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.

• The Collector of Customs vs Power Link Petroleum Services and another2025 PTD 377 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-15Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs M/s. JW Sez (Pvt.) Ltd., LahorePTCL 2025 CL. 506 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-22Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs Abdul Nasir Shah and another2025 PTD 288 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-18Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs (West) vs M/s. Seminar (Pvt) Limited2025 SHC 198, PTCL 2025 CL. 404 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-23Read full judgment →
• Thardeep Microfinance Foundation through its Authorize Person namely2025 SHC MPK 1732 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-03
  dishonored chequeSection 22-A Cr.P.C.civil disputecriminal process misuseclean hands doctrineFIR registrationSection 489-F PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged an order by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismissing a petition for the registration of an FIR under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court should compel police to register an FIR in a dispute involving a dishonored cheque issued as a loan guarantee, where the underlying debt had been partially repaid. The Court held that the application was devoid of merit and dismissed it. It reasoned that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, concerning loan recovery and accounting, rather than a criminal matter. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant had suppressed the material fact of partial loan repayment, failing to approach the Court with clean hands. The Court affirmed that the criminal justice system should not be misused to exert pressure for civil recoveries, emphasizing that courts must not mechanically direct FIR registration in disputes that are primarily contractual or monetary in nature.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court direct the registration of an FIR under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the underlying dispute is essentially a civil matter?
  • Does the suppression of material facts, such as partial loan repayment, disentitle an applicant from seeking relief under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a dispute involving a dishonored cheque issued as a loan guarantee automatically a criminal matter under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or can it be treated as a civil recovery matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Tarique Mubeen vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Government of Sindh and 3 others2025 PLC (C.S.) 136 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-07
  age relaxationcombined competitive examinationspsccivil servantsconstitutional petitionjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from an advertisement issued by the Sindh Public Service Commission for recruitment to BPS-17 posts through a Combined Competitive Examination, which the petitioner challenged for failing to provide upper age relaxation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to an upper age relaxation under Rule 12 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, despite a policy notification excluding posts filled through combined competitive examinations from such relaxation. The court held that the Government of Sindh validly excluded posts filled through combined competitive examinations from upper age relaxation via the notification, and delay in holding examinations does not warrant judicial interference in policy matters absent bad faith. The key principle laid down is that the High Court cannot substitute its view for executive policy decisions regarding age relaxation unless arbitrariness or ill-will is proven.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Rule 12 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 allows upper age relaxation for posts filled through Combined Competitive Examinations during the restricted period?
  • Can the High Court substitute its own view for a policy decision of the government regarding age relaxation?
  • Does inordinate delay in conducting competitive examinations form a sufficient legal basis to compel age relaxation without proof of ill-will?
  Read full judgment →
• Tarique Hussain and others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC SUK 1706 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain Umrani vs The State2025 SHC 728 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Aziz vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2145 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-26Read full judgment →
• Tario alias Tara Chand vs The State2025 YLR 707 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-15
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauserule of consistencydelay in FIRItlaf-i-udwattributable rolecriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant, Tario alias Tara Chand, seeking post-arrest bail in Crime/FIR No. 44/2023 registered at Police Station Khahi for offences under sections 324, 334, 114, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific attribution of a hatchet blow resulting in the traumatic amputation of the victim's hand, falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused have been granted bail. The court held that the applicant was specifically nominated with a distinct and grievous role corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, bringing his case within the prohibitory clause, and that the rule of consistency is inapplicable due to distinguishable roles. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the bail application, laying down that disparate roles among co-accused preclude the application of the rule of consistency and that delay in lodging an FIR does not warrant bail when satisfactorily explained and identity is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged with an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is entitled to post-arrest bail when specifically nominated with a role causing grievous injury?
  • Does the rule of consistency or parity apply to grant bail to an accused whose role is distinguishable from co-accused who have already been granted bail?
  • Is a delay in lodging the First Information Report automatically a ground for granting post-arrest bail when a plausible explanation is furnished and the culprit's identity is not in doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Detho vs Senior Civil Judge Rato Dero & others2025 SHC LAR 1499 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Sulaiman Jafri vs United Bank Limited & Others2025 SHC 656 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahrukh Shah vs Secretary, Home Department and others2025 SHC 342 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Salahuddin vs The State2025 YLR 774 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-18
  post-arrest bailbank embezzlementforged signaturescriminal breach of trustcheatingfalsification of accountstentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Syed Salahuddin seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 05/2024 registered at Police Station FIA, CBC, Karachi under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the alleged embezzlement and misappropriation of the complainant's funds deposited in term deposits at Dubai Islamic Bank Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the allegations of forgery, falsification of bank instruments, and transfer of funds into accounts operated by the applicant and his relatives. The Sindh High Court held that prima facie there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant committed the offences, and deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage. The court dismissed the bail application and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months, laying down the principle that tentative assessment governs bail matters and deeper appreciation of evidence is reserved for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible at the bail stage?
  • Does the misuse of a bank manager's position to encash instruments using forged signatures constitute reasonable grounds to refuse post-arrest bail?
  • Can contradictions in statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be deeply examined while deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sahir Hasan vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC KHI 507 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Sadiq Ali s/o Syed Sabir Ali vs The State2025 SHC 600 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-27
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaybank offencesspecial courtfundamental rightsinherent powersconstitutional jurisdictionright to fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arose from the refusal of the Special Court (Offences in Banks) to grant post-arrest bail on statutory grounds to the applicant, who was accused of bank fraud and misappropriation under sections 408, 409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, and 109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an accused facing trial before a Special Court under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 can be denied bail on statutory delay grounds due to the bar in section 5(6) of the said Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that while Special Courts are barred by section 5(6) from granting statutory bail, the High Court is not so constrained when exercising its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, given that undue trial delay infringes fundamental rights to liberty and fair trial. The court converted the bail application into a criminal miscellaneous application and granted bail to the applicant, laying down that sub-constitutional bars on bail cannot abridge the constitutional and inherent powers of the High Court to remedy inordinate trial delays not attributable to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Court under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 has the jurisdiction to grant bail on statutory grounds in view of section 5(6) of the Ordinance?
  • Can the High Court grant bail on the ground of statutory delay in conclusion of trial under its inherent powers or constitutional jurisdiction despite statutory bars?
  • Does undue and unmitigated delay in the conclusion of a criminal trial infringe the fundamental rights of an accused under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Naveed Hussain Shah, Mrs. Fouzia Athar, Muhammad Yousuf Shah, Adnan Yousuf and others vs M_s. KDA Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited & another2025 SHC KHI 1495 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Naveed Ali Shah Banoori vs Fatima Khan & others2025 SHC KHI 2295 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Naseem Shah & Others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 678 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Najeebuddin Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Power Division) and 5 others2025 YLR 137 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Muzaffar Ahmed Ashraf and 8 others vs Anwar Ali Janwri and 3 others2025 PLD Sindh 234 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Musawar Shah vs Managing Director CDS & others2025 SHC 298 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Qasim vs Mst. Hafsa Qasim and 2 others2025 CLC 107 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Muneer Shah and another vs Shah Abdul Latif University Khairpur Mirs2025 PLC (C.S.) 241 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-02
  administrative postsout-of-cadre postingadditional chargeown pay and scaleuniversity employeesconstitutional jurisdictionwrit of quo warrantorecruitment rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by employees of Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur Mirs, challenging the appointment and assignment of teaching cadre professors to key administrative posts on additional charges, Own Pay and Scale (OPS), and acting charges in deviation of recruitment rules and established judicial precedents. The core legal questions involved whether public sector university administrative posts could be filled by out-of-cadre teaching staff through non-competitive stop-gap arrangements and whether such practices violate fundamental rights and service laws. The Sindh High Court held that administrative posts must be filled strictly through a competitive process and in accordance with applicable recruitment rules, and that out-of-cadre postings and long-term OPS or additional charges are illegal and destructive to the institutional framework. The Court laid down the principle that university appointments and transfers must comply with statutory recruitment rules, that teaching faculty cannot hold administrative positions on prolonged additional charges, and that stop-gap arrangements cannot be used to circumvent regular competitive appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether administrative posts in a public sector university can be filled by members of the teaching cadre on additional charges and Own Pay and Scale (OPS)?
  • Does a constitutional petition under Article 199 lie against a public sector statutory university performing functions in connection with the affairs of the province?
  • Can out-of-cadre transfers and postings be made without adhering to the recruitment rules and competitive process?
  • Whether long-term stop-gap arrangements and acting charges on administrative positions are permissible under university acts and service jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Jamshed and others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC KHI 1721 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-13
  regularization of contract employeescivil servantsdistrict selection committeebackdoor appointmentsfundamental rightsconstitutional petitionmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by contract employees seeking regularization of their services in the Population Welfare Department, Government of Sindh, and parity with other employees who had been regularized. The core legal questions involved whether contract employees have a vested right to regularization without statutory backing, whether the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution applies to unlawful appointments, and whether the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act 2013 regularized appointments made in violation of mandatory recruitment laws. The Sindh High Court held that contractual employees possess no automatic right to regularization in the absence of a valid law, policy, or transparent recruitment process, and that Article 25 cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegal acts or backdoor entries. The court ruled that the petitioners' initial appointments lacked codal formalities, merit, and proper domicile requirements under the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 and Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1974. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that regularization requires strict compliance with statutory rules and transparent selection procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contract employee has a vested right to seek regularization of service in the absence of a governing law or policy?
  • Can the equality clause under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan be invoked to claim regularization based on previous unlawful or illegal appointments?
  • Does the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act 2013 provide a blanket cover to appointments made in violation of statutory rules?
  • Whether initial appointments made to civil posts without observing codal formalities, public advertisement, and merit can be regularized by the High Court under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Alam Shah vs Province of Punjab & others2025 SHC 730 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehboob Ali Shah vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2008 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Laiq Ahmed vs Karachi Development Authority & Others2025 SHC KHI1259 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Imran Abbas Jafferi vs Mst. Ambreen Fatima2025 SHC 360 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Asif Raza and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 SHC 430 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-21
  regularization of servicescontract employeeswrit jurisdictionmaintainabilitylabour disputeprivate entitywelfare trust
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who were appointed on a contract basis between 1997 and 2008 in the education department of M/s. Pakistan Steel Mill Hadeed Welfare Trust, filed a constitutional petition seeking the regularization of their services, seniority benefits, and a declaration to nullify the trust's establishment. The respondents contended that the trust was a private entity, now dissolved, and that the petitioners were contract workers who should approach the appropriate labour forum. The High Court of Sindh observed that the petitioners were registered with the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) and the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution (SESSI), which classified them as 'workers' under provincial labour laws. The Court held that because the respondent trust was a private entity not performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or Province, and because a dedicated statutory forum existed for workers under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2012, a constitutional petition under Article 199 was not maintainable. The petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioners at liberty to approach the competent labour forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can contract employees of a private welfare trust invoke the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 for the regularization of their services?
  • Does registration with the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) and Sindh Employees Social Security Institution (SESSI) classify an employee as a worker under provincial labour laws?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Asadullah Ali Shah s/o Khair Ali Shah and others vs The State2025 SHC SUK 2027 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-13
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryhostile witnessescircumstantial evidencepre-trial punishmentright to libertytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications filed by the applicants in a case involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Sindh Prohibition of Employment of Children Act, 2017. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the evidentiary gaps and the nature of the prosecution's case. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail, finding that the case fell within the ambit of "further inquiry" under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the medical evidence contradicting the gravest charges, and the fact that material prosecution witnesses had resiled from their statements created reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that bail is not a form of pre-trial punishment and that continued incarceration, in the absence of compelling grounds, violates the constitutional rights to liberty and a fair trial. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case rests on circumstantial evidence that is incomplete or doubtful, and where material witnesses have turned hostile, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the retraction of testimony by material prosecution witnesses entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the medical evidence contradicts the gravest charges in the FIR?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR provide grounds for the grant of bail?
  • Is the filing of no-objection affidavits by legal heirs a relevant circumstance for the court to consider during bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Anwar Ali Shah and 8 others vs Province of Sindh through Chief2025 CLC 778 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Shah & another vs The State & other2025 SHC HYD 1648 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Ameenullah s/o Syed Sarwar Shah vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1729 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-09
  narcotics recoverysafe custody of case propertychemical examiner reportofficial witnessesburden of proofminor discrepanciescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the possession of 57 kilograms of charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery, safe custody, and transmission of the contraband, and whether the conviction is sustainable despite alleged contradictions in witness testimony and the absence of private witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular and documentary evidence, including the Chemical Examiner's report, which complied with established protocols. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof shifted to the appellant under Section 29 of the Act of 1997 once the recovery was established, a burden the appellant failed to discharge. Key principles laid down include: the exclusion of Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in narcotics cases under Section 25 of the Act of 1997; the reliability of official police witnesses; and the legal position that minor discrepancies in testimony do not invalidate a prosecution case if the core facts remain consistent and credible.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 apply to all searches and arrests made under the Act?
  • Can the testimony of official police witnesses be discarded solely due to the absence of private witnesses in a narcotics case?
  • What are the essential requirements for a Chemical Examiner's report to be considered valid under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules 2001?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 once the prosecution establishes the recovery of narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Asghar Shah and others vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1980 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Aijaz Raza Rizvi & Another vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 650 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Rasheed and others vs The State2025 SHC 720 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-09
  pre-arrest bailunlawful assemblyhospital assaulthabitual offenderextraordinary remedymala fidetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a violent incident at Lyari General Hospital. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, led by an ex-Member of the Provincial Assembly, formed an unlawful assembly, entered the hospital armed with sticks and stones, and assaulted the staff, causing injuries falling under Section 337-A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants argued false implication, a counter-version of mutual altercation, and parity with co-accused. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the applications, holding that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account, and the applicants failed to demonstrate any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or police. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy reserved for protecting innocent persons from malicious prosecution, and cannot be used as a substitute for post-arrest bail in routine criminal cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted in the absence of any allegation or proof of mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or the police?
  • Can private individuals take the law into their own hands to address alleged grievances or corruption instead of approaching competent legal forums?
  • Is an accused entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail when there is prima facie evidence of repeating offences and abusing previous concessions of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Summit Capital (Pvt.) Limited and others vs Assistant Commissioner (Unit-2025 SHC KHI 2187, 2025 SHC KHI 2188, 2025 SHC KHI 2189 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-04Read full judgment →
• Sultan Aziz vs The State2025 YLR 1052 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-20
  post-arrest bailnarcotics smugglingcommon intentiondrug mulesburden of prooffundamental rightscircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Sultan Aziz, in a narcotics case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The accused was implicated in a case involving the recovery of 18.785 kilograms of heroin from the luggage of a co-accused, Zaroof, at Jinnah International Airport. The core legal question was whether the evidence—limited to the applicant dropping the co-accused at the airport and the joint purchase of air tickets—was sufficient to establish prima facie guilt or common intention to justify continued incarceration. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence linking the applicant to the possession or supply of the narcotics, noting that the investigation into the actual mastermind was lacking. Emphasizing the principle that where two reasonable opinions can be formed, the court should favor the accused to protect fundamental rights, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The judgment reaffirms that mere association or circumstantial acts, without evidence of shared common intention or direct involvement in the drug trade, are insufficient to deny bail in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • Is the joint purchase of air tickets and dropping a co-accused at an airport sufficient evidence to establish common intention in a narcotics smuggling case?
  • Should a court favor the accused when two reasonable opinions can be formed based on the same material?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to investigate the mastermind of a drug smuggling attempt impact the court's decision on bail for an alleged accomplice?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman and another vs The State2025 YLR 677 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-03
  criminal appealidentification paradebenefit of doubteye-witness testimonymurderrobberyappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and robbery. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the identity of the appellants as the perpetrators beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly where the sole eye-witness failed to provide a description of the assailants and admitted in the site inspection report that he could not identify them due to darkness. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The identification of the appellants was unreliable due to the lack of a prior description (hulia), the significant delay in the identification parade, and the witness's own admission of inability to identify the culprits. Furthermore, the court found the police investigation flawed, noting the absence of incriminating recoveries, the lack of a judicial confession, and the failure of the forensic evidence to link the appellants to the crime. The court emphasized that in the absence of reliable identification, the conviction could not be sustained. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, setting aside the trial court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Is an identification parade reliable if the eye-witness failed to provide a description of the accused in their initial statement?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an identification parade when the witness previously admitted an inability to identify the culprits due to darkness?
  • Does the failure to record a confession before a magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render a police-custody confession inadmissible?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR and recording witness statements in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Sujawal & others vs Deputy Commissioner Karachi East2025 SHC 372 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-24Read full judgment →
• Sui Gas Company Limited vs Tajuddin Waqar Shaikh2025 SHC LAR 1334 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-14Read full judgment →
• Sufyan Rasheed & Others vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 664 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sub-Zonal Manager, SSGC, Matli and others vs Noman Khan and others2025 SHC HYD 2178 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-28Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Azeem Associates through Partner2025 CLC 841 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-29Read full judgment →
• Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Limited vs Mr. Yawar Faruqui and another2025 SHC KHI 2082 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• SSGCL vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC LAR 2244 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-09Read full judgment →
• Southern Network Limited through Chief Executive vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Information Islamabad and 3 others2025 PLD Sindh 69 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-14Read full judgment →
• Soudagar Buriro vs P.O Sindh and Others2025 SHC LAR 2212 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-08Read full judgment →
• Soneri Bank Limited vs Quetta Textile Mills Limited2025 SHC 10 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-15Read full judgment →
• Sohail Hameed vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 272 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ansari and another vs The State2025 SHC 751 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-06Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed vs Ghulam ali Murtaza & others2025 SHC 252 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-28Read full judgment →
• Sodhal alias Sodho Khan and others vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1876 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-14
  circumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtmurdersuicide vs homicidemedical jurisprudenceinvestigative lapsescriminal appealstrangulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, particularly concerning the cause of death—strangulation versus suicide—and the integrity of the investigation. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. The court noted significant investigative lapses, including the failure to obtain Call Data Records, the non-examination of a material independent witness, and an unexplained delay in registering the FIR. Furthermore, the medical evidence, showing ligature marks consistent with suicidal hanging rather than homicidal strangulation, created a reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, any material lacuna or failure to investigate crucial leads entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt, as conviction must rest on firm, irrefutable evidence rather than mere probability.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce Call Data Records (CDR) in a circumstantial evidence case create a fatal lacuna?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when medical evidence of ligature marks is consistent with both suicidal hanging and homicidal strangulation?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to examine a material independent witness present at the scene of the crime?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Sirbuland Khan vs The Returning Officer & others2025 SHC 284 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-10Read full judgment →
• Siraj-u-Din @ Siraj s/o Nabi Bux Kori Kalhoro vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1575 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-22
  judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencerape and murder of minoranti-terrorismcriminal jail appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment rendered by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Larkana, convicting the appellant for offences under sections 302(b), 376(3) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sentencing him to life imprisonment on counts. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, and the voluntariness and admissibility of a judicial confession recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, corroborated by medical testimony and a voluntary judicial confession, proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that a voluntary and true judicial confession, free from duress or coercion and duly recorded by a magistrate after observing necessary safeguards and reflection time, is fully admissible and can independently form the basis of a conviction, especially when supported by medical and circumstantial corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can alone form the basis of a conviction if found to be voluntary and true?
  • What is the criterion for relying on circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal trial?
  • Does a belated denial of a judicial confession in a Section 342 statement carry weight when the recording magistrate is not cross-examined on the issue of voluntariness?
  Read full judgment →
• Sip Nisar Ahmed and 6 others vs Province of Sindh and 4 others2025 SHC KHI 2265 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-12
  ante-dated seniorityservice lawvested rightsseniority benefitsjudicial reviewservice tribunal jurisdictionpolice service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an order dated February 8, 2023, which withdrew their seniority benefits previously granted by the Sindh Service Tribunal (SST) in 2014. The petitioners, appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors between 2010 and 2013, claimed entitlement to ante-dated seniority from 1995 based on the principle of equal treatment. The respondents argued that the petitioners' appointments were conditional, explicitly barring seniority claims based on the 1994-1995 recruitment process, and that recent judicial interpretations, including Supreme Court directives and a subsequent SST judgment, clarified that ante-dated seniority violates the relevant service and police rules. The Court held that the issue of ante-dated seniority is settled, confirming it is impermissible under the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation & Seniority) Rules, 1975, and the Police Rules, 1934. Given that the impugned order was issued in compliance with a binding SST judgment and that the proper forum to challenge such tribunal decisions is the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, the Court dismissed the petitions as misconceived.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim ante-dated seniority if their appointment letter explicitly precludes such a claim?
  • Is the grant of ante-dated seniority permissible under the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation & Seniority) Rules 1975 and the Police Rules 1934?
  • Does a High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a petition against a Service Tribunal's decision when Article 212(3) of the Constitution provides a remedy before the Supreme Court?
  • Can a public department withdraw seniority benefits previously granted by a tribunal if those benefits are subsequently found to be contrary to law by a superior court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Public Service Commission and another vs National Accountability2025 SHC KHI 2047 · Sindh High Court
  NAB inquiryquashing of inquirymisuse of authoritypecuniary limitSindh Public Service Commissionjudicial reviewmalice in lawpast and closed transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an inquiry initiated by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against the former Chairman, members, and officials of the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) regarding recruitments made through the Combined Competitive Examination-2018. The core legal question was whether NAB had the lawful jurisdiction and sufficient material to continue an inquiry into matters already settled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, especially in the absence of any incriminating evidence showing monetary gains or meeting the statutory pecuniary threshold under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The Sindh High Court held that the inquiry suffered from malice in law, lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of the requisite pecuniary limits and proof of monetary gain under Section 9(a)(vi), and constituted an abuse of process following the validation of the CCE-2018 examinations by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court quashed the NAB inquiry proceedings against the second petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution to quash an ongoing inquiry by the National Accountability Bureau?
  • Does the National Accountability Bureau have jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into matters already resolved and validated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Whether proof of monetary benefit or asset is mandatory under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, to constitute an offense of misuse of authority?
  • Can the National Accountability Bureau investigate corruption offenses falling below the statutory pecuniary threshold defined in Section 5(o) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Club vs Syed Muhammad Taqi Naqvi and 2 others2025 SHC 132 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-17
  workmanmanagement cadrelabour appellate tribunalburden of proofestoppelgrievance petitionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside the decision of the Sindh Labour Court and reinstated Respondent No.1 with back benefits. The core legal question was whether an employee promoted to a management cadre position, namely Assistant Manager Procurement, qualified as a 'workman' under the applicable labour laws. The Sindh High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred by overturning the trial court's decision without proper appraisal of evidence and by ignoring the employee's own admissions regarding his promotion and acceptance of a management post. The Court laid down that designation alone is not determinative of employment status, but the nature of duties and subsequent conduct—such as voluntarily accepting a management role and resigning from the employee union—estops a person from claiming the status of a workman.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee promoted to a management position and accepting the same is estopped from claiming the status of a workman?
  • Does the definition of a workman under the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2015 cover employees in the management cadre lacking hiring and firing powers?
  • Is an appellate labour tribunal bound to appraise the evidence when disagreeing with the findings of the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikander Ali S/o Sobho Rind, Jesso @ Jesaram S/o Ghansham Das Malhi vs2025 SHC 340 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sikander Ali & others vs Waris Ali & others2025 SHC 122 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-17Read full judgment →
• Shreemati Sarswa ti Devi vs Shreemati Janki Bai2025 SHC 306 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-05Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Rashid & Others vs Karachi Development Authority & Others2025 SHC 658 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-14Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1413 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-15
  narcoticssafe custody of case propertybenefit of doubtmaterial contradictionsinvestigating officer as complainantchemical examiner reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court under section 6/9-(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment and fine. The core legal questions addressed by the court concern the existence of material contradictions in prosecution evidence regarding the weight of the recovered contraband, discrepancies in the testimony of official witnesses and mashirs, missing links in the safe custody and safe transmission of the case property, and the legality of the investigating officer acting as the complainant. The Sindh High Court held that multiple material contradictions, unproven safe custody of the case property, and a biased investigation vitiated the prosecution's case. The court established that a single reasonable doubt arising from broken chains of custody or flawed investigation entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, consequently setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a variance in the weight of recovered narcotics between the recovery memo and oral testimony shatter the prosecution's case?
  • Is the safe custody and safe transmission of case property a mandatory duty of the prosecution in narcotics cases?
  • Can a police officer who acts as the complainant and raiding officer also properly conduct a fair investigation under the law?
  • Does a single material contradiction or missing link in the chain of custody entitle an accused to an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State and others2025 SHC KHI 2117 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-26Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur Khan Khattak S/o Amir Azam Khan vs SSP South & others2025 SHC KHI 1797, 2025 SHC KHI 1799 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-04
  Section 22-A CrPCSection 561-A CrPCregistration of FIRJustice of Peacediscretionary jurisdictionabuse of processfrivolous complaints
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Cr.P.C.) was filed challenging the order of the Ex-officio Justice of Peace rejecting an application under Section 22-A and B, Cr.P.C. for registration of an F.I.R. under Section 154, Cr.P.C. The legal issue was whether the Ex-officio Justice of Peace erred in exercising discretion to refuse a direction for registering an F.I.R. where the complaint appeared motivated by ongoing litigation and prior enmity. The High Court upheld the impugned order, holding that the jurisdiction under Section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. is discretionary and not mechanical. The Court affirmed that Justices of the Peace must exercise caution to prevent the abuse of the criminal process for self-serving objectives, especially where alternate remedies exist and allegations lack primary factual backing or cognizable substance.

  Questions settled

  • Is the jurisdiction of an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 discretionary or mandatory?
  • Can an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace refuse to direct the registration of an F.I.R. under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. where the complaint appears motivated by prior enmity and pending litigation?
  • Under what circumstances should High Courts exercise inherent power under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to interfere with an order passed under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 PTD 538 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-04Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Shariq Hassan & Ors vs The State & others2025 SHC 224 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-24
  Justice of PeaceRegistration of FIRCognizable OffenceCriminal ProcedurePolice ReportJudicial Discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directing the registration of an FIR against the applicants. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace exercised proper discretion under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in ordering the registration of an FIR despite a police report stating that no cognizable offence was disclosed. The Court held that the impugned order was passed mechanically without due care, noting that the police report explicitly found no cognizable offence and that the respondent's allegations were unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed the respondent's petition for the registration of an FIR. The key principle laid down is that the Justice of Peace must exercise due care and prudence when entertaining applications under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, ensuring such applications are not decided in a mechanical manner, especially when police reports indicate the absence of a cognizable offence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Justice of Peace order the registration of an FIR in a mechanical manner without considering the police report?
  • Is a Justice of Peace required to exercise due care when entertaining an application under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the existence of a police report stating no cognizable offence is made out preclude the Justice of Peace from ordering an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Farzan Ahmed Mahmood vs Mohammad Yousuf and others2025 SHC KHI 2125 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-29Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Faisal Habib vs Yasir Ahmed Awan & Another2025 SHC 392 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-26Read full judgment →
• Shehzore and others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 682 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30
  deceased quotason quotapublic employmentconstitutional petitionultra viresfundamental rightspending applicationsstare decisis
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed constitutional petitions seeking appointment under the Deceased/Son Quota in various departments of the Government of Sindh pursuant to Rule 11-A of the Sindh Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The core legal question was whether pending applications for public employment under the deceased quota remain maintainable after Rule 11-A was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Sindh High Court held that the declaration of Rule 11-A as ultra vires applies to all pending applications and that the legal protection afforded by the Supreme Court is strictly restricted to appointments already effectuated prior to the ruling. The Court laid down the principle that the protection extended to past appointments does not encompass pending applications, and that an unlawful or irregular offer letter issued post-declaration cannot create a binding precedent or entitlement under the maxim ex injuria jus non oritur.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pending applications for appointment under the Deceased/Son Quota are maintainable after Rule 11-A of the Sindh Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974 was declared unconstitutional?
  • Does the protection granted by the Supreme Court to appointments already made under the deceased quota extend to pending applications?
  • Can an unlawful offer letter issued after a rule has been declared ultra vires create a binding precedent or legal entitlement for other applicants?
  Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Iftikhar S/O Iftikhar Ahmed Khan vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2180 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-04
  pre-arrest bailconfirmation of bailbailable offencerule of consistencyfinal challandeletion of charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal pre-arrest bail matter before the High Court of Sindh concerned whether an applicant must be relegated to file a fresh bail application before the trial court after the non-bailable charge is dropped by the police during investigation. The case against the applicant was originally registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but the final challan accepted by the trial court dropped Section 406 PPC, leaving only Section 420 PPC, which is a bailable offence. The High Court held that where the remaining charge in the final challan is bailable, sending the applicant back to the trial court to file a fresh bail application would serve no useful purpose and would consume unnecessary time and resources of both the court and litigating parties. Additionally, applying the rule of consistency as a co-accused was already granted bail, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant subject to furnishing requisite surety.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary for an accused to file a fresh bail application before the trial court when a non-bailable offence is dropped from the final challan leaving only a bailable offence?
  • Can interim pre-arrest bail be confirmed by the High Court when the offence remaining in the final challan is bailable?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin s/o Ahmed Khan Lankan vs Nadir Hussain Bhand(since2025 SHC LAR 1490 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2216 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-27Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed Siddiqui vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation & others2025 SHC 120 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• Shakir-ud-Din vs M/s Twin Badar and others2025 SHC 134 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Tahir Buksh and others vs Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Sindh and another2025 CLC 232 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-30Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Pipe Mills (Pvt.) Limited and others vs The Customs Appellate2025 SHC 294, PTCL 2025 CL. 625 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shaikh Nasiruddin and others vs Ghulam Ali Kaderbhoy and others2025 YLR 1114 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-19Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Arshad Ali & others vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2146 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-25Read full judgment →
• Shahrukh son of Akbar and others vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2103 · Sindh High Court
  dacoity with murdervicarious liabilitytest identification parademitigating circumstancesdeath sentence reductionrecovery of weaponocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of several criminal jail appeals and a death reference arising from an incident where multiple armed dacoits robbed a scrap shop, resulting in the murder of the owner and firearm injuries to two laborers. One accused was apprehended at the spot with an unlicensed weapon, while others were subsequently arrested and identified through test identification parades. The trial court convicted the appellants under sections 302(b), 396, 395, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and under the Sindh Arms Act 2013, sentencing them to death and imprisonment. Upon appeal, the Sindh High Court re-evaluated the ocular, medical, and forensic evidence, affirming that the prompt FIR, consistent eyewitness testimonies, and positive forensic reports firmly established the guilt of the accused. However, considering that the murder occurred during a robbery and arose on the spur of the moment when the victim raised cries, the High Court held that mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a reduction of the death sentence. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the appeals by converting the death sentences to life imprisonment while maintaining the convictions and other penalties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the vicarious liability under Section 396 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies to all members of a gang conjointly committing dacoity when a murder is committed during the crime?
  • Does the absence of a suspect's physical description in the initial First Information Report render a subsequent test identification parade inadmissible?
  • Whether the sudden and spur-of-the-moment nature of a killing during a robbery constitutes a mitigating circumstance sufficient to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can non-holding of an identification parade be fatal to the prosecution case if eyewitnesses consistently identify the accused in court and their testimony inspires confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ahmed s/o Nanhay Khan vs Kaiser Ahmed s/o Naseeruddin and2025 SHC KHI 2137 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-01
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peacecriminal miscellaneous applicationcognizable offencerecording of statementprovident fundsuccession certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed in the Sindh High Court to challenge an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Karachi East, which had directed the recording of a statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a disputed provident fund cheque disbursement following the death of a school teacher. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the Justice of Peace's order directing police action where a provident fund cheque meant for the deceased's father (complainant) was allegedly deposited by an individual bearing the same name under suspicious circumstances. The High Court held that the disputed factual aspects, including the identity of the person who deposited the cheque and whether a cognizable offence was committed, warranted police inquiry and the recording of a statement. Consequently, the court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the application, affirming that factual controversies requiring investigation are appropriately addressed through initial police proceedings as directed by the Justice of Peace.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is justified in directing the recording of a statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a dispute arises over the wrongful encashment of a provident fund cheque?
  • Does an allegation regarding the disputed deposit of a cheque involving identity issues warrant police inquiry and further proceedings?
  • Can the High Court interfere with an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace that orders police authorities to record a statement for potential cognizable offences when no legal defect is found in the impugned order?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahban Ali Burdi and another vs The State2025 SHC 1629 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-05
  pre-arrest bailextortiondelay in lodging FIRCall Detail RecordCDR evidencePolice Rules 1934further inquiryunseen incident
  Summary & questions settled

  This pre-arrest bail application was filed by two applicants in connection with Crime No. 29 of 2025 registered under Sections 384, 435, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Pir-jo-Goth. The prosecution alleged that after extortion demands were made to the complainant, his property and crops were damaged, with Call Detail Records (CDR) indicating communication between the applicants and co-accused. The applicants contended that the occurrence was unseen, the FIR was delayed by nearly two months without explanation, and the mobile number used to make extortion calls did not belong to them. The High Court observed that an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR creates doubt in the prosecution's case. It further held that CDR alone does not constitute conclusive evidence unless corroborated, especially when the Investigating Officer failed to seize the applicants' cell phones as required by Rule 25.2 of the Police Rules 1934. Finding the case to be one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail of the applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Call Detail Record (CDR) evidence alone is sufficient to prove telephonic communication without independent corroboration and seizure of mobile phones?
  • Does an unexplained, long delay in lodging an FIR create reasonable doubt entitling the accused to pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a case based on an unseen incident and indirect phone records fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad son of Sher Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC SUK 1571 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-13Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad Tunio vs The State and others2025 SHC SUK 2122 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-29
  Illegal Dispossession Actforum shoppingmultiplicity of proceedingsabuse of processcriminal revisionsuccessive complaintscivil and criminal remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged the dismissal of a criminal complaint filed under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of successive and overlapping criminal complaints for illegal dispossession amidst pending civil litigation and prior criminal proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the filing of multiple successive criminal complaints seeking identical relief based on substantially similar allegations constitutes impermissible forum shopping, an abuse of the judicial process, and renders the current revision application infructuous, particularly where a third direct complaint has already been taken cognizance of. The court laid down the principle that while parallel civil and criminal remedies may be permissible under special statutes, a litigant cannot institute unlimited successive criminal complaints for the same subject matter, as the law abhors multiplicity of proceedings and abuse of the judicial process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of multiple successive criminal complaints for the same subject matter constitute an abuse of process and impermissible forum shopping?
  • Whether the pendency of civil litigation bars criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a criminal revision application be dismissed as infructuous upon the subsequent filing and cognizance of a third criminal complaint regarding the same dispute?
  • Does an incomplete sale transaction due to non-payment of full consideration affect the complainant's standing to maintain criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad Sarki vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1475 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-20
  control of narcotic substancessafe custody and transmissionbenefit of doubtmodern devices in investigationvideo recording of recoveryindependent witnessescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 9(i)(3)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 2000 grams of Charas and sentencing him to nine years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the police-only recovery from an urban area without associating independent witnesses, contradictions in prosecution evidence, lapses in the safe custody and transmission of samples to the chemical laboratory, and the necessity of utilizing modern technology like video recording during narcotic recoveries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the contraband, and that non-association of independent witnesses alongside glaring contradictions created reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The key principles laid down include the imperative for law enforcement agencies to record search, seizure, and recovery proceedings using modern devices under Articles 46-A, 78-A, and 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the rule that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of independent witnesses during a narcotics recovery in a populated urban area create a doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is it mandatory for law enforcement agencies to record search, seizure, and recovery proceedings through modern devices such as mobile phone cameras under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to establish safe custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples to the chemical laboratory?
  • Can a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind lead to the acquittal of an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabir Ahmed Abbasi vs Ghulam Murtafa and others2025 SHC LAR 2243 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-08
  illegal dispossessionacquittal appealland grabbersantecedentsremand of casejoint property
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged a trial court judgment that acquitted the respondents of charges under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant alleged that the respondents forcibly and illegally dispossessed him of his property on the show of weapons. The trial court had acquitted the accused on the ground that they lacked antecedents or characteristics of professional land grabbers or a land mafia. The High Court examined the legal question regarding whether prior antecedents as land grabbers are a precondition for prosecution under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and held, relying on Supreme Court precedents, that no such precondition exists and any person committing illegal dispossession is amenable to prosecution. However, noting crucial gaps in the evidence regarding actual physical possession—specifically the failure to examine a key joint owner, the widow of the co-owner—the court set aside the acquittal, allowed the appeal, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision after recording the missing evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the antecedents or past history of an accused as a professional land grabber are a necessary precondition for prosecution under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can an appellate court set aside an acquittal and remand the case back to the trial court for recording additional essential evidence?
  • Does a dispute over possession between co-owners or their legal heirs in a joint property fall within the ambit of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed & another vs M/s JS Global Capital Ltd2025 SHC 404 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-18Read full judgment →
• Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan vs Adnan Faisal & another2025 SHC 540 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-22
  insider tradingmisuse of official positionnon-banking finance companybenefit of doubtcriminal original complaintcircumstantial evidenceacquittalspecial law vs general law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal original complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan against the accused, an officer of a Non-Banking Finance Company, alleging misuse of confidential information and official position for personal gain under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The core legal questions pertained to whether the prosecution successfully established the misuse of official authority beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the special law relating to insider trading ought to have been invoked instead of general corporate provisions. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to bring forth credible, direct, or unbroken circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offences, noting significant contradictions and missing links in the evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the accused was acquitted of the charges on the basis of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of misuse of official position under Section 282-K of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Does a special law governing insider trading prevail over general corporate provisions when dealing with securities transactions by company officers?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence with missing links in the chain of proof?
  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of prosecution witnesses who lack personal knowledge of underlying facts can sustain a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayed Nasir Ali & Others vs The Revisional Authority & Ors2025 SHC HYD 2115 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-05Read full judgment →
• Savaid Ahmed son of Muhammad Khursheed Qureshi vs The State and others2025 SHC KHI 2089 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-07
  registration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peaceillegal dispossessioncivil disputequashingconstitutional jurisdictioncognizable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge acting as Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, whereby the applicant's petition seeking directions for the registration of a first information report against private individuals for alleged illegal occupation of a property was dismissed. The core legal question revolves around whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was justified in refusing to order the registration of a criminal case where the underlying dispute is essentially civil in nature. The court held that the dispute pertained to immovable property and civil rights, and no cognizable offence was made out to warrant interference through constitutional or criminal machinery, noting that giving a criminal color to a civil dispute is impermissible. The court laid down the principle that where a matter constitutes a civil dispute regarding property possession, the appropriate remedy lies under specialized civil legislation such as the Illegal Dispossession Act rather than invoking criminal investigation or seeking directions for FIR registration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is bound to order the registration of an FIR when the dispute between the parties is primarily of a civil nature?
  • Can a criminal miscellaneous application be maintained for the lodgment of an FIR regarding property possession disputes?
  • Is the Illegal Dispossession Act the appropriate remedy for a person aggrieved by the alleged illegal occupation of immovable property?
  Read full judgment →
• Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation vs Muhammad Ali & others2025 SHC KHI 1852 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-14Read full judgment →
• Sarwat Ghazi Uddin vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 324 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-10Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Ali and Ors vs V.C. Smbbmu, Larkana and Ors2025 SHC LAR 1586 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah s/o Muhammad Laiq Jat and others vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1466 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sana Gul vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2213 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-08
  post-arrest bailillegal immigrantForeigners ActAfghan Citizen Cardrefugee rightsprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, for allegedly entering and residing in Pakistan as an illegal immigrant without valid documentation. The core legal question was whether the applicant, an Afghan national holding an Afghan Citizen Card (ACC), qualified as an illegal immigrant at the time of his arrest, given government notifications extending the validity of residency documents for Afghan refugees. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The court observed that official records from NADRA confirmed the applicant's ACC status was 'active' at the time of arrest, and government notifications had extended the validity of Proof of Registration (PoR) cards, thereby negating the prima facie case of illegal immigration. Furthermore, the court noted the applicant's lack of criminal record and his medical condition. The key principle laid down is that where an accused holds valid, government-recognized residency documentation, the penal provisions of the Foreigners Act regarding illegal entry are not triggered, and the accused is entitled to bail, especially when the alleged offence falls outside the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of an active Afghan Citizen Card or Proof of Registration card preclude a charge of illegal immigration under the Foreigners Act 1946?
  • Is an offence under the Foreigners Act 1946 considered to fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court grant post-arrest bail when government notifications extend the validity of residency documents for Afghan refugees beyond the date of an accused's arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Samiullah vs The State2025 PCRLJ 526 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-22
  post-arrest bailblasphemyinvestigation procedurecognizance of offenceevidentiary valuefurther inquirycyber crimenational securitydue processF.I.A.
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a post-arrest bail application in a case involving allegations of blasphemy, registered under sections 9, 10, 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2016, and sections 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 298-A, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal questions revolved around the procedural validity of the investigation and the sufficiency of evidence for denying bail. The court held that the investigation was flawed, having been conducted by an officer below the rank mandated by Section 156-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that no complaint was made by the government as required by Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for cognizance of certain offences. Furthermore, the evidence collected, including the recovery of the phone, lacked proper documentation and sealing, casting significant doubt on its reliability. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail, deeming it a case of further inquiry, while directing the F.I.A. to expand and professionalize its investigation, seeking necessary approvals and ensuring due process.

  Questions settled

  • Is an investigation into an offence under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, valid if conducted by a police officer below the rank of Superintendent of Police?
  • Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, without a complaint made by order of or under authority from the Federal or Provincial Government?
  • What is the standard of evidence required for denying post-arrest bail in sensitive cases like blasphemy?
  • Does a casual and unprofessional investigation, including improper sealing of recovered evidence, render a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • What are the implications of procedural non-compliance under Section 156-A and Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, on the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Saeed Siddiqui vs Sheeba Ahmed Kapadia2025 SHC 296 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
• Salman Ahmed and others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 708 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Saleem Khan vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 100 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-24Read full judgment →