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.

• Saleem Akhtar Siddiqui vs Sultan Ahmed Qureshi & Two (2) Others2025 SHC 686 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-07Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Khan and others vs The State, etc2025 SHC 722 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-10
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryharboring offendersvicarious liabilitycriminal conspiracySection 202 PPCbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sajjad Khan, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 452, 34, 109, 202, 216, 302, and 337-FIII of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was not named in the FIR and whose alleged involvement stemmed solely from the statement of a co-accused regarding harboring and the concealment of a weapon, was entitled to bail. The Court held that the applicant’s case fell within the scope of "further inquiry" under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the investigation was complete, the applicant was no longer required for investigative purposes, and continued detention would serve as a punitive measure rather than a procedural necessity. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, emphasizing that the observations made were tentative and should not prejudice the trial court’s final determination on the merits. The principle established is that where an accused is not named in the FIR and the evidence is based on a co-accused's statement, bail is appropriate pending further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when they are not named in the FIR and their implication relies solely on a co-accused's statement?
  • Does the completion of the investigation and submission of the challan constitute grounds for granting bail to an accused in custody?
  • Can an accused be denied bail when the primary charge involves the omission to give information regarding an offence under Section 202 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain Bhatti vs Mst. Quratulain Zehra Memon and 2 others2025 YLR 387 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-28Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ahmed Khan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 SHC KHI 1702 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-10Read full judgment →
• Saifuddin vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2181 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-26Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Khan and another vs Juma Khan and others2025 SHC 118 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-30Read full judgment →
• Safiyan vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC MPK 1509 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-21Read full judgment →
• Saeed-Ur-Rahman vs The State2025 MLD 651 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-08Read full judgment →
• Sadique Ali S/o Muhammad Ameen Brohi and others vs The State2025 SHC MPK 1868 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-10
  narcotic possessionconscious possessionchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealrecovery of narcotics
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act for the possession of 4040 grams of charas recovered from a vehicle. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution established conscious possession of narcotics concealed in secret cavities, and whether procedural lapses—specifically the absence of independent witnesses, an unexplained five-day delay in sending samples for chemical analysis, and a broken chain of custody—vitiated the conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' conscious knowledge of the contraband hidden in the vehicle's dashboard. Furthermore, the court emphasized that unexplained delays in chemical examination and failure to maintain a secure chain of custody are fatal to the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms that the burden lies on the prosecution to establish every link in the chain of custody and that any reasonable doubt arising from procedural failures must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of narcotics from a secret cavity in a vehicle automatically establish the conscious possession of the occupants?
  • Is an unexplained delay in sending narcotic samples to the chemical examiner fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Must the prosecution establish an unbroken chain of custody for recovered narcotics to secure a conviction?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses in a narcotics case, despite prior information, create a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Saddam Hussain Sahito, Sheraz Mumtaz Rajpar vs Province of Sindh &2025 SHC 202 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-28Read full judgment →
• Saddam Hussain Khoso vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2064 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-11
  civil servantright of lienreversionprobationary periodconstitutional petitionconfirmationparent department
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the denial of a civil servant's right of lien on his former position as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) following his appointment to a new post as a Senior Data Entry Operator. The core legal question was whether a civil servant retains a lien on their parent post during the probationary period of a new appointment. The court examined the provisions of the Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules 1993 and relied on established Supreme Court precedents, specifically Muhammad Israrullah Vs Assistant Director, Manpower and Chief Secretary, Government of NWFP Vs Syed Zafarmand Ali. The court held that a civil servant’s lien on a parent post cannot be terminated, even with consent, until the servant is confirmed against another permanent post. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition, affirming that a civil servant retains their lien in the parent department if they have not been permanently absorbed or confirmed in the borrowing department. This judgment reinforces the principle that lien protection is a fundamental aspect of civil service security until confirmation elsewhere.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant retain a lien on their parent post if they have not been confirmed in their new position?
  • Can a civil servant's lien on a post under the Federal Government be terminated with their consent before they are confirmed in another post?
  • When does a civil servant lose their lien on a previous post under the Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules 1993?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabir Ali and another vs The State2025 SHC LAR 2092 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-20Read full judgment →
• Ruqqiya Lehar vs Shayan Zakaria Chottani2025 SHC KHI 1217 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-13Read full judgment →
• Rubina Lewis Thr. Attorney Naeem Khan vs Public at Large2025 SHC 304 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-05Read full judgment →
• Roopchand alias Ramesh and another vs The State2025 YLR 827 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-29
  pre-arrest bailusuryprivate money lendinganticipatory bailcriminal procedureSindh Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by two applicants accused of engaging in illegal private money lending and interest-based transactions, registered under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 3(i) of the Sindh Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2023. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the statutory framework governing the offense. The Court held that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case for judicial refuge, noting that the allegations were severe and supported by witness statements. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed. The Court affirmed the principle that pre-arrest bail is an exceptional remedy reserved for cases of malicious prosecution or false accusation, not a substitute for post-arrest bail. It further emphasized that the Sindh Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2023, renders such offenses cognizable, non-compoundable, and non-bailable, necessitating strict judicial scrutiny to protect society from the harms of usury.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail available as a matter of right in cases involving cognizable and non-bailable offenses?
  • Does the Sindh Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2023, classify offenses under its provisions as non-bailable?
  • What criteria must an applicant satisfy to obtain pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Abdul Kalam and 2 others vs The State2025 MLD 488 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-18
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtextra-judicial confessionschizophreniacircumstantial evidencemedical evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of three appellants for the murder of the complainant's sister. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with their father, murdered the deceased, relying on circumstantial evidence, including alleged extra-judicial confessions and recovery of weapons. The appellants contended that the incident was committed by one of the brothers, Kamran, who suffers from schizophrenia, and that the complainant falsely implicated the other family members due to a previous grudge. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants Rizwan and Imran, noting that the extra-judicial confessions were inadmissible and the circumstantial evidence was contradictory and unreliable. The Court emphasized that medical evidence is confirmatory, not corroborative, and cannot connect an accused to a crime. Consequently, the Court acquitted Rizwan and Imran, extending them the benefit of doubt. Regarding Kamran, the Court upheld his conviction but directed his transfer to a psychiatric hospital for treatment, noting that his release remains subject to medical certification of his recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession made before the police?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to connect an accused to the commission of a crime in the absence of direct evidence?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to put incriminating evidence to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be based on high probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The State2025 YLR 735 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-05
  criminal appealidentification paradebenefit of the doubteye-witness testimonymurderrobberyprocedural defectsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for robbery and murder under Sections 393 and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt, given the reliance on eye-witness testimony and identification parades. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. The ratio of the decision emphasizes that identification parades are unreliable when witnesses fail to provide a prior description of the accused in their initial statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court established that for identification evidence to be credible, witnesses must assign specific roles to the accused during the parade, and the parade must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards, such as using similar-looking dummies. Because the identification was flawed, the CCTV footage was inconclusive, and no incriminating recoveries were made, the Court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction, and ordered his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an identification parade reliable if the eye-witness failed to provide a prior description of the accused in their statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to assign a specific role to an accused during an identification parade render the identification evidence insufficient for conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on eye-witness identification when the witnesses had only a fleeting glimpse of the accused and no prior description was provided?
  • Is CCTV footage sufficient to prove the identity of an accused if the footage does not clearly capture the commission of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali s/o Muhammad Juman Balhro vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1613, 2025 SHC LAR 1644 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencerigor mortisacquittaldeath sentence confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant contradictions in the ocular account, medical evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses. The Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from fatal flaws: the eye-witnesses provided inconsistent statements regarding the involvement of co-accused; the ocular account of the shooting was physically implausible given the entry and exit wounds; and the medical evidence regarding the presence of rigor mortis contradicted the prosecution's timeline of the incident. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive, and no independent witnesses were produced despite the public location of the crime. Holding that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution evidence is riddled with contradictions and medical evidence negates the ocular account, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of rigor mortis in a corpse at the time of post-mortem examination, if inconsistent with the prosecution's timeline, create reasonable doubt regarding the time of death?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the ocular testimony is contradicted by medical evidence regarding the nature and direction of the gunshot wound?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Does a material contradiction in the statements of eye-witnesses regarding the presence or involvement of co-accused render their entire testimony unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehan Pervez vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC 300 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-31Read full judgment →
• Rayan Technology Private Limited, vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 SHC KHI 1968, 2025 SHC KHI 1982, 2025 SHC KHI 1983 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-31Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux vs Province of Sindh another2025 SHC 440, 2025 PLJ Karachi 110 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-28Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux (present on bail) vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1787 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-27
  criminal appealmisappropriation of case propertyadmissibility of photocopiessecondary evidenceinterested witnessburden of proofspeaking judgmentacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The Appellant, a former court reader, challenged his conviction for misappropriating case properties, including cash and alcohol, from judicial custody. The trial court had convicted him under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Upon review, the High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with procedural irregularities and evidentiary gaps. The Court held that the trial court erred by admitting photocopies of documents as evidence without satisfying the mandatory requirements of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and by failing to provide a reasoned, "speaking" judgment. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the testimony of an interested witness requires independent corroboration, which was absent. The Court also criticized the trial court's arbitrary comparison of signatures without expert assistance and its failure to resolve objections to evidence admissibility contemporaneously. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the Appellant, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the lack of direct ocular evidence and the reliance on inadmissible secondary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court admit photocopies as evidence without fulfilling the statutory requirements for secondary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Is a trial court permitted to defer the decision on the admissibility of evidence until the final judgment?
  • Does the testimony of an interested witness require independent corroboration to sustain a criminal conviction?
  • Is a trial court required to provide a 'speaking judgment' that details the reasoning for its findings?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muzamil Hussain Khan vs The Chief Secretary & Others2025 SHC KHI 1481, 2025 SHC KHI 1483 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs The State2025 YLR 1036 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-30
  police encounterbenefit of doubtanti-terrorismcriminal appealforensic evidencetable investigationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a conviction by an Anti-Terrorism Court, where the appellant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for an alleged police encounter and illegal weapon possession. The prosecution alleged the appellant fired at a police party, resulting in his injury and arrest. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidentiary inconsistencies. The Sindh High Court found significant discrepancies: the lack of independent witnesses, contradictory accounts regarding the preparation of the arrest memo, and suspicious forensic evidence concerning the weapon's serial number. The Court observed that the investigation appeared to be a 'table investigation' and noted the absence of any discernible act of terrorism. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Relying on the principle that even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the benefit of doubt is not a concession but a legal entitlement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitle an accused to acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material inconsistencies between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding the preparation of recovery memos?
  • Is a conviction valid when the prosecution fails to provide independent witnesses in a case involving an alleged police encounter?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Saqib Khan vs Mrs. Sarosh Rahim2025 SHC KHI 1790 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
• Rahib Ali s/o Sadaruddin Choliyani Chandio vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1576 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-15
  criminal appealfair trialcross-examinationcapital punishmentmiscarriage of justicede novo trialQatl-i-amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence of Qatl-i-amd. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s failure to ensure cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, despite the defence counsel’s omission, violated the appellant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. The High Court held that the trial court’s reliance on unchallenged evidence in a capital case without intervention constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized that the right to a fair trial, guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution, imposes an enhanced duty on the trial judge. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter for a de novo trial. The key principle laid down is that where defence counsel fails to cross-examine, the trial court must actively exercise its powers under Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, to put material questions to witnesses or ensure adequate legal representation is provided, thereby fulfilling its primary responsibility to discover the truth and ensure justice in capital proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court's failure to ensure cross-examination of prosecution witnesses in a capital case constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial?
  • What is the scope of a trial judge's duty under Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when defence counsel fails to cross-examine witnesses?
  • Can a conviction be set aside and a case remanded for a de novo trial if the trial court fails to uphold procedural safeguards regarding cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafique Rajput vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1866 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-11
  attempted murderinjured witnessappraisal of evidenceinvestigative lapsesmedical evidencebenefit of doubthurt provisionscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 for attempting to murder his estranged wife and causing injuries to his mother-in-law using a knife. The core legal questions involved the credibility of injured eyewitnesses, the effect of minor contradictions and investigative lapses, and the proof of murderous intent under Section 324 PPC. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences, holding that the testimony of injured victims carries high probative value and is not undermined by minor discrepancies or police omissions. The court reaffirmed that a murderous intent under Section 324 PPC can be inferred from the weapon used, the vulnerable body parts targeted, and the surrounding circumstances, and that minor investigative failures do not vitiate an otherwise robust prosecution case supported by consistent medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of an injured eyewitness can be relied upon despite minor contradictions and relationship with the victims?
  • Does a defective investigation by itself entitle an accused to an acquittal when ocular and medical evidence are otherwise consistent?
  • What factors are determinative of a murderous intent under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860?
  • Can cumulative punishments for specific hurts under Chapter XVI co-exist with a conviction for attempt to commit murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq, Hakim Ali alias Hakoo vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1875 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-07
  criminal appealrobberydelayed FIRidentification paradeadverse inferencebenefit of doubtSection 342 examinationappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the trial court's judgment convicting the appellants for robbery under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite significant evidentiary gaps. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellants. The Court emphasized that an unexplained ten-day delay in registering the FIR, coupled with the failure to produce available CCTV footage, severely undermined the prosecution's credibility. Furthermore, the Court established that the failure to conduct a judicial identification parade for previously unknown accused renders dock identification unreliable. Additionally, the Court held that the prosecution's failure to produce key witnesses warrants an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Finally, the Court reaffirmed that incriminating evidence not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be considered against them, and any lingering doubt must be resolved in the accused's favor.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in registering an FIR, despite the availability of electronic evidence, cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Is the failure to conduct a judicial identification parade for previously unknown accused fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution for failing to produce a key witness mentioned in the challan?
  • Does the failure to put incriminating evidence to an accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render that evidence inadmissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Rabi Khan vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1708 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-04
  pre-arrest bailcall data reportenticing a womancriminal investigationbail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through a bail application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the applicant Rabi Khan sought pre-arrest bail in FIR No.415 of 2025 registered under Section 469-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail when the prosecution had collected incriminating material, including Call Data Records showing regular contact between the applicant and the complainant's missing wife. The court held that the material collected during investigation prima facie connected the accused with the alleged offence and no mala fide or ill will was established on the part of the police. Consequently, the court recalled the ad-interim pre-arrest bail and rejected the bail application, laying down the principle that direct involvement established through call data records and lack of mala fide disentitles an accused to pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when call data records prima facie connect the accused to the alleged offence?
  • Does the absence of previous enmity or mala fide on the part of the prosecution preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when confronted with incriminating call logs and unable to provide a satisfactory response?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Director Central & others2025 SHC KHI 2215 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-04Read full judgment →
• Qutubuddin Jakhrani vs The State2025 YLR 443 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-10
  murderocular evidenceinterested witnesscriminal appealmedical evidenceappreciation of evidencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically evaluating the reliability of related eye-witnesses and the impact of alleged contradictions in their testimony. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The court held that the ocular account provided by the eye-witnesses was consistent, natural, and confidence-inspiring, despite their kinship with the deceased. The court established that mere relationship does not render a witness 'interested' absent a proven motive to falsely implicate the accused. Furthermore, minor discrepancies in testimony are natural and do not invalidate credible evidence. The court reaffirmed that the rule requiring corroboration of ocular testimony is one of abundant caution rather than a mandatory requirement, provided the direct evidence is unimpeachable. Additionally, medical evidence serves as confirmatory support regarding the nature and cause of injuries but does not independently establish the identity of the offender.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship between eye-witnesses and the deceased automatically render them 'interested witnesses' whose testimony requires independent corroboration?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of a single eye-witness?
  • Do minor contradictions in prosecution witness statements necessitate the acquittal of an accused?
  • What is the legal status of medical evidence in establishing the identity of an accused in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali son of M. Chand Badshah and others vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1550, 2025 SHC KHI 1552 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-27
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirynarcotics smugglingchemical analysis reportpharmaceutical drugsstatutory classificationprocedural irregularityCNS Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns post-arrest bail applications filed by applicants charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for allegedly smuggling pharmaceutical products, including Rivotril, Gabica, and Tramal. The core legal question was whether these lawfully manufactured, registered pharmaceutical products constitute "psychotropic substances" under the Act, and whether the prosecution's chemical analysis report, which lacked specific testing protocols and was delayed, established a prima facie case. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the scope of "further inquiry" under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court reasoned that the classification of registered pharmaceutical drugs under the CNS Act remains legally ambiguous, and the chemical report was procedurally and substantively defective for failing to disclose analytical protocols. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that without direct evidence linking the applicants to the consignment, and given the non-prohibitory nature of the alleged quantity, continued incarceration was unjustified. The judgment reaffirms that ambiguous statutory classification and defective forensic reports necessitate further inquiry at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recovery of registered pharmaceutical products, which are not explicitly listed in the schedules of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, constitute a case of further inquiry?
  • Is a chemical analysis report that fails to disclose the testing protocols used to identify substances legally admissible or sufficient to sustain a prima facie case?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to provide analytical reasoning in a bail rejection order constitute a jurisdictional error?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to establish a direct nexus between the accused and the alleged contraband?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim and another vs The State2025 YLR 697 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-09
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencefair trialacquittalappreciation of evidencerecovery evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when ocular evidence was inconsistent and co-accused charged with similar roles were acquitted by the trial court. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt. The Court observed that the ocular evidence was contradictory regarding the specific injuries attributed to the appellants, and the recovery of weapons was procedurally flawed. Furthermore, the trial court's conviction under Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without a formal charge, violated the appellants' right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Relying on the principle that if eye-witnesses are disbelieved regarding one accused, they cannot be relied upon for others without independent corroboration, the Court set aside the convictions. The appellants were granted the benefit of doubt as a matter of right, leading to their acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted for an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for which they were not formally charged?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence entitle the remaining accused to acquittal if the ocular evidence is inconsistent?
  • Is it safe to base a conviction on corroborative evidence when the direct ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
  • Does the failure to send forensic evidence separately for analysis affect the reliability of the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Qalbe Saleem vs Mst. Reema Dildar and others2025 SHC 362 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-05Read full judgment →
• Qalandar and 2 others vs The State2025 PCRLJ 470 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-06
  attempted murderfirearm injuriesbenefit of the doubtinstigationnatural witnessesmedical corroborationminor contradictionscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting three appellants for offenses including attempted murder, criminal intimidation, and causing hurt. The core legal questions involve the proper application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code when firearm shots are not repeated, the evidentiary value of ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, and the standard of proof required for an accused charged with instigation. The Sindh High Court held that pressing the trigger of a firearm to cause injury satisfies the ingredients of attempted murder under Section 324 regardless of whether shots are repeated, and that natural eye-witness testimony corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient for conviction absent material contradictions. However, with respect to the appellant charged solely with instigation without causing any physical injury, the Court found the evidence insufficient and extended the benefit of the doubt. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as to two appellants and allowed, resulting in acquittal, as to the third.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of repeated firing by an accused exclude the application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the basis of ocular testimony when corroborated by medical evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of minor contradictions and discrepancies in prosecution witness statements?
  • When is an accused charged with mere instigation entitled to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaimuddin, Khalid Hussain, Javed, Mehtab vs The State2025 SHC SUK 398 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-20
  amendment of chargerecall of witnessesfair trialdue processcriminal appealremandSection 231 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Daharki, following an amendment to the original charge. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted lawfully by permitting the prosecution to adopt previously recorded evidence after the charge was amended, rather than recalling and re-examining the witnesses. The High Court held that the trial court’s procedure was legally flawed and prejudicial to the appellants. Relying on established precedents, the Court determined that Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory; when a charge is altered or added, the prosecution and the accused must be allowed to recall and re-examine witnesses regarding the changes. The Court emphasized that the method of adopting prior evidence violates the constitutional right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh trial, requiring the re-examination of all prosecution witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does the adoption of previously recorded evidence after the amendment of a charge satisfy the requirements of Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the failure to recall and re-examine witnesses upon the amendment of a charge an incurable procedural defect?
  • Does the practice of adopting prior evidence after a charge amendment violate the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaim vs The State2025 YLR 785 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-08
  post-arrest bailcross-versionfurther inquirymedical discrepancycriminal procedureaggressor determinationPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged under sections 324, 147, 148, 149, 114, 506, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the existence of a counter-version of the incident, undisclosed injuries to the applicant's side, and a discrepancy between the medical evidence and the FIR allegations regarding the weapon used. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the presence of cross-versions, where both parties sustained injuries and the aggressor remains undetermined, necessitates a trial to establish the primary aggressor. Furthermore, the medical report's finding of a blunt injury, contrary to the FIR's claim of a sharp hatchet blow, created a discrepancy requiring further inquiry. The court established the principle that in cases of cross-versions and conflicting medical evidence, the matter falls within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the concession of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a cross-version FIR where both parties sustained injuries entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Can a discrepancy between the medical evidence and the FIR allegations regarding the weapon used constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it the role of the bail court or the trial court to determine the identity of the aggressor in cases involving cross-versions of the same incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Hussain and others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 218 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-24
  fake appointmentsservice matterconstitutional jurisdictionlachesdoctrine of unclean handspolice servicesalary stoppage
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by individuals claiming to be Police Constables, challenging an order stopping their salaries and suspending them from service. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were validly appointed civil servants entitled to salary, or if their appointments were fraudulent, and whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 given the bar under Article 212. The Court held that the petition was meritless and non-maintainable. It found that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence of valid appointment, while the department demonstrated through a formal inquiry that the petitioners were fake appointees involved in a financial scam. The Court dismissed the petition on grounds of laches, as it was filed years after the impugned action, and applied the 'Doctrine of Unclean Hands,' holding that positions secured through illegal means cannot be protected. The principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere in service matters where the petitioner fails to establish a valid appointment and where the petition is barred by laches and the doctrine of unclean hands.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition regarding service matters in light of the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the doctrine of unclean hands apply to individuals seeking relief for employment positions obtained through fraudulent means?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained when it is filed with significant delay without a reasonable explanation for laches?
  Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Syeda Azra Qamar, vs Kifayat Academy & others, Dr.2025 SHC 394 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-26Read full judgment →
• Prem son of Amreshi @ Bacho Kachi Kolhi and others vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1953 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-23
  criminal appealmurdercircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencebenefit of doubtunidentified dead bodyhearsay evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b), 201, and 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and concurrent prison terms. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial and last-seen evidence, alongside an unidentified dead body and hearsay testimonies. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, as the dead body was unidentified at recovery, the medical evidence indicated death by drowning without signs of violence, witnesses were interested and based their accounts on hearsay, and material contradictions existed. The Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, laying down the principle that last-seen evidence is a weak type of circumstantial evidence requiring strong independent corroboration, and that a gruesome nature of a crime cannot override the fundamental requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the benefit of any doubt must go to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on weak circumstantial and last-seen evidence without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unidentified dead body recovered from a canal, subsequently linked to a missing person without proper identification procedures, weaken the prosecution's case?
  • Is the benefit of doubt to be extended to the accused when the prosecution witnesses are related and their testimonies rely entirely on hearsay?
  • Does the heinous or gruesome nature of an offense permit a court to relax the standard of proof required in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Peter Ahsan son of Ahsan Inayat vs M/s Fast Cables Pvt. Ltd. through2025 SHC 718 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-09
  Justice of PeaceFIR registrationcognizable offenceSection 22-A Cr.P.C.criminal proceduremisappropriationinvestigative powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged orders passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace directing the recording of a complainant's statement regarding alleged misappropriation and fraud. The core legal question concerned the scope of the Justice of Peace's authority under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in matters involving the registration of an FIR. The Court held that the Justice of Peace is not empowered to conduct a detailed factual inquiry, act as an investigative agency, or determine the merits of the case. The holding emphasized that the primary function of the Justice of Peace is limited to ascertaining whether the facts narrated in a complaint prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. If such a disclosure is present, the Justice of Peace must direct the police to record the statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, affirming the direction for the Station House Officer to proceed in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of the powers of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a Justice of Peace authorized to conduct a detailed factual inquiry or act as an investigative agency before directing the registration of an FIR?
  • What is the legal duty of a Station House Officer when information regarding a cognizable offence is brought to their knowledge?
  Read full judgment →
• Perwaiz Ahmed Shaikh (Late) s/o Muhammad Taqi vs Muhammad Tahir2025 SHC 207 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ahmed Soomro vs Muhammad Umar @ Ameer Ali Soomro2025 SHC LAR 1605 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30Read full judgment →
• Peoples Steel Mills Ltd., and another vs M/s Asian Counsel Engineer (Pvt.)2025 SHC KHI 1955 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Peer Muhammad s/o Basheer Khan vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2116 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-28
  post-arrest bailtraffic accidentAfghan nationalflight riskprohibitory clausefurther inquiryresidency documentation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an Afghan national accused of causing a traffic accident resulting in injury. The core legal question was whether the applicant should be denied bail solely on the ground of his nationality and alleged flight risk, and whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that bail should be granted, noting that the prosecution's reliance on precedents involving narcotics trafficking was distinguishable. The court emphasized that nationality alone does not justify withholding bail, particularly when the accused possesses valid residency documentation. Furthermore, the court observed that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the case required further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and the court must assess each case on its own merits rather than applying a blanket policy against foreign nationals.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be denied to an accused solely on the basis of their nationality or foreign status?
  • Does the possession of valid residency documentation, such as an Afghan Citizen Card, mitigate the flight risk of an accused for bail purposes?
  • Is a traffic accident case involving injury, where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, generally entitled to the concession of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Peer Bux vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1699 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• PC Niaz Ahmed and 3 others vs The State2025 YLR 801 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24
  defective chargesection 342 Cr.P.C.incriminating evidencede novo trialmurder trialcriminal appealmiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dadu, convicting and sentencing the appellants under sections 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 34, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved were whether a defective charge lacking material particulars and omitting specific roles vitiates the trial, and whether failure to put crucial incriminating prosecution evidence, such as weapon recoveries and medical reports, to the accused during their examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the conviction unsustainable. The Sindh High Court held that a misleading and defective charge causing serious prejudice to the accused vitiates the trial, and that prosecution evidence not put to the accused under section 342 cannot be used for conviction. The court laid down the principle that a trial is vitiated by a materially defective charge, and that all incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence must be explicitly put to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, resulting in the setting aside of the judgment and a remand for a de novo trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a defective charge lacking material particulars and specific roles vitiate the entire trial?
  • Can incriminating prosecution evidence not put to the accused during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to award a conviction?
  • Whether failure to comply with section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 results in serious prejudice to the accused?
  • Must circumstances appearing in cross-examination and re-examination be put to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited (PSO) vs M/s. Gillani (Pvt. Ltd. &2025 SHC 126 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Petroleum Limited vs Ayesha Chowdhry & others2025 SHC 312 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
• Owner of M/s Simba Enterprises vs Federation of Pakistan & Another2025 SHC 614 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-08Read full judgment →
• Oshaque Ahmed son of Ali Hassan Khokhar vs The State2025 SHC 676 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-07
  misappropriationcriminal breach of trustpublic servantwheat stock embezzlementprevention of corruptionland revenue arrearscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, an Incharge of a Provincial Reserve Centre, for the misappropriation of government wheat stock. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the entrustment and subsequent embezzlement of wheat stock, and whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction by ordering the recovery of the misappropriated amount as land revenue arrears. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved the entrustment of property and the appellant's failure to account for significant stock shortages. The court affirmed that public servants exercising dominion over government property bear the burden of explaining discrepancies in stock. Furthermore, the court laid down that ordering the recovery of misappropriated funds as government arrears under the Land Revenue Act is a legally tenable mechanism for enforcing fines under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, aimed at deterring corruption and protecting the national exchequer.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a public servant to explain discrepancies in government stock under their control satisfy the requirements for conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a trial court order the recovery of a fine imposed for corruption as government arrears under the Land Revenue Act?
  • Does the presumption of regularity under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to inspection reports produced by government officials in corruption cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Osama Nadeem vs Mst.Minha Khan2025 SHC KHI 2077 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-13Read full judgment →
• Omer Farooq and another vs SHO P.S K.I. a and others2025 SHC KHI 1924, 2025 SHC KHI 1923 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Occidental Petroleum (Pakistan) Inc And Others vs The Commissioner2025 SHC KHI 2078, 2025 SHC KHI 2079, 2025 SHC KHI 2080 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Obaid Muhammad Khan Niazi vs Muhammad Iqbal and others2025 SHC 156, 2025 MLD 953 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-31Read full judgment →
• Oaun Yazdani Mughal vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1786 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-26
  pre-arrest bailcriminal breach of trustdelay in FIRprohibitory clausefurther inquirytentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Oaun Yazdani Mughal, in relation to FIR No. 38 of 2025, registered under Section 406 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the alleged offense. The Court held that the unexplained delay of over two months in registering the FIR created serious doubts regarding the prosecution's case, suggesting potential deliberation and afterthought. Additionally, the Court noted that the offense under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, reaffirming the principle that for offenses outside the prohibitory limb, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, a principle binding on all courts under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create sufficient grounds to doubt the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
  • Is the grant of bail for offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 the rule rather than the exception?
  • Are the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan constitutionally binding on all courts under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Nunchi Marine Pte Ltd vs Cnergyico Pk Limited2025 SHC KHI 2246 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-12Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and another vs The IInd Rent Controller Khi (West) &2025 SHC KHI 1501 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Noman s/o Abdul Razzak vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1682, 2025 SHC KHI 1687 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-29
  narcotics possessionprovincial vs federal jurisdictionsentencing discretionfirst-time offenderstatutory interpretationcriminal appealnarcotic drug
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a conviction under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, for possessing 1150 grams of charas. The appellant, arrested by provincial police, contended that the trial court erred in applying the Federal Amendment Act, 2022, arguing that the Control of Narcotic Substances (Sindh Amendment) Act, 2021, was the applicable legislation for provincial police actions. The core legal question was whether the Federal Amendment Act, 2022, exclusively superseded the provincial amendment for all narcotics offences or if they operated concurrently based on the arresting agency. The Court held that the two statutes are not mutually exclusive; the Federal Amendment Act, 2022, empowers federal agencies, while the Sindh Amendment Act, 2021, governs provincial police actions. Consequently, the Court converted the conviction to the appropriate provincial provision. Furthermore, emphasizing the principle of reformation for first-time offenders, the Court reduced the appellant's sentence from nine years to four years, maintaining the fine and the benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, repeal the Control of Narcotic Substances (Sindh Amendment) Act, 2021?
  • Which narcotics legislation applies when an arrest is made by provincial police rather than a federal agency?
  • Can a court reduce a sentence based on the lack of prior criminal record of the accused?
  • Do the Federal Amendment Act, 2022, and the Sindh Amendment Act, 2021, operate concurrently?
  Read full judgment →
• Noman Saleem vs Rehmat Elahee & others2025 SHC 378 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-13Read full judgment →
• Noman Liaqat Proprietor of M.H. Traders vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 SHC KHI 1969 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nisar Hussain Shaikh vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 322 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-07
  proforma promotionretrospective promotionvested right to promotioncivil servicesuperannuationprovincial selection boardwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired Senior Chest Specialist (BS-19), filed a constitutional petition seeking a declaration that the Health Department's failure to consider him for promotion to Chief Chest Specialist (BS-20) was illegal, and prayed for proforma promotion from the date of occurrence of the vacancy with back benefits. The court examined whether a civil servant has a vested right to promotion and whether proforma promotion can be granted post-retirement in the absence of statutory provisions. The Sindh High Court held that promotion is not a vested right and that the petitioner's case had been duly considered by the Provincial Selection Board I but regretted due to lack of vacancies in his category (Diploma Holder Doctors). Furthermore, the court held that proforma promotion post-retirement is alien to the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, and that the proviso to Fundamental Rule 17 allowing such benefit was omitted prior to petitioner's retirement. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether promotion is a vested right of a civil servant?
  • Can a retired civil servant claim proforma or retrospective promotion in the absence of express statutory provisions under the civil service laws?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to grant proforma promotion when a civil servant's case was considered and regretted for want of vacancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed Managing Partner M/s Master Pipe vs Federation of Pakistan2025 SHC KHI 1905 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad Jalbani and another vs The State through Chairman NAB2025 P Cr. L J 853 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-27
  accountability appealacquittal appealrule of consistencyburden of proofbenefit of doubtmisappropriation of fundscorruption and corrupt practicesdouble presumption of innocence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two criminal accountability appeals arising from a single judgment of the Accountability Court, Sukkur. The first appeal challenges the conviction of Niaz Muhammad Jalbani for corruption and corrupt practices under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, while the second appeal, filed by the State, challenges the acquittal of co-accused Azizullah Panhwar. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the applicability of the rule of consistency when co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence, and the burden of proof in accountability cases. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to produce unimpeachable evidence against the appellant, noting that key prosecution witnesses exonerated him or provided contradictory testimony. Furthermore, applying the rule of consistency, the Court found that the appellant was entitled to acquittal given that the trial court had disbelieved the same evidence regarding the co-accused. The Court reaffirmed that while the Ordinance allows for presumptions of guilt, the initial burden remains on the prosecution to establish a reasonable case before any burden shifts to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency require the acquittal of a co-accused if the prosecution evidence against them has been disbelieved by the trial court?
  • Does the presumption of guilt under Section 14 of the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 absolve the prosecution of its initial burden to prove a reasonable case?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal judgment?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on secondary evidence when the primary evidence is found to be forged or fictitious?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain S/o Fakir Muhammad Siyal vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1841 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-01
  criminal appealabductionfair trialSection 342 CrPCSection 540 CrPCbenefit of doubtdue processexculpatory evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for abduction and related offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court committed procedural irregularities by allowing additional prosecution witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without notice, and whether the failure to record a fresh statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the introduction of new incriminating evidence violated the right to a fair trial. The High Court held that the trial court’s failure to provide the accused an opportunity to be heard regarding additional witnesses and its failure to confront the accused with all incriminating evidence rendered the conviction unsustainable. The court emphasized that Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandates a direct examination of the accused regarding all incriminating material, and that adopting prior statements is legally insufficient. Furthermore, the court ruled that ignoring exculpatory evidence, such as a prior Constitutional Petition filed by the victim, created reasonable doubt, necessitating the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to record a fresh statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the introduction of additional evidence vitiate a conviction?
  • Can a trial court allow an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without issuing notice to the accused?
  • Is the adoption of a previously recorded statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through a written submission by defense counsel legally sufficient?
  • Does the failure to consider exculpatory evidence, such as a previously filed Constitutional Petition, entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. vs Active Apparels Intl. (Pvt.) Ltd.2025 SHC 538 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-24Read full judgment →
• Nek Muhammad Baloch vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 652 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-09Read full judgment →
• Nazim Ahmed vs The Commissioner I.R. (Appeals-VII) Cto, Kar.& anr2025 SHC 276 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-04Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed Bhaan vs Administrator, T.M.O. Dokri2025 SHC LAR 2099 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-21Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed Baloch vs The State & others2025 SHC 168 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-24
  criminal miscellaneous applicationdirect complaintwithdrawal of applicationalternative remedycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was brought before the Sindh High Court by the applicant, Nazeer Ahmed Baloch, seeking legal redress. The core legal question concerned the appropriate forum and procedure for the ventilation of the applicant's grievances regarding the subject matter of the dispute. Upon hearing the matter at some length, the learned counsel for the applicant did not press the application. Instead, the counsel stated an intention to withdraw the petition in order to pursue an alternative statutory remedy before the competent court of law by filing a criminal direct complaint. The court accepted this stance and disposed of the application accordingly. The key principle laid down is that a party may seek to withdraw a miscellaneous application to avail alternative statutory remedies such as filing a direct complaint under the relevant provisions of the procedural law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an applicant withdraw a criminal miscellaneous application to pursue a direct complaint?
  • Whether an aggrieved person can exhaust remedies before a competent court under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after withdrawing a misc application?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad Jokhio vs he State and Seven (7) Others2025 SHC KHI 1500 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-20
  FIR registrationEx-Officio Justice of Peacecognizable offenceproperty disputecriminal procedurepolice powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which directed the police to register an FIR based on a complaint regarding a property dispute. The core legal question was whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, when exercising powers under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is required to articulate a reasoning process—similar to that of the police—to determine if the information discloses a cognizable offence before mandating the registration of an FIR. The Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable because it lacked a reasoned evaluation of whether the complaint revealed a cognizable offence and failed to consider the police's role in the initial assessment of such information. The Court set aside the order, confirming that the Justice of Peace must perform a judicial evaluation of the complaint rather than issuing a summary direction. The key principle laid down is that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace must articulate the specific thought process and legal basis for concluding that a cognizable offence is made out before directing the police to register an FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace required to articulate a reasoning process before directing the registration of an FIR?
  • Does the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace have the authority to bypass the police's initial assessment of whether a complaint discloses a cognizable offence?
  • Can an order directing the registration of an FIR be sustained if it fails to specify the penal provision under which the offence is cognizable?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and others vs The State through NAB and others2025 YLR 342 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23
  National Accountability Ordinanceamenity plotslayout plan revisioncooperative housing societysecondary evidencebenefit of the doubtcorrupt practicesbona fide purchasers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court at Hyderabad convicting the appellants under Section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for alleged illegal revision of a housing society's layout plan, conversion of amenity plots to commercial plots, and subsequent irregular allotments and sales causing loss to the public exchequer. The core legal questions involved whether secondary evidence of layout plans was admissible, whether the National Accountability Bureau had jurisdiction over a private cooperative housing society without loss to the government exchequer, and whether criminal intent and pecuniary advantage were established against the administrators, regulators, and beneficiary purchasers. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the original and revised layout plans were unproven and inadmissible secondary evidence under Articles 72 to 74 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, no financial loss to the government was proved, and essential elements of mens rea and personal pecuniary advantage were lacking. The court laid down the principle that criminal convictions under accountability laws require strict proof of financial benefit, proven criminal intent (mens rea), and admissible primary or secondary documentary evidence rather than mere procedural irregularities or unproven photocopies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether uncertified photocopies of layout plans are admissible as secondary evidence under Articles 72 to 74 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to prove the illegal conversion of amenity plots?
  • Does the National Accountability Bureau have jurisdiction to prosecute administrative irregularities in a self-financed private cooperative housing society where no loss to the government exchequer is established?
  • Can a conviction for corruption and corrupt practices be sustained under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 in the absence of proof regarding personal pecuniary advantage and criminal intent (mens rea)?
  • Are bona fide purchasers of plots through open auction entitled to acquittal when co-accused beneficiaries facing identical allegations have been acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab vs Ihsan Ali Khan and 3 others2025 MLD 633 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-31
  illegal dispossessionlawful occupiersale agreementpart performancecriminal revisionconcurrent civil and criminal proceedingsdue process of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application impugns the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The applicant alleged he purchased landed property through a sale agreement, was handed possession upon part payment, and was subsequently forcibly dispossessed by the respondent. The trial court had dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the dispute was of a civil nature and the respondent was not a land grabber. The Sindh High Court held that a person in possession pursuant to a valid sale agreement is a lawful occupier protected by law, that forceful eviction without due process of law is illegal, that the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act apply universally and are not restricted solely to professional land grabbers, and that the pendency of civil litigation is no bar to criminal proceedings under the Act. The impugned order was set aside and the trial court was directed to proceed with the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person in possession of immovable property under an agreement to sell qualifies as a lawful occupier under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Do the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply exclusively to professional land grabbers and land mafias?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation between the parties bar the initiation or maintenance of criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Can a vendor forcibly retake possession of property from a vendee on the pretext of default in payment without resorting to a court of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan vs The State and 6 others2025 YLR 715 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-04Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan Kalhoro and 3 others vs The State2025 YLR 981 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-30
  pre-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clauseunexplained delaynon-vital partsmala fideprevious enmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This common order disposes of two pre-arrest bail applications arising from a single crime registered under Sections 337-F(v), 337-F(iii), 337-F(i), 114, 148, 149, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, armed with iron bars and lathies, intercepted and injured the complainant's brother. The applicants argued that the First Information Report was delayed by twelve days without explanation, the roles assigned were general, the injuries were on non-vital body parts, and the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court observed that the injuries were on non-vital parts, the maximum punishment did not exceed five years, and the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained. Furthermore, the existence of a prior dispute indicated potential ulterior motives and mala fides. Applying established precedents, the Court held that the case required further inquiry and confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of twelve days in lodging a First Information Report can support a case for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where the alleged injuries are on non-vital body parts and the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the existence of a prior dispute between parties satisfy the requirement of showing potential mala fides or ulterior motives for granting pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab @ Naboo Chandio, Mohammed Ali Chandio vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1610, 2025 SHC LAR 1611 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30Read full judgment →
• Nauman Qasim Paracha & Others vs Sindh Building Control Authority &2025 SHC 2 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-15Read full judgment →
• National Food Limited vs Collector of Customs in all SCRAs Model Customs2025 SHC 734 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2025 SHC 698 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• Natasha Danish vs The State2025 P Cr. L J 919 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-30
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirynarcoticsProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Orderbail as punishmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Natasha Danish, who was charged under Section 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following an incident involving alleged intoxication with Methamphetamine (Ice). The applicant had previously been acquitted in a related case involving reckless driving due to a compromise. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the nature of the charges, the conflicting medical reports, and the statutory sentencing limits. The Court held that the case warranted further inquiry, noting a contradiction between the blood report, which showed no narcotics, and the urine report, which detected Methamphetamine. Furthermore, the Court observed that the maximum sentence for the charged offence is three years, and bail should not be withheld as punishment. Emphasizing the applicant's status as a mother of three and the fact that the investigation was complete, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where evidence is contradictory and the maximum sentence is relatively low, bail should be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist, as bail cannot be used as a punitive measure.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between blood and urine reports regarding the presence of narcotics constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment before the conclusion of a trial?
  • Is a person entitled to bail when the maximum sentence for the charged offence is three years and no exceptional circumstances exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasibullah S/o Hameedullah vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1989 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-08
  Call Data RecordSection 94 CrPCfair trialnarcotics casecross-examinationproduction of documentsdata retention
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges an order passed by the Special Court (CNS), Karachi, which declined the accused’s request for the production of Call Data Records (CDR) in a narcotics case. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the authority to summon such records during the pendency of a trial, particularly when telecommunication companies maintain data only for a limited duration. The High Court allowed the application, setting aside the impugned order. The court held that Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confers broad, discretionary power upon the court to summon any document or thing necessary for the purposes of an inquiry or trial at any stage. It reasoned that limiting this power would prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial and the ability to confront prosecution witnesses. The court established that the potential deletion of CDRs due to routine retention policies necessitates timely judicial intervention to ensure that essential evidence is preserved for the purpose of cross-examination, thereby upholding the principles of a fair trial and impartial adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the authority under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon Call Data Records during an ongoing trial?
  • Can a trial court reject a request for the production of documents solely on the ground that the prosecution's evidence is currently being recorded?
  • Is the right to summon documents under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limited to the stage of the defence evidence?
  • Does the potential deletion of Call Data Records by telecommunication companies justify the early summoning of such records by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Nargis Subhan & Others vs Province Of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 290 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-13Read full judgment →
• Nanik Ram Jethwani vs Lakhmichand Wadwani through legal2025 CLC 876 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
• Naeem Hussain Awan others vs Government of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2156 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-29Read full judgment →
• Naeem Hussain & others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC KHI 2264 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-11
  regularization of servicecontract appointmentsenioritycivil servicemerit-based recruitmentretrospective effectSindh Public Service Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the contract-based appointment of Sub-Engineers in the Sindh Public Health Engineering & Rural Development Department, seeking a declaration that such appointments are illegal for permanent posts and requesting that their regularization be backdated to their initial 2018 hiring date. The core legal questions concerned whether contract appointments for permanent posts are permissible under service laws, whether the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) has the authority to assess contract employees for BS-11 posts, and whether regularization can be granted retrospectively. The Court held that while the petitioners were regularized in 2025, such regularization constitutes a fresh appointment rather than a continuation of service. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that regularization is a prospective act, not retrospective, and that service rendered on a contract basis cannot be counted towards seniority or backdated for the purpose of permanent status. The key principle laid down is that public appointments must be merit-based and transparent, and regularization of contract employees does not grant them seniority from their initial date of contract employment, as this would violate the rights of those recruited through proper competitive processes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a temporary or contract appointment be made against a permanent position in the civil service?
  • Does the regularization of a contract employee constitute a fresh appointment or a continuation of previous service?
  • Can the seniority of a regularized employee be counted from the date of their initial contract appointment?
  • Does the Sindh Public Service Commission have the authority to assess contract employees for regularization in BS-11 posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Hussain Advocate vs The State & another2025 SHC KHI 1601 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30
  direct complaintSection 203 Cr.P.C.Section 202 Cr.P.C.anti-corruptioncognizance of offencecriminal revisioninquiry reportjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, which dismissed a direct complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The complainant had alleged corruption and illegal acts by government officials. Following a court-ordered inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the inquiry officer submitted a positive report confirming the allegations. However, the Special Judge dismissed the complaint, citing perceived contradictions in witness statements and the complainant's attempt to withdraw allegations against one respondent. The High Court held that the dismissal was legally unsustainable. It ruled that while an inquiry report is not binding, a trial court must provide compelling, cogent reasons to dissent from a positive report. The court found that the Special Judge selectively appreciated the evidence, ignoring corroborative witness statements, and misapplied the principle of 'cognizance of the offence, not the person.' Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh, comprehensive determination on whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a positive inquiry report under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require a trial court to provide robust reasons if it chooses to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court dismiss a direct complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on a selective reading of witness statements while ignoring a positive inquiry report?
  • Does the principle of 'cognizance of the offence and not of the person' mandate that a complainant must prosecute all named accused, or can they choose to withdraw against one without the entire complaint being dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir and another vs The State2025 YLR 517 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-09Read full judgment →
• Nabeel son of Doshambay vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1724 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-02
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausegutka mawa actfurther inquiryrecovery by police officials
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 8(i) of the Gutka Mawa Act, after his bail plea was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offense carried a maximum punishment not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and where recoveries were witnessed solely by police officials in a populated area without associating private mashirs under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court held that since the maximum punishment for the offense is three years, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, making bail the rule and refusal the exception. Furthermore, investigation was complete, custody was no longer required, and non-association of private witnesses raised a case for further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that offenses carrying lesser sentences outside the prohibitory clause entitle the accused to bail as a matter of right unless exceptional grounds like abscondence, tampering, or repetition of the offense are established.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense carrying a maximum punishment of three years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is bail granted as a matter of right when an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during a recovery in a populated area make out a case for further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Umar Textiles vs Federal Board of Revenue & othersPTCL 2025 CL. 220 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-27Read full judgment →
• M/s. Uig (Pvt.) Ltd vs Member Inland Revenue (Sales Tax) and others, SindhPTCL 2025 CL. 50 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. vs Large Taxpayers Unit (L.T.U.)2025 SHC 292, PTCL 2025 CL. 649 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sidra International vs Fop and others2025 SHC KHI 2090 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-18Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sidat Hyder Morshed Associates (Pvt) Ltd vs Trade Development2025 SHC KHI 1600 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ruknuddin (Pvt.) Ltd vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC 286 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Regus Executive Center Karachi (Private) Limited vs Assistant2025 SHC 610, PTCL 2025 CL. 597 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Ramada Industries (Pvt) Ltd., Karachi vs The Commissioner I. R. Zone-2025 SHC 612 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-21Read full judgment →
• M/s. R & J Builders and Developers & another vs Muhammad Sajjad &2025 SHC KHI 1903, 2025 SHC KHI 1904 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Peng's Hair and Beauty Clinic and others vs The Purple Pink and others2025 SHC 622 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pak Sun Green [Pvt] Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan and2025 SHC 424 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• M/s. OilBoy (Pvt.) Ltd vs M/s. Pak Qatar Investment (Pvt.) Ltd2025 SHC 406 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →