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.

• M/s. New Era Fabric, Karachi vs Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, Cto,2025 SHC 608 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-16Read full judgment →
• M/s. Lucky Tex (Pvt.) Limited vs M/s. Cresox (Pvt.) Limited2025 SHC 268, 2025 CLD 561 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-11Read full judgment →
• M/s. J.S Bank Ltd vs M/s. Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd2025 SHC 628 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• M/s. J.S Bank Ltd vs Gulistan Spinning Mills Ltd2025 SHC 630 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• M/s. Gizri Corporation Pvt. Ltd vs Pakistan Industrial Development2025 SHC 336, 2025 SHC 334 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Dr. Mubin Akhtar Hospital and Dr. Syed Abdur Rehman vs Syed2025 SHC 12 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Dr. Mubib Akhtar Hospital & another vs Syed Muhammad Salahuddin2025 SHC 14 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Amal Steel vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2114 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-25Read full judgment →
• M/s. Almoiz Industries Ltd vs Amir Riffat Siddiqui2025 SHC 148 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-11Read full judgment →
• M/s. Abbott Laboratories Pakistan Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2025 SHC KHI 1731 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-18Read full judgment →
• M/s UBL vs Shirimati Pushpa Bai2025 SHC LAR 2247 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-09Read full judgment →
• M/s Sunrise Industries vs Fed. of Pakistan and others2025 SHC 736 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-12Read full judgment →
• M/s Sind Lab (Private) Limited vs Government of Sindh &others2025 SHC 402 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-14
  maintainabilityconstitutional petitionalternative remedypayment of wagesstatutory appealpre-deposit of decretal amountlabor laws
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order passed by the authority under the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, directing the deposit of a decretal amount. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable when an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available, and whether the requirement to deposit the decretal amount as a precondition for appeal justifies bypassing the appellate forum. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the availability of an adequate statutory remedy of appeal bars the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction, and that bypassing the appeal merely to avoid the pre-condition of depositing the awarded amount constitutes a mala fide attempt to circumvent the law. The court laid down the principle that parties cannot bypass statutory appellate forums and utilize constitutional petitions to evade mandatory pre-deposit requirements, and that beneficial and remedial labour legislation must be construed to advance its legislative intent.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable when an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available under the Payment of Wages Act?
  • Does the requirement to deposit the decretal amount as a precondition for filing a statutory appeal justify invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Can a party bypass the appellate forum provided under labour legislation to avoid pre-deposit conditions without establishing a total lack of jurisdiction?
  • Whether the Payment of Wages Act is a beneficial legislation that must be construed to prevent the nullification of its statutory objectives through constitutional petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Saif Enterprises vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 338 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-13Read full judgment →
• M/s PSRM (Pvt) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 SHC KHI 1927 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-17Read full judgment →
• M/s Porsche Middle East and Africa Fze vs M/s. Performance Automotive2025 SHC KHI 1515 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan National Shipping Corporation & another vs Muhammad2025 SHC 414 · Sindh High Court
  contractual employmentsecond appealservice disputeworkman statusmisreading of evidencetermination of contractcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenges concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for salary arrears, benefits, and damages filed by a former contractual employee of the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent, as a contractual employee, was entitled to benefits reserved for permanent staff and whether the lower courts erred in their findings. The High Court held that the respondent was a contractual employee whose services automatically terminated upon the expiration of the contract. The Court found that the lower courts failed to properly interpret the contract terms, misread the evidence regarding the respondent's status, and erroneously granted claims without legal justification. The Court emphasized that contractual employees cannot claim permanent status or benefits as a matter of right. Furthermore, it reiterated that the High Court may interfere in a second appeal where lower fora have misread evidence or reached illegal conclusions. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and dismissed the suit, ruling that the respondent failed to establish entitlement to the claimed amounts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractual employee claim permanent status or benefits reserved for permanent employees as a matter of right?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal if the lower courts misread the evidence?
  • What criteria determine whether an employee qualifies as a 'workman' for the purposes of the Sindh Payment of Wages Act 2015?
  • Do the services of a contractual employee automatically terminate upon the expiration of the contract term?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s New Allied Electronics Industries (Private) Limited through its Chief2025 SHC KHI 2019 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Mehmood Brothers vs Yousuf Ali & others2025 SHC 218 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• M/s L'oreal Pakistan PSRM (Pvt) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and other2025 SHC KHI 1938, 2025 SHC KHI 1939 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-23Read full judgment →
• M/s Karachi Port Trust vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue2025 SHC KHI 2022 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-11Read full judgment →
• M/s Food Axis Pvt Ltd. and others vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2025 SHC KHI 2164, 2025 SHC KHI 2165, 2025 SHC KHI 2166 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Fly Dubai vs Syed Yawar Hussain2025 SHC KHI 1558 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• M/s Elite Screener vs M/s G-One Enterprises and others2025 SHC 204 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-06Read full judgment →
• M/s Crescent Star Insurance Limited vs Eduljee Dinshaw (Private) Limited2025 SHC 386 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• M/s Artistic Fabrics & Garments & Ors vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC KHI 2191, 2025 SHC KHI 2192, 2025 SHC KHI 2193, 2025 SHC KHI 2195, · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muzafar Ali & others vs Government of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2140 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-19Read full judgment →
• Mustafa & another vs Afzal Kothari2025 SHC 380 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 SHC KHI 1992 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-31Read full judgment →
• Musawer Ahmed son of Israr Ahmed vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1650 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30
  cognizance of offencepolice report under section 173 Cr.P.C.public prosecutor scrutiny notecontrol of narcotic substancesrecovery of narcoticsalteration of chargesquashing of orderhomicide by drug overdose
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Sections 9 and 16 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and forwarding the case to the Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate can alter penal sections in a positive police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, upon the scrutiny note of a Public Prosecutor, and whether narcotic offences are attracted in the absence of any recovery or seizure. The High Court held that while a Magistrate can take cognizance of graver offences based on material and a prosecutor's scrutiny note, the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 cannot be invoked without proof of recovery, possession, or trafficking. The court laid down the principle that mere forensic detection of drugs in a victim's bloodstream does not establish an offence under Section 9 or 16 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 without independent evidence of possession or narcotics-related conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Judicial Magistrate alter the penal sections proposed in a positive police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Whether the provisions of Sections 9 and 16 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 can be invoked solely on the basis of forensic detection of drugs in a deceased person's body without any recovery from the accused?
  • What is the evidentiary weight and legal effect of a District Public Prosecutor's scrutiny note under Section 9 of the Sindh Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2009?
  • Does a Magistrate have the authority to transmit a case directly to the Court of Session upon taking cognizance under graver penal provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muneer Ahmed Tunio vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC 418 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-14
  seniority determinationsurplus employeeabsorptionwrit jurisdictionProvincial Ombudsmancivil servant statusservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order determining the seniority of the petitioner, an employee absorbed into the Provincial Ombudsman Secretariat following the dissolution of the Sindh Arid Zone Development Authority. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, given the petitioner's status, and how the petitioner's seniority should be calculated. The Court held that because the petitioner was governed by the Provincial Ombudsman (Employees) Service Rules 1997, he did not fall under the definition of a "civil servant" under the Sindh Services Tribunal Act 1973, rendering the petition maintainable. On merits, the Court ruled that the seniority of a surplus employee absorbed into a new cadre must be reckoned from the date of their appointment in that cadre, pursuant to Rule 9-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules 1974. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned seniority list and directed the respondents to revise the petitioner's seniority based on his 2004 absorption date.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have writ jurisdiction over employees of the Provincial Ombudsman Secretariat?
  • Is an employee of the Provincial Ombudsman Secretariat a civil servant under the Sindh Services Tribunal Act 1973?
  • From what date is the seniority of a surplus employee absorbed into a new cadre reckoned?
  • Can a department reject a representation regarding seniority through a non-speaking order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muneeb Butt vs Faiq Ali Jagirani2025 SHC KHI 1867 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-15Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain son of Ghulam Qadir Rajpar and others vs The State2025 SHC HYD 2167, 2025 SHC HYD 2168, 2025 SHC HYD 2169 · Sindh High Court
  criminal appealpolice negligencefair trialSection 342 CrPCbenefit of doubtadverse inferencenon-supply of documentsSection 265-C CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated criminal appeals challenging the convictions of police officials under Section 223 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for negligence resulting in the escape of under-trial prisoners. The core legal questions were whether the trial court’s reliance on an unsupplied inquiry report and the failure to confront the accused with incriminating evidence violated the right to a fair trial, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the trial court committed grave procedural errors by relying on an inquiry report that was neither supplied to the accused under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 nor confronted during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the prosecution’s case suffered from material contradictions and the unjustified withholding of key witnesses. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants. The judgment affirms that any incriminating material not confronted to an accused cannot be used for conviction, and that failure to supply mandatory documents violates the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court rely on an incriminating inquiry report that was not supplied to the accused under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to confront an accused with incriminating evidence during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the conviction?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to examine material witnesses in a criminal trial?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution evidence contains material contradictions regarding the presence of duty officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali s/o Qadir Bux vs The State2025 SHC 258 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-12
  criminal appealidentification testcommon intentionpolice encounterterrorismrobberyevidentiary valueminor contradictions
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for robbery, firing upon police officials, and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of an identification test conducted after the appellant's arrest in a separate case, the impact of minor contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, and the applicability of common intention under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent ocular, medical, and circumstantial evidence. It affirmed that the identification test was conducted in accordance with established judicial guidelines, effectively corroborating the witnesses' testimonies. The Court ruled that minor discrepancies in evidence do not undermine the prosecution's case when the overall testimony is confidence-inspiring and consistent. Furthermore, it affirmed that under the principle of common intention, participants in a criminal act are liable for the resulting consequences regardless of who specifically fired the weapon. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences were maintained, finding no merit in the appellant's claims of false implication or mistaken identity.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification test conducted after an accused's arrest in a separate case hold evidentiary value?
  • Can minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses invalidate a conviction?
  • Is an accused liable for a criminal act committed by accomplices under the principle of common intention?
  • What are the legal requirements for a valid identification test to corroborate witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ali Chandio and others vs The State and others2025 YLR 622 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-09
  post-arrest bailstatutory baildelay in trialNational Accountability Ordinance 1999fundamental rightsfair trialwhite-collar crime
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail in corruption references, contending they were entitled to relief under the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, due to statutory delay. The core legal question was whether the accused, having been incarcerated for over 18 months without the trial concluding, were entitled to bail as a matter of right. The court held that the applicants were entitled to statutory bail, as they satisfied all conditions of the third proviso: they were not accused of an offense punishable by death, had been detained for over one year, and were not hardened criminals. The court ruled that statutory bail based on delay is a right, not a discretionary relief, and cannot be defeated by the heinous nature of the offense. It emphasized that the right to a fair and expeditious trial is a fundamental constitutional guarantee. Consequently, the court granted bail, noting that the prosecution's failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time, for no fault of the accused, necessitated the release of the applicants to prevent the abuse of the judicial process.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a matter of right or judicial discretion?
  • Does the heinous nature of an offense under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999 justify denying statutory bail when the trial is delayed?
  • Can an accused be granted bail on statutory grounds if the delay in the trial is not attributable to the accused?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to proceedings under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ahmed son of Muhammad Ismaeel bycaste Channa vs Province2025 SHC SUK 1667, 2025 SHC SUK 1679, 2025 SHC SUK 1680 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar & Yousif @ Younis, Ghulam Ali son of Ghulam Nabi vs The State2025 SHC SUK 178 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-27
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailattempted rapeevidentiary gapsmedical evidenceSection 164 statementcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of attempted rape. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the inconsistencies between the FIR and the subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the lack of medical evidence, and the delay in investigation. The Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from significant evidentiary gaps, specifically the absence of medical examination of the victim and the delayed recording of the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which introduced new allegations not present in the FIR. Furthermore, the Court noted the lack of DNA evidence. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail for two applicants and granted post-arrest bail to the third applicant. The key principle laid down is that where there is a lack of medical evidence to support allegations of sexual assault and significant discrepancies exist between the FIR and subsequent statements, the prosecution's case becomes doubtful, warranting the grant of bail pending trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of medical examination in an alleged rape case create sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of bail?
  • Can a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to introduce new allegations not present in the initial FIR?
  • Is bail appropriate when there is a significant delay in the investigation and a lack of forensic evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs The State2025 YLR 688 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-30
  murdercriminal appealabsconsionacquittal of co-accusedeyewitness testimonynon-examination of witnessdelay in FIRbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one deceased and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved its case despite the non-examination of the medical officer and investigating officer, whether the appellant could benefit from the acquittal of co-accused, and whether long-standing absconsion affects the credibility of the defense and recovery of crime weapons. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through trustworthy eyewitness testimony, that the non-examination of the retired officers was justified due to the appellant's 24-year absconsion, and that the acquittal of co-accused with distinguishable roles did not benefit the appellant. The court affirmed the conviction, laying down principles regarding the evaluation of quality versus quantity of evidence, the legal effect of long-term absconsion, and the irrelevance of a co-accused's acquittal when distinct active roles are attributed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's failure to examine the medical officer and investigating officer who have retired and become untraceable is fatal to the case when the accused remained an absconder for a long period?
  • Can an accused claim the benefit of the acquittal of co-accused persons when specific and distinguishable active roles are attributed to the appellant?
  • Does long-standing absconsion by an accused person defeat the adverse inference drawn from the non-recovery of a crime weapon?
  • Whether related witnesses can be disbelieved solely on the ground of their relationship to the deceased in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman @ Jameel vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1885 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-17
  post-arrest bailjuvenile justiceheinous offencestatutory delaybeneficial legislationtherapeutic jurisprudenceright to liberty
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application concerns a juvenile applicant, aged 15, seeking post-arrest bail for offences under Sections 365-B and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant, a juvenile, could be denied bail for a "heinous offence" despite being under 16 years of age and having been incarcerated for over six months without trial completion. The Sindh High Court held that the restriction in Section 6(4) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, regarding heinous offences, applies exclusively to juveniles over 16 years of age. Consequently, the nature of the offence was immaterial for the applicant. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, mandates bail for any juvenile detained for a continuous period exceeding six months where the trial remains incomplete, provided the delay was not caused by the juvenile. The Court emphasized that the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, is beneficial legislation requiring progressive, expansive interpretation, and where two interpretations exist, the one favorable to the accused must prevail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the restriction on bail for 'heinous offences' under Section 6(4) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, apply to juveniles under sixteen years of age?
  • Is a juvenile entitled to bail under Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, if they have been detained for more than six months without the trial being completed?
  • Should statutory provisions regarding bail for juveniles be interpreted in a progressive and expansive manner?
  • Does the nature of the offence constitute a valid ground to withhold bail for a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, when the statutory detention period has been exceeded?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahid Ur Rehman vs The State2025 MLD 625 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-15
  dacoityrobberyspot arrestinjured accusedeyewitness testimonycriminal appealappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 392 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendered by the trial court in a dacoity case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding his identification, arrest at the spot in an injured condition, and recovery of incriminating evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution witnesses, including multiple eyewitnesses and police officials, gave consistent and natural testimony that remained unshattered during cross-examination, and the appellant failed to establish any false implication or plausible defence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to discard a natural and consistent case?
  • Does the arrest of an accused at the spot in an injured condition by a security guard and police constitute strong circumstantial evidence of guilt?
  • Whether the uncorroborated denial of an accused in a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 outweighs consistent eyewitness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousif vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1623 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-22
  post-arrest bailcybercrimeblackmailingprohibitory clausedignity and privacyPrevention of Electronic Crimes Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Yousif, facing trial for offences under Sections 20, 21, and 24 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, read with Sections 383 and 506-B of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involves whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, despite allegations of digital blackmailing, sharing obscene and nude videos of the complainant, and extortion. The Sindh High Court held that the mere fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause does not make bail a matter of right, particularly in heinous cyber-crimes that grossly violate the dignity, privacy, and modesty of individuals and severely impact society. The court laid down the principle that the grant of bail in such matters is a discretionary concession, and where tentative assessment reveals sufficient incriminating material connecting the accused to grave digital exploitation, bail must be refused notwithstanding the non-prohibitory nature of the offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right?
  • Can bail be refused in offences not covered by the prohibitory clause where the accused is prima facie involved in severe cyber exploitation and blackmailing?
  • Are offences under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 exclusively triable by Gender-Based Violence Courts under the Anti-Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021 when no sexual assault or rape is alleged?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousif Jatoi vs The State2025 MLD 128 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-29
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesfurther inquirypolice highhandednessindependent witnessesprohibitory clausebail principles
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, charged under Section 9(3)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 3000 grams of Charas. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the allegations of police highhandedness, the absence of independent witnesses, and the claim that the accused was in illegal police custody prior to the registration of the FIR. The Court held that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and granted bail. The Court reasoned that the reliance solely on police officials as witnesses, combined with the documentary evidence supporting the accused's claim of prior detention, created sufficient doubt. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that bail should not be withheld as punishment and that the investigation was complete, rendering continued incarceration unnecessary. The judgment reinforces the principle that where prosecution evidence relies exclusively on police officials, it requires deep scrutiny at trial, and that the absence of independent witnesses in public places necessitates modern evidentiary techniques like digital recording to ensure transparency.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a narcotics case involving police officials necessitate further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can bail be granted in a case falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the reliance on police officials as sole witnesses sufficient to deny bail when there are allegations of prior illegal detention?
  • Does the failure to use modern devices to record search and seizure operations impact the credibility of police evidence in narcotics cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasir vs The State2025 PCRLJ 577 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-10
  criminal appealmurderattempted murderrelated witnessesocular evidencebenefit of doubtSection 161 CrPCappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of Mst. Salma and the attempted murder of Sajjad Mehmood. The core legal question is whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on related eye-witnesses and the absence of independent recovery witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt. It affirmed that the testimony of related witnesses is admissible and reliable absent proof of enmity or ill-will, and that minor discrepancies in evidence do not undermine the prosecution's case when the ocular account is consistent and confidence-inspiring. The Court further held that medical evidence corroborates the ocular account, and the delay in recording the statement of an injured witness under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not invalidate their testimony when their presence at the scene is established. The key principle laid down is that corroboration is a rule of caution, not law, and reliable eye-witness testimony alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of related eye-witnesses in the absence of proven enmity?
  • Does a delay in recording a witness statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render the testimony unreliable?
  • Is corroboration of eye-witness testimony a mandatory rule of law or a rule of caution?
  • Does the absence of independent recovery witnesses necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen and others vs Muhammad Hanif Ghanchi s/o Ahmed2025 SHC 214 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs M/s. A.P. Moller - Maersk A.S. and another2025 SHC 352 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Anjum and others vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC MPK 1596 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yahya and others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 CLC 151 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waseem and 7 others vs Director General Sindh Building2025 CLC 428 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uzair Shaikh vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2025 SHC 200 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs Muhammad Yousuf & Others2025 SHC KHI 2293 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Farooqui vs Abdul Hafeez2025 SHC KHI 2182 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umair vs National Accountability Bureau & others2025 SHC KHI 2135 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-29
  service lawremoval from serviceregular inquiryfact-finding inquirynatural justicedue processconstitutional petitiondisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Assistant Director at the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), challenged his removal from service following allegations of inefficiency and misconduct regarding missing sensitive documents. The core legal question was whether the respondent could impose a major penalty of removal from service based solely on a "fact-finding inquiry" without conducting a formal, regular inquiry, and whether this violated the principles of natural justice and Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that a fact-finding inquiry is merely a preliminary stage to gather information and is not legally equivalent to a regular inquiry. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned removal and appellate orders, directing the petitioner's reinstatement with back benefits. The Court established that when an employee denies allegations involving factual disputes, the authorities are duty-bound to conduct a regular inquiry, allowing the accused to cross-examine witnesses and present a defense. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of due process and the right to a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a fact-finding inquiry legally equivalent to a regular inquiry for the purpose of imposing a major penalty?
  • Does the dismissal of a public servant without a regular inquiry, when allegations are denied, violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can a court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 interfere with disciplinary proceedings if the inquiry process is flawed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Touheed vs The State2025 MLD 618 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-18
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaydelay in trialmurderdacoitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant Muhammad Touheed sought post-arrest bail in crime number 1354 of 2021 registered under sections 302, 324, 394, 109 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Orangi Town Police Station, primarily on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial under Section 497(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court examined the case diaries and noted that while there were delays attributable to the complainant's counsel and the trial court, there were also contributory delays caused by the defence, including applications for transfer of the case and absences of co-accused or defence counsel. Viewing the matter holistically and finding that the statutory delay was not exclusively free from contributory factors by the defence or that the mandatory threshold for release without fault was fully met at this juncture, the court declined to grant post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay. The bail application was dismissed, but the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within three months on a day-to-day basis with strict conditions regarding adjournments, and liberty was granted to the applicant to repeat his bail application after two months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the delay is contributed to by both sides?
  • Can bail be granted on the basis of statutory delay if the accused or his counsel share responsibility for the protracted trial?
  • What directions may a High Court issue to ensure the expeditious conclusion of a trial when dismissing a post-arrest bail application on statutory delay grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taufeeq Khanani and another vs The State2025 SHC 756 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Ghouri and 4 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 32025 SHC KHI 1589 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail vs Jamshed Mahmood Raza alias Jami and 2 others2025 P Cr. L J 837 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-26
  criminal revisionelectronic evidencemodern devicesSection 540 CrPCdefamationadmissibility of evidencefair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order of the trial court dismissing an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought to produce a USB containing a video as evidence in a defamation case. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the production of modern electronic evidence at a belated stage of the trial. The High Court held that the trial court's refusal was unjustified, emphasizing that courts are duty-bound to decide cases on merits by allowing all relevant evidence. The Court affirmed that under Articles 46-A and 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, evidence generated by modern devices is admissible. Furthermore, the Court established that an application under Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should not be dismissed summarily merely on grounds of delay or allegations of filling lacunae, especially when the evidence is essential for a just adjudication. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the applicant was permitted to produce the USB for forensic analysis.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court allow the production of evidence via modern devices under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even at a belated stage?
  • Is a USB containing a video recording admissible as evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Should an application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be dismissed solely on the ground that it is filed to fill a lacuna in the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State2025 SHC 344 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-13
  unnatural offencesodomyDNA evidencehostile witnessminor witness competencyattempt versus commissionbenefit of the doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II/Gender Based Violence Court, Sukkur, convicting the appellant under Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Order 1979. The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed an unnatural offence against a 13-14 year old minor and was apprehended at the scene. The core legal questions involved evaluating the contradictory testimonies of the hostile complainant (the victim's father), the minor victim, and an eyewitness, alongside the probative value of negative DNA evidence and medical reports. The Sindh High Court held that material contradictions between the victim's statement asserting an attempt and the eyewitness's account of completion, coupled with a negative DNA report exonerating the appellant from sodomy and an unverified allegation of intoxication, created reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that where prosecution evidence suffers from major infirmities, conflicting stances among material witnesses, and lack of forensic corroboration, the benefit of the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, leading to his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a hostile witness testimony in a criminal trial when the witness is the father of the victim?
  • How does a negative DNA report impact the prosecution's case in charges of sexual or unnatural offences?
  • What are the essential legal ingredients required to distinguish between an attempt to commit an unnatural offence and its actual completion?
  • Can a conviction for intoxication under Article 11 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Order 1979 be sustained in the absence of credible forensic and procedural compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Brohi vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1242 · Sindh High Court
  reasonable doubtcriminal appealrecovery memochain of custodyanti-terrorismforensic analysischance witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses related to the possession of explosive substances and illegal arms. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the evidence presented. The High Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the place and manner of recovery, the tools used for digging, and the credibility of the witnesses. Furthermore, the court noted that the joint recovery memo was inadmissible, the chain of custody for forensic samples was not established, and the forensic reports were delayed without explanation. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, creating reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court reaffirmed the principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must accrue to the accused as a matter of right, and that a single circumstance creating such doubt is sufficient to discredit the prosecution's entire case.

  Questions settled

  • Is a joint recovery memo admissible in evidence when it fails to specify which accused led to the discovery of the items?
  • Does a failure to establish the safe custody and transmission of forensic samples invalidate the forensic report?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory testimony regarding the place and manner of recovery?
  • Is the testimony of a chance witness reliable without strong corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sibtain Mirza and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 PLJ Karachi 100 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib Palijo & Ors vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC KHI 665 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif s/o Faiz Muhammad vs The State2025 SHC 234 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-06
  inherent jurisdictionc class reportpolice reportinvestigation officermedico-legal certificatequashing of ordercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate approving a 'C' class cancellation report filed by the Investigation Officer in respect of an FIR registered under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of a petition under Section 561-A against a magistrate's administrative order accepting a police cancellation report, and the legality of an investigation conducted without incorporating vital medical evidence or case property details. The Sindh High Court held that an order passed by a magistrate dealing with a police report under Section 173 is administrative in nature and thus not amenable to revisional jurisdiction, making an application under Section 561-A maintainable. The Court ruled that the investigation was flawed and contrary to law and police rules due to the omission of the final medico-legal certificate and case property details. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a magistrate accepting a police cancellation report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is administrative or judicial in nature?
  • Can a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be maintained against an order of a magistrate approving a 'C' class police report?
  • Is a magistrate bound by the opinion of the investigating officer regarding the falsehood or truth of a case in a police report?
  • What are the legal consequences of an investigating officer failing to incorporate a final medico-legal certificate and case property details in the police report?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaikh Alamgir and others vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1835 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-03
  pre-arrest bailbailable offencessurety amountcancellation of bailoutraging modestyfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by applicants Muhammad Shaikh Alamgir, Munir, and Nabeel Bengali seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 276 of 2024 registered under Sections 506, 354, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Brigade, Karachi, concerning allegations of outraging modesty, misbehavior, and threats to withdraw a separate murder case. The trial court had earlier recalled its bail confirmation order due to the applicants' failure to furnish an enhanced surety amount. The Sindh High Court evaluated the principles governing surety amounts, noting that excessive surety operates as a refusal of bail, and observed that the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are bailable, carrying an indefeasible right to bail. The Court held that bail in bailable offences is a right and cannot be cancelled once granted, and that the case against the applicants required further inquiry with malafide not ruled out. Consequently, the High Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether excessive surety amounts imposed by a trial court amount to a refusal of bail?
  • Does an accused have an indefeasible right to the grant of bail in bailable offences?
  • Can bail once granted in a bailable offence be subsequently cancelled?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when malafide on the part of the complainant cannot be entirely ruled out?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzada alias Shahzado vs The State, etc2025 SHC KHI 1080 · Sindh High Court
  robberydacoitydeadly weaponalteration of convictionquantum of sentenceillegal armscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellants for offenses relating to robbery, dacoity, and illegal possession of arms. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the essential ingredients of Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code were satisfied by the evidence on record, warranting the stringent minimum sentence prescribed thereunder. The Sindh High Court held that since no injury or hurt was caused to any person during the commission of the offense, the ingredients for an offense under Section 397 were not attracted, and the conviction ought to be altered to the lesser offense of robbery under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The court laid down the principle that where the use of a deadly weapon does not result in the causing of grievous hurt, attempted death, or injury, and the statutory prerequisites of Section 397 PPC are absent, the conviction must be modified to Section 392 PPC, with due consideration given to mitigating circumstances regarding the quantum of sentence and the period already undergone by the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when no injury or hurt has been caused to any person during the commission of the crime?
  • Whether an offense lacking the explicit statutory ingredients of Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code should be converted to Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Is a reduction of sentence permissible under mitigating circumstances where the accused persons are young and have already undergone a substantial portion of their imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Iqbal vs Gopal Das2025 SHC 390 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz s/o Muhammad Umar vs The State2025 SHC 604 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-04
  post-arrest baildisclosure statementco-accusedinadmissible evidencefurther inquirycriminal procedureAnti-Terrorism Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused facing charges under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, arising from an FIR involving robbery and firing at Rangers officials. The core legal question was whether the applicant could be denied bail when the prosecution's case against him rested solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused made to police during interrogation. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The court established the principle that, pursuant to Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a confession or disclosure made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence against an accused. Given the absence of direct evidence linking the applicant to the crime and the fact that his implication was based entirely on inadmissible co-accused statements, the court determined that the applicant's guilt required further inquiry. Additionally, noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the court granted bail subject to surety.

  Questions settled

  • Is a disclosure statement made by a co-accused to a police officer admissible evidence against an accused person?
  • Does the implication of an accused solely on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Can an accused be granted post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete and no physical custody is required?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saqib vs Mst. Saima Rahim & Others2025 SHC KHI 2110 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salik Nukhrich and others vs The State and others2025 SHC 438 · Sindh High Court
  misuse of authorityaccountability referencerevenue record mutationcivil-criminal distinctionburden of proofmens realand title dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the conviction of appellants by an Accountability Court for corruption and corrupt practices regarding the alleged fraudulent transfer of land and subsequent housing project development. The core legal question was whether the appellants' actions, specifically the mutation of land records by a revenue official and the subsequent land development by a private individual, constituted "misuse of authority" or corruption under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, given that the underlying property title dispute was already subject to civil litigation. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the revenue official's actions were not proven to be corrupt, especially as they were upheld by higher revenue forums in quasi-judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized that civil disputes regarding land title do not automatically constitute criminal offences under the Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the prosecution must discharge the initial burden of proof before any presumption of guilt can be raised against an accused, and that procedural irregularities in revenue matters do not equate to criminal misuse of authority without evidence of mens rea or illegal gain.

  Questions settled

  • Does a procedural irregularity in the maintenance of revenue records automatically constitute the offence of misuse of authority under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Can the National Accountability Bureau initiate criminal proceedings regarding a land title dispute that is already pending before a civil court?
  • Is a presumption of guilt under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, applicable before the prosecution has established a prima facie case?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce available witnesses create an adverse presumption against the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs Syed Athar Hussain and 4 others2025 CLC 823 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Channa and another vs The State2025 SHC 754 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid Farooqui & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2153 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Hassan and another2025 SHC 400 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sachal Mahar vs P.O.Sindh & Ors2025 SHC LAR 2242 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi Ansari vs Mst. Talaat Parveen & Others2025 SHC 146 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Pathan Jamali and another vs The State2025 SHC 248 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-27
  narcotics possessionchain of custodysafe custodychemical analyst reportcriminal appealmaalkhana in-chargenarcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the possession of thirty kilograms of charas under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The appellants were convicted by the trial court, which relied on the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution’s failure to examine the maalkhana in-charge at trial constituted a fatal defect in the chain of custody, thereby undermining the reliability of the Chemical Analyst's report. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. It reasoned that the prosecution is strictly required to prove both the safe custody and safe transmission of the seized contraband from the point of recovery until its receipt by the laboratory. By failing to produce the maalkhana in-charge as a witness, the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the chain of custody. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that any break in the chain of custody vitiates the evidentiary value of the forensic report, rendering it insufficient to support a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to examine the maalkhana in-charge at trial break the chain of custody in narcotics cases?
  • Is the safe custody of seized narcotics from the place of recovery to the laboratory a mandatory requirement for conviction?
  • Does a break in the chain of custody render the report of the Government Analyst incapable of sustaining a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Panjal vs The State2025 SHC SUK 421 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-28
  post-arrest bailproclaimed offenderabscondenceprocedural compliancecriminal procedurebail on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from Crime No. 48 of 2022, registered at Police Station Tamachani, involving allegations under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, including Sections 452, 382, 381-A, 427, 436, 506/2, 337A(i), 337F(i), 114, 148, and 149. The applicant sought post-arrest bail after the trial court dismissed his application primarily on the ground of abscondence. The core legal question was whether the applicant could be denied bail based on alleged abscondence without strict adherence to the procedural requirements for declaring an accused a proclaimed offender, and whether the applicant was entitled to bail on merits given the role attributed to him. The Court held that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedure under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to declare the applicant a proclaimed offender. Furthermore, the Court established that mere abscondence is not an absolute bar to bail if the accused has a strong case on merits, particularly where co-accused with similar or more active roles have already been granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere allegation of abscondence justify the denial of post-arrest bail?
  • What is the mandatory procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for declaring an accused a proclaimed offender?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely on the ground of abscondence if the statutory requirements for proclamation have not been strictly followed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasser Janjua & others vs Federation of Pakistan & another2024 SHC 1052, 2025 PLJ Karachi 6, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 394 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11
  civil servanttransfer and postingservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional barrejection of plaintterms and conditions of servicefitness for post
  Summary & questions settled

  The Appellants, civil servants serving in BPS-20 at the Federal Board of Revenue, challenged their transfer to the 'Admin Pool' via a civil suit, arguing that such placement constituted a determination of their fitness to hold posts, thereby invoking the proviso to Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 and ousting the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the impugned notifications were purely administrative transfer orders and did not involve a subjective assessment of fitness for promotion or appointment. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents involving Departmental Promotion Committees. Consequently, the Court held that the grievance fell squarely within the terms and conditions of service, making the matter exclusively cognizable by the Federal Service Tribunal, and upheld the rejection of the plaint due to the constitutional bar on civil court jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a transfer order to an 'Admin Pool' constitute a determination of fitness to hold a post under the proviso to Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Is a civil suit maintainable against an order of transfer of a civil servant in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the jurisdiction of a civil court extend to matters regarding the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzammil vs Umar Farooq Khan Durrani & others2025 SHC 410 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzammil vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1115 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-05
  anti-terrorism actreduction of sentencespontaneous firingquantum of punishmentcriminal appealheinous offences
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court under Section 394/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, Section 353/324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel stated that the appeal was not pressed on merits, seeking only a reduction of the sentence given that no police personnel were injured, the appellant himself sustained a bullet injury, and he is the sole family supporter. The core legal question involved whether the acts constituted terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and the principles governing the quantum of punishment and sentence reduction. The Sindh High Court held that the spontaneous incident lacked the requisite terrorist intent and design under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, thereby setting aside the conviction under Section 7 of the said Act. While maintaining the remaining convictions, the Court reduced the sentences to the period already undergone, considering mitigating circumstances and reformative principles.

  Questions settled

  • Does a spontaneous exchange of fire with police during a robbery constitute an act of terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court convict an accused under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 without proof of specific intent, design, or nexus required under Section 6?
  • What principles govern the exercise of judicial discretion in reducing the quantum of punishment based on reformative concepts?
  • Whether an appellate court can reduce a sentence to the period already undergone when an appeal against conviction is not pressed on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Meenhal vs Province of Sindh and 9 other2025 SHC MPK 1508 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Maroof S/O Muhammad Ali vs The State2025 SHC 370 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-20
  post-arrest bailattempted zinaminor victimmental disabilitydelay in FIRnon-compoundable offencecomplainant no-objection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by Muhammad Maroof, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 446/2024 registered under Section 376(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Tipu Sultan, relating to the alleged attempted Zina and molestation of an 11-year-old minor with mental disability. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of a Section 164 Cr.PC statement, and a compromise or no-objection from the complainant. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail, as the accused is directly nominated with a specific role, delay in cases involving minor victims with disabilities is not fatal due to natural shock and anguish, and a complainant's no-objection carries no legal weight in non-compoundable offences which are crimes against society. The court laid down the principle that non-compoundable offences cannot be resolved via private settlement and that reasonable grounds tentatively connected the accused to the crime, resulting in the dismissal of the bail petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in lodging an FIR is fatal to the prosecution case when the victim is a minor with a mental or physical disability?
  • Does a no-objection affidavit or statement from the complainant justify granting bail in a non-compoundable offence?
  • Does the failure to record a Section 164 Cr.PC statement of the victim serve as a sufficient ground for post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansoor Awan, Danish Raza vs The State2025 SHC SUK 2030, 2025 SHC SUK 2031 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-13
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest baildigital evidenceforensic analysisabetmentfurther inquiryprohibitory clausemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two separate bail applications: one for pre-arrest bail by Muhammad Mansoor Awan and one for post-arrest bail by Danish Raza, both charged in connection with a murder case. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established sufficient grounds to deny bail despite evidentiary deficiencies. Regarding Mansoor Awan, the prosecution alleged instigation based on digital evidence (a USB); however, the court held that the failure to subject this digital evidence to forensic analysis rendered it unreliable and inadmissible for bail purposes. Regarding Danish Raza, the court noted that while he was allegedly armed, the post-mortem report confirmed the deceased died from sharp-edged weapon injuries, not firearm injuries, distinguishing his role. The court held that both cases required further inquiry, as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case sufficient to invoke the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court granted bail to both applicants, emphasizing that tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage does not preclude the grant of relief when the prosecution's case is procedurally weak.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to forensically examine digital evidence, such as a USB drive, render it inadmissible or unreliable for the purpose of denying bail?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the medical evidence contradicts the specific role attributed to them in the FIR?
  • Does the allegation of instigation under Section 107 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without corroborative evidence, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Is the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 an absolute bar to the grant of bail when the case requires further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Luqman and another vs Syed Nazar Hussain Shah2025 SHC 588 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Laique Khatiyan vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1977 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamran vs The State2025 MLD 510 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-24
  murderdying declarationcircumstantial evidencelast-seen evidencebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealweapon recoverystatement of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, resulting in a sentence of imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the reliability of an oral dying declaration made exclusively to the complainant, the sufficiency and standard of circumstantial last-seen evidence, and the effect of material contradictions and delayed statements. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the dying declaration lacked credibility due to the injured person's failure to disclose the assailant's identity to medical and police personnel while conscious, the omission of such a crucial fact from the promptly subsequent First Information Report, and the failure to put the circumstance to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the alleged last-seen evidence and weapon recovery were fraught with material contradictions and delay. The court laid down the principle that circumstantial and last-seen evidence must form an unbroken chain of custody and be scrutinized with extreme care and caution in capital cases, and that an uncorroborated dying declaration or last-seen narrative cannot form the basis of a conviction when riddled with unnatural conduct and procedural lapses. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted on the basis of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can an oral dying declaration made exclusively to a private person be relied upon when the deceased remained conscious and failed to disclose the assailant's identity to medical and police authorities?
  • Whether the omission of a dying declaration from the initial First Information Report despite a lapse of time renders the declaration unreliable?
  • Does the failure to put a vital incriminating piece of evidence to an accused person during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the court from utilizing that evidence for conviction?
  • What are the mandatory legal prerequisites and standards of scrutiny required for relying upon circumstantial and last-seen evidence in a capital charge case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque Kalhoro vs The State & 3 other2025 SHC SUK 1633 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-08
  Illegal Dispossession Actco-ownership disputeland grabbingabuse of processcriminal revisioncivil nature of disputenon-bailable warrants
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Naushahro Feroze, which initiated proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, against the applicant regarding a land dispute. The core legal question was whether a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is maintainable in a dispute between co-owners of joint property. The High Court held that the impugned order was legally flawed as the dispute was essentially civil in nature, involving co-owners, and did not involve land grabbers or a 'Qabza group.' Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's order and dismissed the complaint, emphasizing that the Act is a special statute designed to protect lawful owners from land mafia, not to regulate possession among co-sharers. The key principle laid down is that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, cannot be invoked to settle bona fide civil disputes or inter se property conflicts between co-owners, as such matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of civil or revenue forums. Invoking criminal jurisdiction in such civil disputes constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, applicable to property disputes between co-owners or co-sharers?
  • Can a criminal complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, be maintained when the underlying dispute is bona fide civil in nature?
  • Does the High Court have the inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings that constitute an abuse of the process of law?
  • Is a trial court required to conduct a preliminary inquiry or seek reports before issuing warrants in a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Memon vs DG NAB2025 SHC KHI 1776 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran son of Nisar Ahmed, vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1700 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-05
  criminal procedurestatement of accusedprocedural irregularityremandSection 342 CrPCSection 364 CrPCfair trialjudicial integrity
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CNS), Malir, Karachi, in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether the failure of the trial court to append a handwritten certificate to the accused's statement, as mandated by Section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, constitutes a procedural irregularity requiring a remand. The Court held that the requirement under Section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is mandatory, serving as a crucial safeguard to ensure the authenticity and voluntariness of the accused's statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established that non-compliance with this provision is a serious irregularity that vitiates the trial process. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to record the statement of the appellant afresh in strict accordance with the law and to subsequently pass a new judgment after hearing both the State Prosecutor and the defense counsel.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure of a presiding judge to append a handwritten certificate to an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a curable irregularity?
  • Does the requirement of a handwritten certificate under Section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to statements recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a criminal trial be remanded for retrial solely due to the failure to comply with the recording requirements of Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran and another vs The State2025 MLD 291 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-19
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrecovery of stolen propertycall detail recordrobbery and murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail application filed by two accused persons, Muhammad Imran and Ubaid, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 394, 396, 302, 412, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved whether the applicants were connected to the robbery and murder through alleged recoveries of mobile phones and call detail records, when their names were not in the FIR and the recovered items were not established as case property. The Sindh High Court held that the case against the applicants called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the alleged mobile phones were not recovered from their exclusive possession, the intermediary who sent them was neither cited as an accused nor a witness, and the recovered devices were strangers to the crime. The court laid down the principle that mere foisting of articles without a proven nexus to the crime does not connect an accused to the offence, and tentative assessment of evidence pointing to further inquiry warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of the accused's name in the FIR and the lack of exclusive recovery of robbed articles warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be denied bail based on recovered items that are not established as case property of the crime in question?
  • Is the mere foisting of articles sufficient to connect an individual to a criminal offence without independent proof of nexus?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Immad Qamar vs Muhammad Baqar Raza2025 CLD 641 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Laghari vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2144 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-26
  pro forma promotioncivil servantseniority listzone of considerationretirementadministrative delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired Additional Medical Superintendent (BS-19), filed a constitutional petition seeking a pro forma promotion to BS-20 from the date he claimed to have deserved it. The petitioner had retired on March 1, 2021. During his service, a Provincial Selection Board (PSB) meeting held in July 2020 cleared 155 doctors for promotion, with the last promoted doctor holding seniority number 364. The petitioner's seniority number was 549. The core legal question was whether a retired civil servant is entitled to a pro forma promotion when their seniority number fell outside the zone of consideration for the vacancies available during their service. The Sindh High Court held that while a retired civil servant can be entitled to pro forma promotion if denied due to administrative lapses, such promotion cannot be claimed where the civil servant was simply too junior on the seniority list to be considered for the available vacancies. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retired civil servant claim a pro forma promotion if their seniority number was below the threshold of vacancies available during the selection board meeting?
  • What conditions must a retired civil servant satisfy to establish a legal entitlement to a pro forma promotion?
  • Does the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 provide an automatic right to a pro forma promotion after retirement in the absence of administrative error or lapse?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1113 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-05
  terrorismspontaneous encountersentencing discretionAnti-Terrorism Actreformationcriminal appealstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a consolidated judgment by an Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for terrorism and various offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, following a shootout with police. The core legal question concerned whether the incident, involving a spontaneous exchange of fire without injuries to police personnel, satisfied the statutory definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held that the incident lacked the requisite intent, design, or purpose of terrorism, and therefore did not constitute an offense under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Consequently, the court set aside the terrorism convictions while upholding the convictions under the Penal Code and the Arms Act. Applying principles of sentencing focused on reformation and deterrence, and noting the appellant’s injury and status as a sole breadwinner, the court reduced the sentence to the period already served. The principle laid down is that heinous offenses, absent the specific intent or design defined in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, do not constitute terrorism.

  Questions settled

  • Does a spontaneous shootout with police, absent specific intent or design, constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court convict an accused for terrorism if the incident lacks the ingredients of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What factors should a court consider when exercising discretion to reduce a sentence for offenses where the law provides a range of punishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat son of Dur Muhammad Palh vs Nadeem Yousif s/o2025 SHC SUK 1993, 2025 SHC SUK 1999 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim Khan vs Muhammad Nasir Khan and another2025 SHC KHI 2138 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC KHI 1962 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif S/o Muhammad Siddique (confined at Central Prison2025 SHC MPK1961 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif & another vs The State2025 SHC HYD 2000 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-04
  Gutka prohibitionpolice witness credibilitycriminal appealsentencing discretionrecovery memochemical examiner reportSection 103 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 8 of The Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Mainpuri Act, 2019, for the possession of prohibited Gutka. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of police witnesses in the absence of independent mashirs and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The Court held that the prosecution’s case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, as the police witnesses provided consistent, credible testimony, and the chemical examiner’s report corroborated the recovery. The Court affirmed the principle that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is not inherently tainted absent proof of specific animosity. Regarding the sentence, the Court exercised its appellate discretion to reduce the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone, citing the appellants' status as first-time offenders, their expression of remorse, and the time spent in custody. The conviction was maintained, but the sentence was modified to time served, with a reduced fine imposed. This judgment reaffirms that while independent witnesses are ideal, police testimony remains sufficient when corroborated by other evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of police witnesses inherently unreliable in the absence of independent private witnesses?
  • Can an appellate court reduce a sentence to the period already undergone for a first-time offender?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses invalidate a conviction?
  • Does the failure to associate a private mashir in a recovery operation automatically render the recovery illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gulraze Mir and others vs Mst. Sakina Khatoon and others2025 SHC KHI 2218, 2025 SHC KHI 2221, 2025 SHC KHI 2025 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghazanfar Khan vs The State2025 SHC 755 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fareed vs Mst. Uzma Sartaj & another2025 SHC KHI 2127 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fareed vs Islamuddin & another2025 SHC KHI 2126 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-22Read full judgment →