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.

• Global Produce Ltd. Versus Collector of Customs1986 CLC 137 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-24Read full judgment →
• Rauf Hussain Qureshi Versus Muhammad Naqi Jumlana1986 CLC 1367 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
• Dawood Corporation Ltd. Versus Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation1986 CLC 1362 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. Versus Consortium 2000 P.E.C.H. Society, Karachi1986 CLC 1350 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-19Read full judgment →
• Feroz Ahmed Versus Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Karachi1986 CLC 1344 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pir Matook Ali Versus Rais Muhammad Usufi1986 CLC 1329 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hussain Mahmood Versus Zamir-Ul-Haque1986 CLC 1297 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
• Junaid Ahmad Versus Shah Nizamul Haq1986 CLC 1296 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
• Standard Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Polskie Linie Oceaniczne Polish Ocean Lines1986 CLC 1292 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
• Faiyazi Begum Versus Zakiuddin1986 CLC 1280 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-18Read full judgment →
• Anis Khan Versus Karachi Electric Corporation Ltd.1986 CLC 1255 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
• Saeeda Bano Versus Muhammad Sabir1986 CLC 123 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →
• Raza Mohyuddin Versus Tasneem Saghir1986 CLC 120 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-08Read full judgment →
• Dossa Limited Versus Federal Government of Pakistan1986 CLC 1193 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
• Razia Versus Wajid Ali1986 CLC 118 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali Versus Hashum Alias Hussaini1986 CLC 1165 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-24Read full judgment →
• Sardar Begum Versus Iqbal Ahmad1986 CLC 1151 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-30Read full judgment →
• Fakhruddin Versus Muhammad Yamin1986 CLC 115 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
• Trade and Industry Publications Ltd. Versus Universal Blocks1986 CLC 1143 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-02Read full judgment →
• Haider Ali Muljee Versus Secretary, Government of Sindh1986 CLC 1136 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-14Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad Qureshi Versus A. A. Kadwani1986 CLC 1132 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mairaj-Ud-Din Versus Badruddin1986 CLC 1129 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Versus Government of Sindh1986 CLC 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-22Read full judgment →
• Habib Bux Versus Zahoor-Ul-Hasan1986 CLC 1119 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-23Read full judgment →
• MRS. Dhunmai Phiroze Dalal Versus MRS. Freny A. Cavina1986 CLC 1109 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-02Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq-UN-Nabi Versus Nawab Ahmad Shamsi1986 CLC 1100 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
• M. Shall Versus The State1986 CLC 110 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-18Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. Versus Pazhong Traders1986 CLC 1086 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ilyas Versus Asma Bai1986 CLC 107 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-29Read full judgment →
• Nishibe Kaike Manufacturing Company Ltd. Versus Karachi Taxi Meter Co.1986 CLC 1063 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Versus Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro1986 CLC 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
• Umar Daraz Versus Fatima1986 CLC 103 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-23Read full judgment →
• M. A. Waheed Versus Settlement Commissioner, Sind at Karachi1985 CLC 956 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board Versus Muhammad Khan1985 CLC 905 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
• Ebrahim Versus Nazir Printing Works1985 CLC 842 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Versus Sakhawat Hussain1985 CLC 34 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-22Read full judgment →
• Suleman Gowawala & Sons Ltd. Versus Usman1985 CLC 168 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-06Read full judgment →
• Global Shipping Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Sea Elite1985 CLC 1569 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus Muhammad Ahmad1985 CLC 1433 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Khan Versus Muhammad Suleman Soomro1984 CLC 50 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-31Read full judgment →
• Ainul Haque Versus Shahid Ahmed Pervaiz1984 CLC 47 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus Muhammad Fazlur Rehman1984 CLC 452 · Sindh High Court · 1967-01-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus Muhammad Fazlur Rehman1984 CLC 450 · Sindh High Court · 1968-04-04Read full judgment →
• Rahiman Bano Versus Wasi Ahmad Jaffery1984 CLC 44 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Karim Bux Versus Mushtaq Ali1984 CLC 33 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
• Eastern General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Khatija Begum1984 CLC 2917 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Eastern Steels Versus National Shipping Corporation1984 CLC 2778 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sterling Engineering Corporation Versus Collector of Customs1984 CLC 2536 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• Abco International Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi Versus MRS. Salimahashim Raza1984 CLC 2488 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Inayatullah Hassan Versus Bashirunnisa1984 CLC 2463 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Versus Abdul Hamid1984 CLC 23 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
• R. B. Awari & Co. Ltd. Versus Badruddin H. Mawani1984 CLC 1877 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-14Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali Versus Muhammad Nasim1984 CLC 1020 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raghib Versus Services Industries Ltd1984 CLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
• M. S.Abid Alias Mohammad Abid Versus Provincial Election Authority1983 CLC 501 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mustafa Ali Khan Versus Safia Maqsood1983 CLC 349 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
• Waseem Construction Co. Versus Province of Sind1983 CLC 3273 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
• Chaman Shoe Co. Versus Controller of Imports and Exports1983 CLC 3233 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
• Nizam Versus Abdul Majid1983 CLC 3072 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Brohi Versus Muhammad Hashim1983 CLC 3021 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Versus Unilever Ltd.1983 CLC 258 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
• Zakaria Versus Muhammad Farooq1983 CLC 2115 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Versus Abdul Wahid1982 CLC 877 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan Versus Bashir Ahmad1982 CLC 379 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-15Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain Versus Muhammad Ziauddin Khan1982 CLC 2648 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux Versus Mst Rafiquan1982 CLC 1916 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Versus Abdul Ghaffar1982 CLC 1717 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Versus Mustajab Khan1982 CLC 1582 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner Versus Abdul Karim Moosa1982 CLC 1542 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Alvi Versus War Pasha1982 CLC 1324 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
• Allah Dino Versus Islamuddin1980 CLC 674 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-24Read full judgment →
• Allied International Corporation (Pak.) Ltd Versus Controller of Patents and Designs1980 CLC 641 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aref Effendi Versus Egypt Air1980 CLC 2199 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-15Read full judgment →
• Nazim Versus Habib Bank Ltd.1980 CLC 2173 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Versus Hyderabad Tando Fazul Bus Service1980 CLC 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar Khan Versus Blue Printers1979 CLC 870 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-12Read full judgment →
• Tar Muhammad Versus Adam1979 CLC 854 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
• Agha Brothers Versus Tharparkar District T. B. Association, Mirpurkhas1979 CLC 831 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-24Read full judgment →
• Chakar Khan Versus Commissioner Sibi Division,Sibi1979 CLC 829 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-29Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Versus Karachi Municipal Corporation1979 CLC 815 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Versus Service Corporation, Karachi1979 CLC 807 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-21Read full judgment →
• Jabees Ltd., Karachi Versus Government of West Pakistan1979 CLC 784 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
• Ferozuddin Baweja Versus Excise & Taxation Officer, Karachi1979 CLC 779 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Raquib Imtiaz Versus Settlement Commissioner, Karachi , S. M. Noorul Hassan1979 CLC 765 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus Muhammad Ilyas1979 CLC 720 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
• Zaman Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi Versus Messrs Anwar & Co.,Karachi1979 CLC 685 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-20Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed Versus Province of Sind1979 CLC 668 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Moinul Haque G. Shaikh Versus Zulekha1979 CLC 650 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-25Read full judgment →
• Khadija Bai Versus Abrar Hussain Qureshi1979 CLC 646 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Khan & Co. Ltd., Karachi Versus Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Ltd.1979 CLC 625 · Sindh High Court · 1918-02-13Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ahmad Versus Government of Sindh1979 CLC 623 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-14Read full judgment →
• Nasim Ahmed Kharal Versus Board of Revenue, Sindh1979 CLC 609 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Southern Co-Operative Society Ltd., Karachi Versus Muhammad Yasin Khan , G. H. Malik1979 CLC 602 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-23Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad Versus Fatima Bi1979 CLC 599 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-13Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ali Versus State2025 YLR 962 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-10
  attempted murderocular evidencemedical evidenceinjured eye-witnesssentence enhancementFIR delaycriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction for attempted murder and causing hurt, while the complainant sought sentence enhancement. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction and the appropriateness of the awarded sentences. The Court dismissed both the appeal and the revision application, maintaining the conviction and existing sentences. It held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the delay in lodging the FIR was sufficiently explained by the medical needs of the injured victim. The Court reaffirmed that ocular evidence, when deemed trustworthy and confidence-inspiring, takes precedence over medical evidence in the event of conflict. Furthermore, it established that the testimony of an injured eye-witness is highly reliable, and a conviction may be sustained on the evidence of a sole eye-witness, as corroboration is merely a rule of caution rather than a strict rule of law. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's sentencing discretion, as the injuries sustained did not target vital organs.

  Questions settled

  • Does ocular evidence take precedence over medical evidence when the ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and confidence-inspiring?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on the testimony of a sole eye-witness?
  • Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case if the delay is adequately explained by the circumstances?
  • Is corroboration of eye-witness testimony a mandatory rule of law or a rule of caution?
  Read full judgment →
• Nishan Ali Versus State2025 YLR 2812 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-14
  pre-arrest bailmurderous enmitydelay in FIRfurther inquiryrule of consistencyfirearm injurymala fide prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court where the applicant, Nishan Ali, sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 47/2024 registered under Sections 452, 324, 365, 511, 337F(iii), 147, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Lakha Road. The core legal questions involved whether the unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the attribution of a firearm injury to a non-vital part of the body, longstanding murderous enmity, and the principle of consistency with co-accused who were already granted bail warranted the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that the case against the applicant called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as mala fide on the part of the prosecution could not be ruled out due to strained relations and a previous murder conviction of the complainant's family members. The Court laid down the principles that an unexplained inordinate delay in reporting a crime is fatal to the prosecution, injuries sustained on non-vital parts of the body warrant further inquiry, and co-accused on similar footing should be granted consistent treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case in a bail application?
  • Does an injury caused to a non-vital part of the body, which is not declared detrimental to life, make the case one of further inquiry?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
  • Can longstanding murderous enmity between the parties establish mala fide on the part of the prosecution to warrant pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad Versus State2025 YLR 2803 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-10
  post-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clauserecovery of gutkapolice witnessescriminal procedurebail as a right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, charged under Section 8(i) of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Mainpuri Act, 2019, following the recovery of 20 kg of Gutka from his possession. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given that the alleged offence carries a maximum sentence of three years, thereby falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that since the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. The Court observed that the investigation was complete, the challan had been submitted, and the absence of private witnesses in a populated area raised questions regarding the recovery. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any likelihood of the accused absconding, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence. The principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail should be granted as a matter of right unless exceptional circumstances exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable with a maximum of three years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail a rule and refusal an exception for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the specific grounds that justify the denial of bail when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Paresh Versus State2025 YLR 2797 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-17
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryinterim challancyber stalkingforensic reportstatutory delaypersonal liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Paresh, in a case registered under Section 506(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 25-D of the Telegraph Act 1885. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the prosecution's allegations of cyber stalking and the victim's mental condition, versus the lack of forensic evidence and the prosecution's failure to submit an interim challan within the statutory period. The Court held that the case constituted one of further inquiry, noting that the forensic report failed to retrieve the alleged video data, no motive was established, and the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory 14-day timeline for submitting an interim challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the law of bail is not static and must balance the state's interest in preventing the destruction of evidence with the accused's constitutional right to liberty, particularly where the prosecution fails to present sufficient material to justify continued incarceration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to submit an interim challan within the statutory period under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the forensic evidence fails to support the prosecution's allegations regarding the existence of incriminating video data?
  • Does the absence of a recorded statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a cyber-stalking case weaken the prosecution's grounds for opposing bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali Versus State2025 YLR 2791 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-16
  registration of FIRJustice of Peacecognizable offenceinherent jurisdictiondisputed questions of factelectrocutioncriminal investigationSection 561-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order by the Justice of Peace directing the registration of an FIR concerning the death of a person by electrocution. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace correctly exercised jurisdiction under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order the registration of an FIR, and whether the High Court should interfere given the disputed questions of fact regarding the applicants' involvement. The Court held that the impugned order was maintainable, reasoning that the disputed questions of fact regarding the applicants' liability and the credibility of the complainant's version fall within the exclusive domain of the Investigating Officer. The Court affirmed that jurisdiction under Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be exercised with caution, and the High Court should not adjudicate on disputed facts in Section 561-A proceedings. To balance the interests of justice, the Court directed the investigation to proceed but ordered that no arrests be made against the applicants unless tangible incriminating evidence surfaces.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court adjudicate disputed questions of fact during proceedings under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the Justice of Peace under Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited to cases where police fail to register an FIR for a cognizable offence?
  • Should an arrest be ordered in a case involving disputed questions of fact before tangible incriminating evidence is collected by the Investigating Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Versus State2025 YLR 2764 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-07
  post-arrest bailnarcotics traffickingfurther inquirycircumstantial evidenceconscious possessionControl of Narcotic Substances Actrecovery proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused in a narcotics case involving the recovery of methamphetamine from a parcel. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was not present at the scene and from whom no direct recovery was made, could be denied bail despite the serious nature of the offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court held that the prosecution’s case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence without establishing a direct nexus or conscious possession by the applicant. Consequently, the Court determined that the matter required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The key principle laid down is that the gravity of an offense alone does not justify the refusal of bail when the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case linking the accused to the contraband through direct evidence or exclusive possession. Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application, emphasizing that inconclusive evidence regarding the accused's involvement necessitates further judicial scrutiny during trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of exclusive possession of narcotics constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be denied in narcotics cases solely based on the gravity of the offense when the prosecution lacks direct evidence linking the accused to the contraband?
  • Is the recovery of narcotics from a parcel without the accused's presence sufficient to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of refusing bail?
  Read full judgment →