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.

• Standard Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive Officer Versus Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Islamabad2010 CLD 360 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khyber Textile Mills Ltd. Versus Investment Corporation of Pakistan2010 CLD 1529 · Sindh High Court · 2010-02-24Read full judgment →
• Soneri Bank Ltd. Versus Dewan Sugar Mills Ltd.2010 CLD 151 · Sindh High Court · 2009-09-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Versus Emirates Bank International PJSC2010 CLD 1057 · Sindh High Court · 2010-07-23Read full judgment →
• Exide Pakistan Ltd. through Finance Director and Company Secretary Versus Malik Abdul Wadood2009 CLD 716 · Sindh High Court · 2009-02-20Read full judgment →
• Majid Versus Quality Steel Works Limited Muhammad Saleem Mangrio , Asalm Butt2009 CLD 713 · Sindh High Court · 2003-10-09Read full judgment →
• M. Ayub Versus Federation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan2009 CLD 616 · Sindh High Court · 2009-01-27Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. Versus Mrs. Jameela Mumtaz2009 CLD 513 · Sindh High Court · 2009-01-20Read full judgment →
• Clifford Chance Versus Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks2009 CLD 339 · Sindh High Court · 2008-12-03Read full judgment →
• H & B General Trading Company through Director Versus International Marketing Company through Proprietor2009 CLD 318 · Sindh High Court · 2008-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar Versus Yar Muhammad through Legal Heirs2009 CLD 305 · Sindh High Court · 2008-12-01Read full judgment →
• Dada Steel Mills Versus Metalexport2009 CLD 1524 · Sindh High Court · 2009-07-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwar Begum through Attorney Versus Zarai Tarqiati Bank of Pakistan through Manager2009 CLD 133 · Sindh High Court · 2008-10-10Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Insulations (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Ranhill Engineers and Constructors DDFC Group of Companies through General Pakistan Operations Manager2009 CLD 1077 · Sindh High Court · 2009-04-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Young Men's Christian Association (Ymca) through President Versus Government of Sindh through Secretary Social Welfare and Women Development Department Karachi2009 CLD 1013 · Sindh High Court · 2009-01-30Read full judgment →
• Climax Printers through Proprietor and another Versus Habib Bank Ltd.2008 CLD 761 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-15Read full judgment →
• Tanya Knitwear (Pvt.) Ltd Versus First Women Bank Ltd Raja Qasit Nawaz Khan , Khawaja Naveed Ahmed2008 CLD 75 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-23Read full judgment →
• KLB-E-Hyder and Company (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive Versus National Bank of Pakistan through President2008 CLD 576 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Aijaz Hussain Versus Syed Abdul Azeem Wajahat Abbas , Nemo2008 CLD 51 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-24Read full judgment →
• Indus Battery Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Federation of Pakistan Haseeb Jamali , Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqi, D.A.-G., Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi and Ghulam Ahmed Khan2008 CLD 177 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-11Read full judgment →
• Exide Pakistan Limited through Finance Director and Company Secretary Versus Malik Abdul Wadood2008 CLD 1258 · Sindh High Court · 2008-08-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Abbasi Versus Gul Muhammad Hajano2008 CLD 1230 · Sindh High Court · 2008-08-07Read full judgment →
• Raees Ghulam Sarwar Versus Mansoor Sadiq Zaidi2008 CLD 1056 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Versus Abdul Rashid2008 CLD 1009 · Sindh High Court · 2008-06-23Read full judgment →
• Shehri C.B.E. Versus Government of Pakistan2007 CLD 783 · Sindh High Court · 2006-10-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dewan Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus M. B. Abbasi and others2007 CLD 1610 · Sindh High Court · 2006-08-09Read full judgment →
• Kasb Bank Limited Versus Messrs Trans Lima Private Limited2007 CLD 1407 · Sindh High Court · 2007-07-27Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali Versus First Prudential Modaraba through Chief Executive2006 CLD 927 · Sindh High Court · 2006-04-21Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. Versus Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd.2006 CLD 842 · Sindh High Court · 2006-03-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Irisma International Versus United Bank Limited, Karachi2006 CLD 832 · Sindh High Court · 2005-12-13Read full judgment →
• Smith Kline Beecham Corporation Versus Pharma Evo (Pvt.) Ltd.2006 CLD 716 · Sindh High Court · 2006-02-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakland Cement Limited Versus Messrs American Express Bank N.A.2006 CLD 494 · Sindh High Court · 2005-09-20Read full judgment →
• Metropolitan Steel Corporation Ltd. Versus Macsteel International U.K. Ltd.2006 CLD 1491 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad2005 CLD 737 · Sindh High Court · 2005-02-02Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. Versus Ali Muhammad2005 CLD 491 · Sindh High Court · 2004-11-04Read full judgment →
• Shahamatullah Qureshi Versus Hi-Tech Construction (Pvt) Ltd2004 CLD 640 · Sindh High Court · 2004-02-06Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Versus Messrs Mahmood (Pvt.) Limited and others2004 CLD 1472 · Sindh High Court · 2004-06-10Read full judgment →
• Acer, Inc. Versus Acer Computers2004 CLD 1131 · Sindh High Court · 2003-10-20Read full judgment →
• Adamjee Insurance Company Limited Versus Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Islamabad2003 CLD 463 · Sindh High Court · 2002-08-22Read full judgment →
• Shipyard K. Damen International Versus Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd.2003 CLD 309 · Sindh High Court · 2002-05-09Read full judgment →
• Aeroflot Russian International Airlines Versus Gerry's International (Private) Ltd.2003 CLD 211 · Sindh High Court · 2002-08-06Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited Versus Al-Jalal Textile Mills Ltd2003 CLD 1007 · Sindh High Court · 2001-09-18Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan Versus Syed Akbar Hussain Rizvi2002 CLD 805 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-05
  illegal bankingBanking Companies Ordinancemens reacriminal liabilitycorporate directorsproduction of documentsacquittalState Bank of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal complaint filed by the State Bank of Pakistan against the directors of a private limited company for allegedly failing to produce records and documents regarding their business activities, which were suspected of constituting illegal banking in violation of Section 27(1) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. The core legal question was whether the accused, as directors, had willfully failed to comply with the directives issued by the State Bank of Pakistan under Section 43-A of the Ordinance, thereby incurring liability under Section 83(1-C). The court held that while the accused were indeed directors of the company and the State Bank had reasonable grounds to initiate an inquiry, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had failed to comply with the directives. The court noted that the accused had provided responses and documents, and the State Bank failed to specifically request further information or exercise its power to seize records. Consequently, the court acquitted the accused, emphasizing that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence unless expressly excluded by statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presumption of truth attach to official corporate records such as Form 29-A regarding the directorship of a company?
  • Is mens rea an essential ingredient of a criminal offence under the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962?
  • Can a conviction for failing to produce documents be sustained when the prosecution fails to prove that the accused willfully ignored specific directives or when the regulator failed to exercise its power to seize records?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited Versus Messrs Hawkesbay Sportswear Inc.2002 CLD 242 · Sindh High Court · 2001-11-21Read full judgment →
• MS. Afshan Ahmed Versus Messrs Habib Bank Limited2002 CLD 137 · Sindh High Court · 2001-04-10Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Soap and Detergents (Private) Ltd. Versus Basra Soap Factory2002 CLD 1223 · Sindh High Court · 2002-03-15Read full judgment →
• Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan Versus Messrs Hyderali Bhimji & Co.2002 CLD 1207 · Sindh High Court · 2002-04-08Read full judgment →
• Shreemati Sarswati Devi Versus Shreemati Janki Bai2025 PLD 403 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mena Energy DMCC Versus Hascol Petroleum Limited2025 PLD 395 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique Rind Versus Raees Ali Akbar2025 PLD 386 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-21Read full judgment →
• Assad Naeem Versus State2025 PLD 368 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-26
  Illegal Dispossession ActMilitary Court jurisdictioninterim possessioncivil offenceCabinet Division decisionrevisional jurisdictionPakistan Air Force Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two criminal revision applications arising from proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The primary legal questions concern whether an Air Force officer accused of a civil offence must be tried by a Military Court rather than an ordinary court, and whether the trial court correctly granted interim possession of the disputed property to the complainant. The Court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is a special law whose provisions prevail over the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953, and that the accused’s trial before an ordinary court was proper. Furthermore, the Court ruled that executive decisions, such as those from the Cabinet Division, cannot override prior judicial pronouncements or have retrospective effect on ongoing criminal trials. The Court affirmed the trial court’s order granting interim possession, finding the accused’s possession prima facie unlawful. The key principles established are that jurisdiction issues settled by final judicial orders cannot be re-agitated, and that special laws governing illegal dispossession take precedence over general military service acts regarding civil offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 take precedence over the Pakistan Air Force Act, 1953 regarding the trial of an Air Force officer for a civil offence?
  • Can an executive decision of the Cabinet Division override a judicial pronouncement or have retrospective effect on an ongoing criminal trial?
  • Is a trial court authorized to grant interim possession under Section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before the conclusion of the main trial?
  • Can a party re-agitate a question of jurisdiction that has already been decided by a court in a previous order that attained finality?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan Brohi Versus State2025 PLD 360 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-08
  capital punishmentright to fair triallegal representationineffective assistance of counselmurder referenceremandprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of his wife, alongside a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal question revolves around whether the trial court violated the appellant's fundamental right to a fair trial and effective legal representation by hastily recording prosecution evidence and conducting cross-examinations through an un-authorized or unprepared advocate in the absence of the retained counsel, and without fulfilling mandatory procedural requirements. The Sindh High Court held that the trial proceedings suffered from grave illegalities and procedural lapses that vitiated the trial, compromising the right to counsel of choice under Article 10-A of the Constitution. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, vacated the death sentence, answered the murder reference in the negative, and remanded the case back to the Trial Court for a de novo trial with specific directions to ensure due process and effective legal representation.

  Questions settled

  • Does proceeding with a capital case and recording evidence in the absence of the accused's chosen defense counsel vitiate the trial?
  • Can procedural defects regarding the lack of proper legal representation be cured under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the right to be defended by a counsel of one's choice guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What is the duty of the trial court when a defense counsel repeatedly fails to appear or when counsel is substituted in a capital punishment case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alim Shar Versus Shahnawaz2025 PLD 351 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Rasheed Versus Abdul Qadir2025 PLD 347 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-04Read full judgment →
• Siddiqui Construction Company through Managing Director Versus Shanker Lal Ochani2025 PLD 342 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-02Read full judgment →
• Transfar Los Angeles Pte Ltd. Versus M. V. "TSS Amber" through Master/Chief Officer2025 PLD 335 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-04Read full judgment →
• Master Iqbal Versus Anjuman Jama Masjid2025 PLD 323 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) Versus Amar Parkash2025 PLD 307 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Anjum Ara Versus Shabbir A. Halai2025 PLD 298 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• Sarem Muhammad Mukhtar Versus Sadia Aquil Ahmed2025 PLD 279 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Seema Tariq Khan Versus Najamul Sehr Soomro2025 PLD 264 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-08Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan Versus State2024 PLD 424 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-19
  fair trialjudicial impartialitycross-examinationcapital casepauper counselremanddue process
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing procedural irregularities during the trial. The core legal question was whether a trial judge acts lawfully by assuming the role of defence counsel to cross-examine key prosecution witnesses when the appointed defence counsel fails to do so. The Court held that a trial judge must remain a neutral, independent arbitrator and cannot usurp the role of defence counsel. By cross-examining the primary eye-witnesses, the trial judge compromised their impartiality and violated the principles of a fair trial. The Court emphasized that in capital cases, if appointed counsel is ineffective, the judge should replace them rather than conduct the cross-examination personally. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of re-recording the evidence of the first three prosecution witnesses with competent defence counsel and rendering a fresh judgment. The key principle established is that a judge's duty to ensure a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 precludes them from acting as an advocate for the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial judge cross-examine prosecution witnesses when the defence counsel fails to do so?
  • Does a trial judge's personal cross-examination of witnesses violate the requirement of judicial impartiality?
  • What is the appropriate remedy when a trial judge fails to ensure effective legal representation for an accused in a capital case?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Sugar Mills Association Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of Pakistan2023 PLD 66 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Laloo Versus Senior Superintendent of Police, Mirpur Khas, Sindh2023 PLD 53 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-30
  religious conversiondissolution of marriageIddatirregular marriageFasid marriageHindu marriagehabeas corpus
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a Hindu husband seeking the recovery and restoration of his wife and four minor children from the custody of private respondents. The wife appeared and stated that she had voluntarily embraced Islam and married respondent No. 3. The core legal questions centered on the status of a non-Muslim woman's marriage upon her conversion to Islam, the necessity of observing Iddat, and the procedure for dissolving the previous marriage. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a married non-Muslim woman who embraces Islam must seek dissolution of her marriage through the Family Court, which must offer the husband the option to convert. If he refuses, the marriage is dissolved. The Court ruled that marrying during the Iddat period without offering Islam to the previous husband renders the subsequent marriage irregular (Fasid) rather than void (Batil), which can be regularized by a fresh Nikah after the Iddat period. The Court reiterated that there is no legal basis to restore a converted Muslim woman to her non-Muslim husband.

  Questions settled

  • Does the marriage of a non-Muslim woman automatically dissolve upon her conversion to Islam, or is a formal legal procedure required?
  • What is the legal status of a marriage contracted by a female convert to Islam during her Iddat period without offering Islam to her previous non-Muslim husband?
  • Can a converted Muslim woman be legally restored to the custody of her previous non-Muslim husband?
  • What procedure must a Family Court follow when a newly converted Muslim woman petitions for the dissolution of her previous non-Muslim marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashim Ali Rizvi Versus Owners of the Vessel m.v. Eco Ekram2023 PLD 221 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-04Read full judgment →
• Kulsum Khaliq Versus Inspector-General of Police2022 PLD 51 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-26
  contempt of courtretired judgepublic criticismjudicial accountabilityscandalizing the courtadministration of justiceArticle 204
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was brought under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against respondents for publicly criticizing and alleged character assassination of a former Chief Justice of Pakistan. The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether contempt proceedings could be initiated to protect or vindicate the reputation of a retired judge. The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that contempt powers are not attracted in the case of a retired judge. The Court held that upon retirement, a judicial officer severs their connection with the judicial organ and attains the status of a private citizen, ceasing to be a member of the 'Court'. Consequently, contempt powers exist not to protect an individual judge's dignity or personal reputation, but to safeguard the administration of justice and protect litigants' rights during pending proceedings; a retired judge must pursue ordinary civil or criminal remedies as a private citizen.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the offence of contempt of court can be attracted on account of public criticism or character assassination directed at a retired judge?
  • Does a retired judicial officer retain the status of a member of the 'Court' for the purposes of contempt proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003?
  • Can the judicial power of contempt be exercised to protect the individual dignity or reputation of a judge rather than the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Akber Khan Versus National Accountability Bureau2022 PLD 440 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Ahmed Versus Industrial Development Bank Limited2022 PLD 304 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Versus State2022 PLD 233 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-13
  narcotic substancesPakistan Coast Guardsinvestigation powerschain of custodyindependent witnessessection 103 CrPCjurisdictionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 100 kilograms of Charas. The Pakistan Coast Guards (PCG) conducted the arrest and investigation. The Sindh High Court acquitted the appellant, finding multiple fatal flaws in the prosecution's case. The court held that the prosecution failed to provide independent witnesses as required by section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, without offering valid justification, and failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of section 21(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Furthermore, the court ruled that while the PCG may exercise limited powers of search and seizure under the Act, they lack the legal authority to conduct investigations or submit challans, which must be performed by authorized police or Anti-Narcotics Force personnel. The court established that agencies authorized for search and seizure under the Act are not automatically empowered to investigate, and failure to adhere to these jurisdictional boundaries and procedural safeguards vitiates the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 provide a blanket exemption from the requirement of independent witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Are Pakistan Coast Guards personnel authorized to conduct investigations and submit challans for offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is the failure to record the grounds and basis of information and proposed action under section 21(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the non-compliance with the chain of custody for recovered narcotics render the chemical examiner's report unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat N. Din Versus Salman Talibuddin, Advocate General, Sindh2021 PLD 539 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-15Read full judgment →
• Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited through Wasif Khalid Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division, Islamabad2021 PLD 418 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed Siddiqui Versus Abdul Abid2021 PLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 2020-07-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajra Versus Province of Sindh2020 PLD 727 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-26Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali Versus State2020 PLD 491 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24
  criminal appealsummoning of accusedcognizance of offencetrial court jurisdictionrapekidnappingdirect complaintpolice report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for kidnapping and rape under sections 364-A and 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the authority to summon and join a person as an accused during trial proceedings based solely on the complainant's oral testimony, despite that person not being named in the FIR, police statements, or the final challan. The High Court held that the trial court acted without legal justification. The court ruled that while a trial court is not bound by the police's opinion, it cannot summon an additional accused without sufficient incriminating material on record. Mere allegations by a complainant during testimony, unsupported by evidence collected during investigation, do not constitute grounds for joining a new accused. The court established that the trial court’s power to summon an accused must be based on material connecting the person to the offence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, noting that the proper remedy for the complainant was to file a direct complaint.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the power to summon an additional accused solely based on the complainant's oral testimony during trial?
  • Is a trial court bound by the police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court join a person as an accused if their name does not appear in the FIR, police statements, or the final challan?
  • What is the appropriate procedure for a complainant to prosecute a person not named in the initial police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Abbas Versus Air Waves Media (Pvt.) Ltd.2020 PLD 400 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-16Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmed Versus Province of Sindh2019 PLD 697 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-30Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Humera Imran Versus Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence and Production2019 PLD 467 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Al-Noor Versus The Province of Sindh2019 PLD 400 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal Kazmi Versus Government of Pakistan2019 PLD 399 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hina Versus Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department Sindh at Karachi2019 PLD 363 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
• Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Versus Adnan Faisal2019 PLD 235 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Versus Zaman Shah2018 PLD 732 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah Sirazi Versus Director General (Karachi) National Accountability Bureau2018 PLD 696 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-13Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farida Ashraf Rana Versus Adila Kazmi2018 PLD 692 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Akhtar Versus Federation of Pakistan2018 PLD 657 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-03
  Benazir Employees Stock Option SchemeBESOSConstitutional jurisdictionPublic fundsCouncil of Common InterestsTrust deedPrivatization CommissionVested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought to declare unlawful the directives of the Privatization Commission suspending dividend payments and retirement benefits under the Benazir Employees Stock Option Scheme (BESOS) for Pakistan Petroleum Limited employees. The core legal question was whether the suspension of these benefits was unlawful and whether the underlying Trust was validly established. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Trust was created without proper constitutional authorization, specifically violating Articles 154 and 173 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The Court determined that the transfer of state-owned shares to a select group of employees without proper legal sanction constituted an unauthorized use of public funds, rendering the scheme legally infirm. The Court established the principle that executive actions involving public assets must strictly adhere to constitutional mandates, including the oversight of the Council of Common Interests. Consequently, benefits derived from such unauthorized transfers of public property are considered ill-gotten gains and cannot be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction, as contractual obligations of this nature do not warrant interference under Article 199.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to enforce contractual obligations arising from a scheme involving public funds?
  • Does the transfer of state-owned shares to employees under the Benazir Employees Stock Option Scheme require approval from the Council of Common Interests?
  • Are benefits derived from a trust established without proper constitutional authorization enforceable as vested rights?
  • Is an executive action transferring public assets to a private trust valid if it fails to comply with the Rules of Business, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustam Ali Versus Election Commission of Pakistan2018 PLD 631 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mehboob Versus Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department, Karachi2018 PLD 623 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-28Read full judgment →
• Mir Shabbir Ali Khan Bijarini Versus Federation of Pakistan2018 PLD 603 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-10Read full judgment →
• Petition for Probate of the Will of the Late MRS. Vera Cowasjee Rustom Fakirjee Cowasjee Versus2018 PLD 592 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-22Read full judgment →
• Cress LPG (Pvt) Ltd. Versus M.T. Maria III through Master/Chief Engineer/Chief Officer2018 PLD 569 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-13Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Sarwar Versus Government of Sindh2018 PLD 360 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-23Read full judgment →
• Digri Sugar Mills Limited Versus Mian Kamran Ilahi2018 PLD 199 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-19Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Haroon Buksh Versus Shaikh Tahir Buksh2017 PLD 563 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughra Begum Versus Mst. Akbari Begum2016 PLD 232 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-07Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Gas Port Ltd. Versus Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd.2016 PLD 207 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-02Read full judgment →
• U.K. International Versus Trading Corporation of Pakistan2015 PLD 89 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Versus State2015 PLD 284 · Sindh High Court · 2014-02-18
  concurrent sentencesconsecutive sentencessentencing discretioncriminal procedureinherent powers of High CourtSection 397 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous application sought an order for four separate sentences of imprisonment, awarded in distinct trials, to run concurrently rather than consecutively, citing the applicant's poor financial condition and desire for reformation. The core legal question was whether the court should exercise its discretion under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct concurrent sentences for an offender already undergoing imprisonment. The Court held that while Section 397 vests discretion in the court to order concurrent sentences, consecutive sentencing is the general rule. The Court clarified that this discretion is an exception, not a rule, and is only exercised when offences are akin or intimately connected, forming part of a common objective. Factors for consideration include the convict's conduct, the heinousness of the crime, and the injury caused to society. Because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the four offences were intimately connected or part of a series of acts achieving a single objective, the Court dismissed the petition, maintaining the consecutive nature of the sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Is the provision of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding consecutive sentences directory or discretionary?
  • Can the High Court exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order sentences to run concurrently?
  • What criteria must be met for a court to exercise its discretion to order concurrent sentences for offences tried separately?
  • Does the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle a convict to concurrent sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtazuddin Versus State2015 PLD 183 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-10
  post-arrest bailsmugglingcustoms baggage declarationfurther inquirymaintainabilitytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from the Sindh High Court's review of an order passed by the Special Appellate Court, which dismissed the applicant's post-arrest bail plea in a case involving sections 2(s) and 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with the Import Policy Order, 2013. The applicant, a foreign national, was intercepted by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) at the airport upon arrival, and his personal baggage was alleged to contain Glock pistol parts. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a bail application before the High Court's Divisional Bench against an order of the Special Appellate Court, the applicability of the offence of smuggling to the recovered items, whether an opportunity to declare the goods was provided under section 139 of the Customs Act, and the jurisdiction and role of the FIA versus Customs authorities. The court held that the bail application was maintainable, and that the circumstances surrounding the failure to afford an opportunity for declaration, the absence of Customs officials in the seizure proceedings, and the tentative nature of the evidence brought the case within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, post-arrest bail was granted to the applicant. The key principles laid down include that questions regarding compliance with baggage declaration requirements under section 139 of the Customs Act require further inquiry at the bail stage, and that cases raising substantial doubts regarding the proper application of smuggling provisions or procedural irregularities warrant the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bail application is maintainable before a Divisional Bench of the High Court against an order passed by a Special Appellate Court under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the failure to afford a passenger an opportunity to make a declaration of baggage contents under section 139 of the Customs Act, 1969 constitute a ground for further inquiry warranting bail?
  • Whether the recovery of pistol parts from personal baggage without a proper declaration and without the involvement of customs officials attracts the offence of smuggling under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Ahmed Versus Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law, Islamabad2014 PLD 48 · Sindh High Court · 2013-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulzadi Versus Government of Sindh through Home Secretary2014 PLD 386 · Sindh High Court · 2014-05-27Read full judgment →