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.

• Ahsan Ellahi Versus Setlemment Commissioner1975 PLD 153 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
• The State Versus Sharbat1975 PLD 151 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sttar Versus Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land)1975 PLD 144 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir Khan Versus Abu Dhabi Petroleum Co Ltd.1975 PLD 138 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-30Read full judgment →
• Sind Industrial Trading Estate Ltd. Versus Central Board of Revenue1975 PLD 128 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-20Read full judgment →
• Nindo Machi Versus The State1975 PLD 120 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Versus Fakir Muhammad1975 PLD 118 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-16Read full judgment →
• House Building Finance Corporation Versus Shahensha Jehangir Co-Operative House Building Society1975 PLD 113 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-04Read full judgment →
• Sahib Versus The State1975 PLD 107 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-04Read full judgment →
• Fahim & Co Versus N. B. P.1975 PLD 1032 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-19Read full judgment →
• Hamidullah Versus The State1975 PLD 103 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-27Read full judgment →
• Tajamul Hassan Versus Deputy Collector of Customs1975 PLD 1029 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chiragh Din Versus Mushtaq Mohammad1975 PLD 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-12Read full judgment →
• Indus Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Workers Union Versus Govt. of the Province of Sind1975 PLD 1017 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-01Read full judgment →
• Zakaria A. Bawan Versus City Dputy Collector1975 PLD 1008 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-12Read full judgment →
• Wasimul Haque Versus Govt. of Sind1975 PLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
• Sony Kabushiki Kaisha, Japan Versus Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi1974 PLD 136 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-09Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Versus Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Naushero Feroze1974 PLD 124 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ayoob Versus The State1974 PLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1973-07-21Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal Versus The Province of Sind1973 PLD 316 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-14Read full judgment →
• Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd Versus Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi1973 PLD 189 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-10Read full judgment →
• Aziz Salimuddin Hyder Versus Farooq Ahmad1972 PLD 68 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Municipal Committee of Shahdadpur Versus Jumo Khan and Another1972 PLD 507 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Zaibun Nisa Versus Muhammad Mozammil1972 PLD 410 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jalil Ahmed and 3 Others Versus Muhammad Ishaq and 2 Others1972 PLD 341 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-31Read full judgment →
• Noor Nabi Agha Versus The State1972 PLD 292 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Hyder Jatoi Versus The Settlement Commissioner (Policy), Lahore1972 PLD 192 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-30Read full judgment →
• 1971 PLD 681971 PLD 68 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-16Read full judgment →
• 1971 PLD 6661971 PLD 666 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• 1971 PLD 1971971 PLD 197 · Sindh High Court · 1970-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf Versus Assistant Collector of Customs, Karachi1970 PLD 97 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-25Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Battery Manufacturing Co., Karachi Versus Muhammad Hussain1970 PLD 92 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-26Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher and Another Versus The State1970 PLD 790 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bata Shoe Co. (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi Versus The Government of Pakistan1970 PLD 784 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• S. Zahoor Ahmed Versus The Chartered Bank Ltd., Karachi1970 PLD 779 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nigar Pictures, Karachi Versus Messrs United Brothers, Lahore1970 PLD 770 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-23Read full judgment →
• Shahenshah Aurengzeb Co Operative House Building Society Ltd Versus House Building Finance Corporation1970 PLD 76 · Sindh High Court · 1969-06-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Khan Versus Messrs Pakistan Aviation Ltd., Karachi1970 PLD 757 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sirajul Arfeen Versus Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore1970 PLD 725 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abbas Husain Farooqui Versus Messrs Royal Printing Press and Ali Printing Service, Karachi1970 PLD 554 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Rahim Versus Abdul Wahid1970 PLD 537 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-11Read full judgment →
• Habib Versus Haji Muhammad1970 PLD 495 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-04Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi0 Versus Messrs Naqson1970 PLD 490 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-24Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi Versus Messrs Naqson1970 PLD 481 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Commerce Bank Ltd., Karachi Versus Mst. Nafizun Nisa Begum1970 PLD 462 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Ghani Versus The State1970 PLD 46 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-31Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Memon & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2023 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-11Read full judgment →
• Zuhaib vs The State2025 MLD 721 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-18
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyparitydacoityno-objection affidavitfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Zohaib Soomro, who was charged under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought bail after the trial court rejected his initial request, despite co-accused persons having been granted bail by the same court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the rule of consistency and parity, given that co-accused persons facing similar allegations had already been granted bail, and the complainant had submitted an affidavit of no objection. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant’s case was at par with, or on better footings than, the co-accused who had been granted relief. The court emphasized the principle of consistency in judicial orders and the significance of the complainant's no-objection affidavit. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, finding that the applicant’s case fell within the scope of further inquiry, and directed his release upon furnishing solvent surety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the principle of parity when co-accused persons facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
  • Does a complainant's affidavit of no objection constitute a relevant factor for the grant of bail in a non-compoundable offence?
  • When does a case fall under the scope of further inquiry for the purpose of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Zuhaib Ahmed vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC 436 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-26
  departmental inquirypolice disciplinary proceedingssuccessive inquiriesmisconductwrit jurisdictioncivil servantfair trialSindh Police E&D Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Sindh Police challenging ongoing departmental inquiry proceedings and seeking a de novo impartial inquiry. The petitioner alleged that the inquiry was biased, that the competent authority unlawfully ordered a re-inquiry after the first inquiry officer recommended a minor punishment, and that he was denied a fair trial. The Sindh High Court examined whether successive departmental inquiries are permissible under the rules and whether writ jurisdiction can be invoked during ongoing disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that the relevant efficiency and discipline rules do not debar an authority from ordering successive inquiries to uncover the truth, and that internal departmental proceedings concerning service matters should not be prematurely intercepted by the high court under its writ jurisdiction when an adequate statutory remedy like appeal or revision is available. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate malice or a violation of fundamental rights, and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that institutional autonomy in disciplinary matters should be respected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an authority is competent to order a re-inquiry or successive inquiries under the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1988 if it disagrees with the findings of the first inquiry officer?
  • Can the High Court interfere with ongoing departmental disciplinary proceedings under its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and ordering of a re-inquiry by a departmental authority violates the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmed and another vs The State2025 YLR 499 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-27
  police encounterbenefit of doubtindependent corroborationanti-terrorismstandard of proofcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offences involving a police encounter and illegal arms possession. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given that the evidence relied solely on police testimony without independent corroboration. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, setting aside the convictions and acquitting the appellants. The Court reasoned that the prosecution's narrative of a cross-fire encounter resulting in no police injuries was inherently improbable. It established the principle that in police encounter cases, the standard of proof is significantly higher, and it is imperative for investigations to be conducted by an agency other than the police involved in the incident. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that when a case hinges on police testimony, independent corroboration is essential. It reiterated that any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, not as a concession.

  Questions settled

  • Is independent corroboration required when a conviction rests solely on the testimony of police officials in a police encounter case?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and transmission of recovered weapons invalidate the conviction?
  • Can a police force act as the investigator in a case involving an encounter in which they were the primary participants?
  • Does the existence of a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Zohaib Ali Samo vs The State2025 YLR 977 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-24
  narcoticschain of custodysafe custodysafe transmissionchemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 1780 grams of charas. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody, specifically the safe custody and safe transmission of the narcotic samples to the chemical examiner. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody because the police officials responsible for depositing the narcotics in the Malkhana and delivering the samples to the laboratory were not examined as witnesses. Furthermore, there was an unexplained delay between the recovery and the receipt of samples by the laboratory. The court emphasized that the report of the chemical examiner is pivotal in narcotics cases, and any break in the chain of custody renders such evidence unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquitted the appellant, extending him the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to produce the Moharrar and the official who delivered samples to the laboratory create a fatal break in the chain of custody?
  • Is the prosecution required to explain the delay between the recovery of narcotics and their receipt by the chemical examiner?
  • Can a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be sustained if the chain of custody of the recovered contraband is not proven?
  • Is a single reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Razzak vs Cantonment Board Clifton & others2025 SHC KHI 1853 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-14Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan alias Shan vs The State2025 YLR 816 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-19
  Section 342 statementfair trialcriminal appealmurder convictionprocedural irregularityacquittalburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the validity of the trial court's procedure in recording the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a piecemeal manner following the introduction of additional prosecution witnesses, and whether evidence not put to the accused in such a statement can support a conviction. The High Court held that Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandates a single, comprehensive examination of the accused after the conclusion of all prosecution evidence. Piecemeal statements are not recognized by law. Consequently, evidence not put to the accused during a proper Section 342 examination cannot be used to sustain a conviction. The court further ruled that remanding the case to rectify this procedural failure would constitute filling a lacuna in the prosecution's case, violating the accused's fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally permissible for a trial court to record Section 342 CrPC statements in a piecemeal manner after the examination of additional prosecution witnesses?
  • Can a piece of evidence be used to maintain a conviction if it was not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does remanding a case to re-record an accused's Section 342 statement to cure a procedural defect violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakiruddin & others vs M/s. B.R.R. Gurdian Modarba & others2025 SHC KHI 2183 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-15Read full judgment →
• Zakir son of Mushtaque Jatoi vs The State2025 SHC SUK 2108 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-27
  post-arrest bailhonor killingKaro-KariFasad-fil-Arzdying declarationnon-compoundable offenceaffidavit of no objection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who is charged with the murder of a woman under the pretext of "honor" (Karo-Kari), involving offences under Sections 302, 311, 120-B, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the existence of conflicting versions—the prosecution's case supported by a dying declaration and weapon recovery, versus the defense's claim of a dacoity supported by affidavits of "no objection" from the victim's legal heirs. The Court held that the prosecution established a strong prima facie case, and the affidavits of legal heirs are legally inefficacious in honor killing cases. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed. The Court laid down the principle that honor killings constitute Fasad-fil-Arz under Section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendering them non-compoundable. It emphasized that the State's interest in prosecuting such heinous crimes transcends private family disputes, and judicial courts must zealously protect fundamental rights, rejecting any cultural or traditional justification for gender-based violence.

  Questions settled

  • Are affidavits of 'no objection' filed by legal heirs legally effective in bail applications for honor killing cases?
  • Does an honor killing case fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the principle of Fasad-fil-Arz under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, be invoked to prevent the compounding of an honor killing case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakir Islam vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 654 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-11Read full judgment →
• Zakir Hussain vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC 704 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-17Read full judgment →
• Zakir Hussain Samo vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2148 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-25Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed Samtio vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 702 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-16Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed and 4 others vs The State and another2025 YLR 71 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
• Zahid son of Muhammad Paryal and others vs The State2025 SHC HYD 2174, 2025 SHC HYD 2173, 2025 SHC HYD 2172 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-05
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencydoctrine of paritypetroleum pipeline tamperingfurther inquirycircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three criminal bail applications filed by the applicants seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 462-B, 462-F, 379, 413, 427, 337-H(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving alleged tampering with a petroleum pipeline. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations, the lack of direct recovery from their persons, and the fact that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail, noting that the prosecution's case relied on identification during nighttime hours without corroboration and that no incriminating articles were recovered from the applicants' possession. The Court emphasized the 'rule of consistency' or doctrine of parity, holding that where the role ascribed to an accused is identical to that of co-accused who have already been granted bail, the benefit of that concession must be extended to the applicant to ensure equality before the law and avoid arbitrary judicial discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency mandate the grant of bail to an accused when similarly placed co-accused have already been released on bail?
  • Is identification by torchlight during nighttime hours, without corroboration, sufficient to deny bail?
  • Does the absence of recovery from the personal possession of an accused, despite recovery from the general scene, constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafarullah alias Ali Raza vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1638 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-15
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymistaken identitysupplementary statementtentative assessmentcriminal procedurebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application concerns an accused, Zafarullah alias Ali Raza, charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail, given the disputed identity between the applicant and an accused named Ali Raza, and the evidentiary weight of a supplementary statement recorded twenty-one days after the FIR. The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court noted that NADRA records confirmed the applicant and the alleged co-accused were distinct individuals, and the lack of recovery of the crime weapon further supported the grant of bail. The court reaffirmed the principle that at the bail stage, evidence is to be tentatively assessed, and any reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt or identity must be resolved in their favor. Consequently, the court admitted the applicant to bail, emphasizing that this determination was tentative and would not prejudice the trial court's final decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in recording a supplementary statement that introduces a new accused warrant a grant of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when official records like NADRA indicate a potential case of mistaken identity?
  • Can bail be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution's case requires further inquiry?
  • Does the lack of recovery of a crime weapon from the accused support a plea for post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Yousuf son of Abdul Khaliq Mazari vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1971 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-31
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryabscondenceacquittal of co-accusednon-vital injurydelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by Yousif son of Abdul Khaliq Mazari, seeking release in a murder and abduction case registered under Sections 364, 302, 506/2, 114, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolved around whether post-arrest bail should be granted to an accused who was a long-term absconder when co-accused on the same ocular testimony had already been acquitted, the injury attributed was to a non-vital part, and there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The High Court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the evidentiary foundation had been shaken by the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of evidence, the injury was non-vital, and mere prolonged abscondence does not override a strong case on merits. The court laid down the principle that abscondence alone is not a sufficient ground to deny bail if the accused is otherwise entitled on merits, and that discredited ocular testimony coupled with delay in the FIR warrants the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does prolonged abscondence alone disentitle an accused from post-arrest bail when the case on merits warrants further inquiry?
  • Can the acquittal of co-accused on the basis of discredited ocular testimony be extended to an absconding accused facing the same evidence?
  • Whether a firearm injury to a non-vital part of the body without medical proof of being the proximate cause of death attracts Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR compromise the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad son of Gul Hassan Arbani vs Wazir son of Sardar Bux2025 SHC SUK 1996 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Yahya Habib Lodhikawala vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 646 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-27Read full judgment →
• WSKB & Company vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC 116 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-30Read full judgment →
• Western Freight Shipping (Pvt.) Limited & others vs Federation of PakistanPTCL 2025 CL. 611 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wazeer Shah, Sardar Shah and Altaf Shah vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1777 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-26
  kidnapping for ransomanti-terrorismpolice encounteridentification paradecriminal appealminor discrepanciesabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for kidnapping for ransom, robbery, and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt despite initial omission in the FIR, whether minor discrepancies in witness statements warrant an acquittal, and whether the non-holding of an identification parade is fatal to the prosecution's case. The Sindh High Court held that the prolonged captivity of the abductee, who correctly identified the culprits, coupled with their arrest during a police encounter and the recovery of incriminating evidence, sufficiently established guilt. The court affirmed that minor discrepancies do not undermine a solid prosecution case and that identification parades are unnecessary when the witness spends significant time with the accused. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the convictions were maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-holding of an identification parade is fatal to a conviction where the abductee remained in captivity for a considerable period and identified the accused in court?
  • Do minor discrepancies and deviations in the testimony of prosecution witnesses warrant the acquittal of the accused in heinous offences like kidnapping for ransom?
  • Whether the subsequent naming of accused persons in a further police statement after their initial omission in the FIR creates fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Does an acquittal in collateral proceedings relating to a police encounter automatically vitiate a conviction for the substantive offence of kidnapping and ransom?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Abbas Khoja vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1640, 2025 SHC SUK 1641, 2025 SHC SUK 1642 · Sindh High Court
  sentence enhancementcriminal revisioncausal nexusmedical jurisprudencepost-mortem examinationcardio-respiratory failureattempt to commit murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal revision application filed by the complainant seeking the enhancement of the sentence of the accused from imprisonment under Section 324, 337-C, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to the death penalty under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the subsequent death of the injured victim over four months after the incident. The core legal question is whether an enhancement of sentence is warranted when the victim dies months later, and whether a direct causal nexus between the initial injuries and the subsequent death is established without a post-mortem examination or conclusive medical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that in the absence of a post-mortem report and clear medical evidence linking the injuries directly to the death, and considering that the victim was repeatedly discharged in a stable condition and ultimately died of cardio-respiratory failure, the prosecution failed to establish a direct causal connection. The court laid down the principle that the power to enhance a sentence in revisional jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and requires clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of an unbroken chain of events connecting the assault to the fatality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sentence can be enhanced in revisional jurisdiction without a direct and immediate causal connection established between the injuries inflicted and the subsequent death of the victim?
  • Is the non-performance of a post-mortem examination fatal to the prosecution's case when a considerable time lapse exists between the initial assault and the victim's death?
  • What constitutes sufficient medical evidence to prove that a victim's remote death was a direct consequence of injuries sustained months prior?
  • Does a prolonged hospital stay and multiple discharges in a stable condition negate the presumption that injuries were dangerous to life?
  Read full judgment →
• Waris S/O Arsalana vs The State2025 SHC 256 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-26
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsheroin possessionfurther inquirybenefit of doubtcriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, charged under Section 9(1)(6-C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 500 grams of heroin. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the discrepancy between the gross and net weight of the recovered narcotics and the absence of a prior criminal record. The Court held that the accused is entitled to bail, reasoning that the ambiguity regarding whether the weight of the contraband falls under specific subsections of the Act creates a "borderline case." Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that the benefit of doubt regarding the classification of the offense must be extended to the accused. Furthermore, the Court found that the case necessitated further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the lack of prior criminal history and the need for trial-stage determination of the specific offense category warranted the release of the accused pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the gross and net weight of recovered narcotics create a borderline case warranting further inquiry for bail purposes?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the classification of the narcotic offense remains ambiguous?
  • Does the absence of a prior criminal record constitute a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Waris Khan son of Fareed Baloch and others vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2073 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-18Read full judgment →
• Waris Ali s/o Abdul Razzak, Assadullah alias Abdul Hameed vs The State2025 SHC 316 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-07
  post-arrest bailmurderfurther inquirypolice reportsupplementary statementcall detail recordcognizance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two connected bail applications arising from a murder case involving a land dispute, where one applicant (Asadullah) was nominated in the FIR with specific roles and firearm attribution, while the other applicant (Waris Ali) was implicated via a delayed further statement and call detail record (CDR) analysis. The core legal questions concerned whether police exoneration or placing an accused in column No.2 binds the magistrate at the bail stage, the evidentiary value of CDRs, and whether supplementary statements recorded after a considerable lapse of time warrant further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that the police opinion is not binding on the court, and since Asadullah was specifically named in the FIR for an offence carrying capital punishment, his bail application was dismissed. Conversely, regarding Waris Ali, the court held that nomination through a delayed further statement coupled with inconclusive CDR evidence brought his case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., thereby granting him post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that police reports and opinions are not binding on courts at the bail stage, and delayed supplementary statements lacking plausible explanation, alongside inconclusive electronic evidence like CDRs, can constitute grounds for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is the opinion of the police or the Investigation Officer placing an accused in column No.2 binding upon the court at the bail stage?
  • Whether nomination of an accused on the basis of a belated further statement can be a ground for grant of bail under the-rule of further inquiry?
  • Can Call Detail Records (CDRs) alone be considered conclusive pieces of evidence to ascertain the guilt of an accused for the purpose of bail?
  • Does deeper appreciation of evidence and evaluation of police exoneration reports fall within the scope of consideration at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqar Rahim and another vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC LAR 1592 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-26Read full judgment →
• Waqar alias Vicky Gadehi vs The State2025 SHC 348 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-18
  narcoticschain of custodysafe custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealpolice rulesmalkhana registerchemical examiner report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for possession of narcotics under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of safe custody and transmission of the seized narcotics from recovery to court production, and whether the evidence was free of material contradictions. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical lapses in the chain of custody, specifically the failure to produce the Malkhana official and the courier constable, and the absence of mandatory entries in the Daily Diary and Malkhana Register. The court found material contradictions in the documentation and oral testimony, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that in narcotics cases, the prosecution must meticulously establish an unbroken, secure chain of custody; any gap or unexplained delay in the handling or transmission of samples creates a reasonable doubt that must be resolved in favor of the accused, as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce the police official responsible for the Malkhana (storehouse) break the chain of custody in a narcotics case?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce the specific official who transported narcotic samples to the forensic laboratory to establish safe transmission?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained when there are unexplained discrepancies between the Road Certificate date and the Malkhana Register entry?
  • Does the failure to record the movement of seized narcotics in the Daily Diary (Roznamcha) as required by the Police Rules 1934 vitiate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqar alias Abdul Waqa vs Altaf Hussain2025 SHC KHI 1086 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-07
  robberycriminal appealconviction modificationsentencingdeadly weaponmitigating circumstancesperiod already undergone
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants, who were initially convicted by the trial court under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery involving a deadly weapon. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence satisfied the specific ingredients required for an offence under Section 397, specifically the use of a deadly weapon or causing grievous hurt, or if the offence merely constituted robbery under Section 392. Upon review, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the specific aggravating circumstances necessary for Section 397, as no injury was caused to the complainant. Consequently, the Court modified the conviction from Section 397 to Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Considering the appellants' youth, their status as sole family breadwinners, and the fact that they had already served approximately six years in prison, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. The principle laid down is that where the essential ingredients of an aggravated offence are not proven, the conviction must be altered to the lesser offence supported by the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of a weapon during a robbery satisfy the requirements for a conviction under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if no injury is caused?
  • Can an appellate court modify a conviction from Section 397 to Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the evidence does not support the aggravated offence?
  • Is a sentence of imprisonment already served a valid ground for reducing the sentence of a convicted person in a criminal appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ali Jatoi vs Federation of Pakistan through Chairman FPSC and Ors2025 SHC LAR 1513 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-21Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmed vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1121 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmed s/o Mir Hazzar Dasti vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC LAR 1606 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ahmed & another vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1742 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-29Read full judgment →
• Waliullah Shah Mashwani vs Muhammad Usman Brohi and another2025 PCRLJ 183 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-30
  Illegal Dispossession Act 2005Compounding of offencesCriminal appealCompromiseAcquittalRestoration of possessionCode of Criminal Procedure 1898
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, where the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties reached an amicable settlement, with the complainant confirming that possession of the disputed property had been restored and expressing a desire to forgive the appellant. The core legal question was whether an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, which does not explicitly define compoundability, could be compounded under the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the compromise was valid and allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant. The ratio established that since Section 9 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 mandates the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the compounding provisions of Section 345 apply. The Court emphasized that legal provisions should be interpreted beneficially to promote social harmony and reconciliation, noting that compromise serves as a redeeming factor in criminal disputes, thereby fostering peace and reducing the burden on the judicial system.

  Questions settled

  • Can an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 be compounded through a compromise between the parties?
  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 incorporate the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the compounding of offences?
  • Should courts adopt a beneficial interpretation of statutory provisions to facilitate reconciliation between warring parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Waleed son of Fareed Khokhar vs The State & another2025 SHC HYD 1975 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-28Read full judgment →
• Wahid Khan and another vs The State2025 MLD 938 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-12
  pre-arrest bailmatrimonial disputeprohibitory clausefurther inquirymala fidenon-vital partcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 324, 34, 337-F(vi)(iii), and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries, the alleged roles of the accused, and the existence of a prior matrimonial dispute. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, confirming their interim pre-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the findings that the firearm injury was inflicted on a non-vital part of the body, casting doubt on the intent to commit Qatl-i-Amd under Section 324, and that the maximum punishment for the injury under Section 337-F(vi) does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court recognized the presence of mala fide due to a matrimonial dispute between the parties and noted that the case against the applicants required further inquiry, satisfying the criteria for pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a firearm injury on a non-vital part of the body necessarily invoke the application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a matrimonial dispute between the parties constitute sufficient grounds to establish mala fide for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an offence punishable with a maximum of seven years imprisonment excluded from the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ali Abbasi vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1618 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-08
  pre-arrest baildishonoured chequeprohibitory clausefurther inquirybenefit of doubtSection 489-F PPCcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the accused in a case registered under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding dishonored cheques. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's case and the nature of the offence. The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, confirming the interim order. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception. The court further established that significant, unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, coupled with evidence of prior matrimonial discord between the parties and discrepancies in cheque signatures identified during the investigation, constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, consistent with established criminal jurisprudence, and confirmed the bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is the offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR regarding dishonoured cheques constitute a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should bail be granted when the underlying transaction of a dishonoured cheque is shrouded in doubt due to prior family disputes and lack of documentary evidence?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd vs Dr. Farooque Adil Abbasi2025 SHC 194 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-14Read full judgment →
• Umar Farooq vs The State & another2025 SHC KHI 1543 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-26
  rape of a minorsole testimony of victimdelayed FIRcoercive controlmedical corroborationDNA evidencecustodial sexual violence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 376(3) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for the rape of a minor girl in his custody and sentencing him to rigorous life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and credibility of the victim's sole uncorroborated testimony, the legal effect of a delayed FIR caused by coercion and threats, and the implications of a negative DNA report and normal ancillary medical findings in cases of sexual assault against minors. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and held that the minor victim's testimony was sterling, consistent, and inspired confidence, and was sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence of hymnal injury. The court ruled that the absence of seminal fluid or DNA does not negate penetrative assault, particularly where there is a prolonged reporting delay and post-assault hygiene, and that delayed reporting under the psychological influence of continuous threats does not undermine credibility. The court laid down principles regarding the trauma-informed assessment of child testimonies and the evaluation of coercive control in sexual offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the sole testimony of a minor victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained or delayed FIR automatically vitiate the prosecution's case in sexual assault matters involving minors?
  • Whether the absence of seminal fluid or DNA on vaginal swabs disproves the commission of penetrative sexual assault?
  • Can continuous threats made by an abuser against a sibling constitute a valid and legally cognizable justification for delayed disclosure by a child victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Umaid Ali and another vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 262 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ubed - ur - Rhman vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC KHI1940 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-22Read full judgment →
• U&I Garments (Pvt.) Ltd and Junaid Jamshed (Pvt.) Ltd vs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan2025 SHC KHI 1335 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-13Read full judgment →
• Trans World International Inc. (Twi) vs Customs, Federal Excise and Sales2025 PTD 579 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-30Read full judgment →
• Toufeeque Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 SHC KHI 2111 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-27Read full judgment →
• Tipu Sultan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and others vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC KHI 1915, 2025 SHC KHI 1917 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-21Read full judgment →
• The United Insurance of Company of Pakistan Limited vs Province of Sindh2025 SHC 124 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State vs Shahzad Ghulam Hussain2025 SHC 680 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-07
  acquittal appealwildlife protectionfloral resourcesillegal extractionsubordinate legislationburden of proofwild flora and fauna trade
  Summary & questions settled

  The present appeal was directed against the acquittal order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Karachi South, in respect of charges under the Sindh Wildlife Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management Act, 2020 and the Pakistan Trade Control of Wild Fauna and Flora Act, 2012, involving the alleged illegal export and extraction of Gughar Gum / Gughloo resin from protected Commiphora wightii plants. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court correctly evaluated the statutory prohibitions on floral resource extraction, possession, and trade, and whether subordinate legislation could expand the scope of parent enactments regarding non-listed species. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the origin of the resin from protected areas or illegal extraction methods, and concurred that subordinate rules cannot enlarge the scope of parent statutes. The appellate court concluded that the acquittal order suffered from no legal infirmity and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether subordinate legislation or rules can enlarge the scope of the parent statute?
  • Does the passive collection or natural exudation of resin constitute unlawful extraction of protected floral resources under the Sindh Wildlife Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management Act, 2020?
  • When does the burden of proof shift onto the accused under Section 38 of the Sindh Wildlife Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management Act, 2020?
  • Whether penal statutory provisions must be strictly construed in favor of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Nikson Malik s/o Malik Masih2025 SHC 602 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Administrative Judge, Anti-Terrorism Courts, Karachi and others2025 SHC 188 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-18Read full judgment →
• The State through Addl. Attorney General for Pakistan vs Zafar Khan alias2025 PCRLJ 548 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-22
  criminal transfer applicationanti-terrorism courtfair trialjurisdictionterrorist financingprosecution delaysecurity threats
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Transfer Application was filed by the State under Section 28(1A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, seeking to transfer a terrorism case from an Anti-Terrorism Court in Karachi to an Anti-Terrorism Court in Islamabad. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established sufficient grounds, specifically regarding the safety of prosecutors or the interest of justice, to warrant the transfer of the trial. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the prosecution failed to provide any material evidence to substantiate allegations of security threats against prosecutors, witnesses, or the presiding judge. The Court emphasized that a court’s jurisdiction must be jealously safeguarded and cannot be ousted based on the mere convenience of a party or unsubstantiated claims. The Court further observed that the application appeared to be a tactic to delay the trial, which would cause undue financial hardship and inconvenience to the accused, thereby violating their right to a fair trial. Consequently, the request for transfer was rejected as meritless.

  Questions settled

  • Can a case be transferred between Anti-Terrorism Courts solely on the ground of the prosecutor's convenience?
  • Is the mere allegation of security threats sufficient to warrant the transfer of a criminal trial without supporting material?
  • Does the transfer of a criminal trial to a distant jurisdiction constitute a denial of a fair trial to the accused?
  • What is the threshold for the High Court to exercise its discretion to transfer a case under Section 28 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• The State (ANF) vs Syed Aitemad Hussain Zaidi2025 SHC KHI 1599 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30
  Prevention of Smuggling Actfreezing orderbona fide purchaserlimitation periodforfeiture of assetsnarcotics proceedsstatutory notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This Special Criminal Appeal challenged an order by the Special Judge, Customs and Anti-Smuggling, which directed the release of immovable property from a freezing order issued under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the appeal regarding statutory limitation and the validity of freezing assets belonging to a bona fide purchaser without prior notice under Section 31 of the Act. The Court held that the appeal was incurably time-barred under Section 43 of the Act, as it was filed beyond the thirty-day limitation period without an application for condonation. On merits, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the failure to serve notice under Section 31 to the registered title holder, whose acquisition predated the freezing order, rendered the forfeiture proceedings ineffective. Relying on the principle of stare decisis, the Court held that procedural safeguards, including notice to actual title holders, are mandatory, and suspicion cannot substitute for proof in forfeiture matters. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the release order was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed beyond the thirty-day limitation period under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977 maintainable without an application for condonation of delay?
  • Does the failure to serve a notice under Section 31 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977 upon a bona fide title holder render the freezing of their property ineffective?
  • Can property acquired by a bona fide purchaser prior to the issuance of a freezing order be forfeited without establishing a nexus between the purchaser and the narcotics trafficker?
  Read full judgment →
• The Director, Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation Customs vs Ajab2025 PTD 226 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• The Director, DG I&I-Ir, Sales Tax House, Karachi vs The State & another2025 SHC 346 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-13
  money launderingpredicate offenceconcealment of incomeincome taxSpecial Judge Customsjurisdictionproceeds of crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 23 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 challenged an order of the Special Judge (Customs, Taxation & Anti-Smuggling) returning a complaint filed under section 21(2) of the Act for alleged money laundering and predicate offences under sections 192 and 192A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether a money laundering complaint is maintainable under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 without the formal prosecution or existence of a validly established predicate offence, particularly when the respondent had not filed income tax returns or been subjected to proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Sindh High Court held that the commission of a predicate offence is a sine qua non for the offence of money laundering, and since the respondent had never filed returns or documents under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, no predicate offences under sections 192 and 192A of the said Ordinance were made out, rendering the money laundering complaint misconceived. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the commission of a predicate offence is a sine qua non for the prosecution of an offence of money laundering?
  • Does a Special Judge (Customs) have jurisdiction to try an offence of money laundering predicated on offences under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can a complaint for money laundering under section 21(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 be maintained when no proceedings or prosecution for the underlying predicate offences have been initiated?
  • Do sections 192 and 192A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 apply to a person who has never filed an income tax return or furnished documents under the Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-II, Regional Tax Office vs M/s.2025 SHC 606 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-16Read full judgment →