read full judgment →
• Ranjho and 3 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1078 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-11Read full judgment →
• Ramzan and 2 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 931 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-04Read full judgment →
• Qasim and 2 Others vs The State1971 PLD Karachi 473 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-17
  good behaviour securityhabitual offendergeneral reputehearsay evidencerevision applicationpolice testimonypreventive detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges an order passed under Section 118, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, requiring the applicants to furnish security for good behavior. The core legal question is whether an order for security based solely on the testimony of police officers, without independent corroboration or proof of habitual criminal conduct, is legally sustainable. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable, as the prosecution failed to produce any independent witnesses from the locality to substantiate allegations of habitual offending or general repute. The Court emphasized that while police officers are competent witnesses regarding a person's reputation, their testimony must be subjected to strict scrutiny and corroborated by independent evidence to avoid reliance on bare ipse dixit. The key principle laid down is that 'habit' implies repeated or persistent engagement in criminal acts, which cannot be established by stray incidents or vague, uncorroborated police testimony. Furthermore, evidence of general repute, while admissible under Section 117(4), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, requires a foundation of solid facts rather than mere rumors or hearsay.

  Questions settled

  • Can an order for security under Section 118, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of police officers?
  • Does the term 'habitually' in the context of criminal proceedings require proof of persistent engagement in offenses rather than isolated incidents?
  • Is evidence of general repute admissible to prove habitual criminal behavior under Section 117(4), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an acquittal in previous criminal cases be used as evidence to establish a disposition to commit offenses for the purpose of binding down an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaimuddin and 7 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 229 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-15
  unlawful assemblycommon objectphysical possessionbenefit of doubtvicarious liabilityinterested witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for murder and rioting involving eight appellants following a violent dispute over agricultural land. The core legal questions concerned determining the aggressor party based on physical possession of the land and assessing the reliability of witness testimony regarding the participation of all accused. The Court held that while formal possession had been transferred to the appellants, the complainant party retained actual physical possession, identifying the appellants as the aggressors. Regarding the participation of the accused, the Court found the testimony of independent witnesses unreliable due to material improvements and inconsistencies, thus extending the benefit of the doubt to three appellants who lacked injuries and whose presence was not corroborated. The convictions of the remaining five appellants were upheld under the principle of vicarious liability, as they formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of forcibly dispossessing the complainants, thereby incurring liability for the resulting murder and injuries. The appeal was consequently allowed in part, setting aside the convictions of three appellants while maintaining the sentences of the others.

  Questions settled

  • Does the delivery of formal possession by a revenue official establish actual physical possession in a criminal dispute?
  • Can the testimony of witnesses who make material improvements at trial be considered reliable for corroborating the presence of accused persons?
  • Are members of an unlawful assembly liable for murder under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if they had knowledge that murder was likely to be committed?
  • Should the benefit of the doubt be extended to accused persons in a rioting case when their participation is not corroborated by independent evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Punhoon and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1013 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-09Read full judgment →
• Province of Sid through Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad and Another vs Muhammad Hashim1971 PLD Karachi 793 · Sindh High Court
  temporary injunctionofficiating appointmentreversionreduction in rankcivil servicebalance of conveniencerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These seven revision petitions filed by the Province of Sind are directed against a common appellate judgment of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, which had set aside the trial court's order and granted interim injunctions restraining the government from reverting the respondent-plaintiffs from officiating Sub-Divisional Officers to their substantive posts of Overseers. The core legal questions involve whether the reversion of officiating government servants amounts to a reduction in rank and whether temporary injunctions should be issued against government departments in service matters disrupting administrative arrangements. The High Court accepted the revision petitions and restored the trial court's order refusing injunctions, holding that officiating appointments are tentative stop-gap arrangements and their reversion does not constitute a reduction in rank. Furthermore, the court held that the balance of convenience does not favor issuing temporary injunctions against government departments in service matters, as any potential injury can be remedied by monetary compensation if the suits ultimately succeed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the reversion of a civil servant from an officiating higher post to a substantive permanent post amounts to a reduction in rank?
  • Does an ad hoc or officiating appointment for a number of years confer any legal right or lien to hold the higher post on a regular basis?
  • Whether a subordinate court acts illegally and with material irregularity under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by ignoring binding precedents of the High Court and Supreme Court?
  • Under what circumstances should a temporary injunction be granted against a government department in service matters affecting administrative arrangements?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through the General Manager, Pakistan Western Railway, Lahore vs Messrs Ghulam Mahbub Muhammad Umer1971 PLD Karachi 259 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. vs The Collector, Central Excise and Land1971 PLD Karachi 221 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pahloomal Motiram vs Abdul Quddus Behari and 8 Others1971 PLD Karachi 250 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-22
  rejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11evacuee propertyfraudcause of actionjurisdiction of civil courtslimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged the trial court's dismissal of an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the rejection of a plaint. The underlying suit alleged that the defendant obtained favorable orders from the Custodian regarding the evacuee status of property through fraud. The applicant contended that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, lacked necessary particulars of fraud, and was barred by Section 41 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, and the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that for the purpose of rejecting a plaint, the allegations therein must be assumed true. Since the plaintiff alleged fraud, which vitiates any order, the plaint disclosed a sufficient cause of action. The Court affirmed that the trial court correctly refused to reject the plaint, emphasizing that the suit should be decided on its merits rather than through piecemeal litigation. The principle established is that a court should only reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 if, even assuming all allegations are true, the plaintiff remains disentitled to relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the plaintiff alleges fraud?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order of the Custodian on the grounds of fraud?
  • What is the standard for determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the allegation of fraud override the limitation bar under Article 95 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazroo and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 758 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-12Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs The Official Assignee of Karachi1971 PLD Karachi 465 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nariman M. Postwala and Another vs Labour Officer and Inspector1971 PLD Karachi 632 · Sindh High Court
  standing orders ordinancelabour inspector powerscommercial establishmentworkman definitionchartered accountants firmindustrial court jurisdictiontermination dueswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an order passed by the Labour Officer and Inspector of Factories directing a dissolved firm of Chartered Accountants to pay gratuity, unavailed leave salary, and other dues to its former employees under threat of legal action. The core legal question is whether the Inspector appointed under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, possesses the statutory authority to adjudicate employment disputes and issue binding directives for the payment of dues, or whether such power exclusively vests in the Industrial Court or regular courts. The Sindh High Court held that the Inspector lacks the competence to interpret intricate statutory provisions, weigh evidence, or issue executive orders directing the payment of dues; his role is limited to inspection and initiating prosecutions, while disputes regarding entitlements and grievances must be adjudicated by the Industrial Court. The court established that an administrative Inspector cannot usurp judicial functions or order monetary payments without a formal judicial inquiry and evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Labour Inspector have the statutory power under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, to issue binding directives ordering an employer to pay termination dues and gratuity?
  • Whether the determination of complex legal questions regarding the applicability of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, falls within the competence of an administrative inspector or an industrial court?
  • Is a firm of Chartered Accountants covered under the definition of a commercial establishment or industrial establishment under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • What is the proper forum for an individual workman seeking redress for grievances relating to non-payment of dues under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Naraindas vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1020 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Jam Sadik Ali and Another1971 PLD Karachi 288 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-01Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain vs Superintending Engineer, Agriculture Machinery1971 PLD Karachi 733 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mulla Abdullabhai and 9 Others vs Saria Rope Mills Ltd.1971 PLD Karachi 597 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-01
  winding up of companyCompanies Act 1913insolvencydebt recoverybona fide disputeabuse of processshareholder dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four applications for the winding up of a private limited company, Saria Rope Mills Ltd., filed under Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1913. The petitioners, comprising a group of shareholders and alleged creditors, sought liquidation based on claims of fraud regarding share allotments, breach of an alleged oral agreement for board representation, and outstanding debts. The core legal question was whether winding-up proceedings could be utilized to enforce disputed oral agreements or as a substitute for civil litigation to recover debts. The Court held that winding-up proceedings are not intended to be exploited as a normal alternative to the ordinary mode of debt realization or to settle internal corporate disputes. The Court emphasized that where a debt is subject to a bona fide dispute, or where the petition is motivated by collateral purposes rather than the company's insolvency, a winding-up order is inappropriate. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, establishing the principle that winding-up is a remedy for insolvency, not a mechanism for debt recovery or dispute resolution.

  Questions settled

  • Can winding-up proceedings be used as a substitute for a civil suit to recover a debt?
  • Is a winding-up petition maintainable when there is a bona fide dispute regarding the company's liability for a debt?
  • Does an alleged breach of an oral agreement between shareholders constitute valid grounds for a winding-up order under the Companies Act 1913?
  • Must a petitioner in a winding-up proceeding prove the company's insolvency rather than merely its unwillingness to pay?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar Khan vs Yousuf Arab and 7 Others1971 PLD Karachi 642 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sulaiman vs Azizuddin and Another1971 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State and ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 1310 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem Khan vs The STATEs1971 P Cr. L J 1028 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq Shaikh vs Province of Sind through the Chief1971 PLD Karachi 490 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Azad vs Mst. Sultana Begum and 8 Others1971 PLD Karachi 91 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Shah and Others vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1956-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idris vs The Collector of Customs, Karachi and Another1971 PLD Karachi 911 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-12
  import licensebetel nutsI.T.C. Schedulecustoms adjudicationinfructuous suitExport Bonus Schemeimport policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four consolidated suits challenging the detention of imported betel nuts by the Collector of Customs. The plaintiffs contended that their import licenses, issued under the Export Bonus Scheme for specific I.T.C. Schedule items, authorized the import of betel nuts. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs' licenses covered betel nuts and whether the suits remained maintainable after the Collector of Customs passed adjudication orders confiscating the goods. The Court held that the suits were infructuous because the plaintiffs failed to challenge the subsequent adjudication orders, which had already finalized the confiscation and penalties. Furthermore, the Court ruled that betel nuts were specifically classified under Item 14/5 of the I.T.C. Schedule, not the items listed in the plaintiffs' licenses. Consequently, the imports were unauthorized and in violation of the Import Policy Orders. The principle established is that specific classifications in the I.T.C. Schedule prevail over general ones, and that suits challenging detention become infructuous upon the issuance of final adjudication orders if those orders are not formally contested.

  Questions settled

  • Whether import licenses for specific I.T.C. Schedule items authorize the import of goods specifically classified under a different item?
  • Does a suit challenging the detention of goods become infructuous upon the passing of an adjudication order by the Collector of Customs?
  • Is the classification of goods in the Pakistan Customs Tariff relevant for determining the scope of import licenses under the I.T.C. Schedule?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 1067 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Naz vs District Magistrate, Karachi and Another1971 P Cr. L J 192 · Sindh High Court · 1968-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aqil Khan vs Akhtar Hussain and Others1971 PLD Karachi 864 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-11
  Fatal Accidents ActLimitation ActSection 7 Limitation ActQuantum of damagesMotor vehicle accidentLetters patent appealDependency claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a decree for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, following a fatal motor vehicle accident. The core legal questions concerned whether the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1908, and the correct calculation of damages. The Court held that the suit was not time-barred. It affirmed that Section 7 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies to claims under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, because dependents are 'jointly entitled to institute a suit' for procedural necessity, even if their substantive interests are distinct. Consequently, the minority of some claimants saved the limitation period for all. Regarding damages, the Court reduced the award by recalculating the deceased's monthly income based on actual salary rather than speculative future earnings. Furthermore, the Court rejected the application of a 'scaling down' factor for lump-sum payments, noting the absence of a rigid rule requiring such deductions. The judgment clarifies that the right to sue under the Fatal Accidents Act is a statutory right that cannot be defeated by the inaction of a representative.

  Questions settled

  • Does the minority of some claimants save the limitation period for all dependents under Section 7 of the Limitation Act 1908 in a suit under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855?
  • Are dependents in a Fatal Accidents Act suit 'jointly entitled to institute a suit' within the meaning of Section 7 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Should a 'scaling down' factor be applied to damages awarded in a lump sum under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855?
  • Can a court rely on a post-mortem report to determine the age of a deceased person for the purpose of calculating damages?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Administrator Dow, Medical College, Karachi1971 PLD Karachi 726 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 944 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Umerunnisa vs Fateh Ali and 2 Others1971 PLD Karachi 553 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taiyaba Khatoon vs Mohammad Fariduddin1971 PLD Karachi 747 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-18
  ejectmentdefault in rentjudicial discretioninterlocutory ordermerger of orderslandlord and tenantsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected second appeals arising from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the grounds of default in rent payment, personal need, and damage to the property. The core legal questions relate to whether an interlocutory order merges into the final order, and whether the Rent Controller or appellate court possesses the discretion to excuse a proved default in rent payment under section 13(2). The court held that an interlocutory order concerning the striking off of a defence merges in the final order, and that once a statutory default in rent payment under section 13(2)(i) is established, the Rent Controller and first appellate court have no discretion to excuse the breach or disregard the statutory requirements. Consequently, the High Court accepted the landlord's appeal, ordered the tenant's ejectment, and dismissed the tenant's appeal as infructuous, establishing the principle that judicial discretion under rent restriction laws must be exercised strictly within the confines of statutory guidelines.

  Questions settled

  • Does an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller merge into the final order disposing of the main ejectment application?
  • Whether the Rent Controller or the first appellate court has the discretion to excuse a proved default in the payment of rent under section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • What is the true import and scope of the word 'may' in section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a failure to pay rent for a single month within the statutory grace period be excused by the court as a gratuitous failure?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shah Jehan Begum vs Muhammad Siddique and 5 Others1971 PLD Karachi 920 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Sultana and Another vs Messrs Eastern Traders and 31971 PLD Karachi 109 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-31
  suit for accountscompromise decreeminor's interestlawful agreementvoidable contractprocedural lawcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for accounts filed by a widow and her minor child against a firm. The defendants sought to record a compromise agreement under Order XXIII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, claiming the dispute was settled. The plaintiffs opposed this, arguing the agreement was voidable due to fraud and, crucially, that it violated Order XXXII, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as no prior leave of the court was obtained for the minor's participation. The court addressed whether such an agreement constitutes a lawful agreement under Order XXIII, Rule 3. The court held that Order XXXII, Rule 7 is a mandatory provision designed to protect minors' interests, and failure to obtain prior leave renders the agreement voidable. Consequently, such an agreement cannot be deemed lawful for the purposes of recording a compromise under Order XXIII, Rule 3. The court affirmed that the judiciary must remain vigilant in protecting minors' rights, and thus, the defendants' application to record the compromise was dismissed, as the agreement was not binding.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise agreement involving a minor be recorded under Order XXIII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without prior leave of the court under Order XXXII, Rule 7?
  • Is an agreement that violates Order XXXII, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 void or voidable?
  • Does the court have inherent power under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to refuse to record a compromise that is voidable?
  Read full judgment →