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.

• Muhammad Faraz Kasbati and 4 others vs M/s. South City Hospital (Pvt)2025 SHC 154 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Faizan Samad vs Ghazanfar Ali Fadoo & others2025 SHC KHI 1537 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs Shah Nawaz and others2025 YLR 724 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-19
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailprohibitory clauseattempt to murderhurtcriminal intimidationocular and medical inconsistency
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal miscellaneous applications filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the private respondents by the trial court in a case registered under Sections 324, 403, 506(ii), 337-A(i), F(i), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions relate to the principles governing the cancellation of bail versus its grant, the applicability of the prohibitory clause under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to offenses like Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the considerations for cancelling bail are distinct and stricter than those for granting it, requiring strong and exceptional grounds such as misuse of liberty or a patently illegal order. The Court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court at this stage, noting that the offenses generally fell outside the prohibitory clause and required further inquiry, while disposing of the applications with observations regarding the trial court's powers.

  Questions settled

  • What are the distinct grounds and considerations required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a competent court?
  • Does an offense under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 strictly fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When does criminal intimidation attract the penal consequences under Section 506(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 as opposed to the underlying overt act?
  • How do the statutory definitions and classifications of hurt under Sections 332, 337, and 337-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 affect whether an offense is bailable or non-bailable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux since deceased, through his Legal heirs vs Wali2025 SHC 162 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux and others vs Abdul Ghafoor and others2025 SHC LAR 1361 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2025 SHC 638 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam S/o. Muhammad Aslam vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2038 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz & another vs Rasheedan Bibi & others , Military Estate2025 SHC 412 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif @ Katto vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2101 · Sindh High Court
  anti-terrorismdeath sentencetest identification paradehostile witnessocular evidencerecovery of weaponpolice witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for the murder of four police officials, robbery of official weapons, and terrorism-related offences. The core legal questions concerned the credibility of eyewitnesses, the evidentiary value of a hostile witness, the validity of the test identification parade, and the necessity of independent witnesses for recoveries under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular accounts, corroborated by medical evidence and the forensic linkage of recovered weapons. The Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is not discarded merely due to their official status, and that the evidence of a hostile witness remains admissible and must be evaluated for its worth. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply to recoveries made pursuant to voluntary disclosure by an accused. Consequently, the conviction was maintained, and the death sentence was confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely on the ground of their official status?
  • Is the evidence of a hostile witness to be completely rejected, or must it be evaluated for its evidentiary worth?
  • Does the failure to comply with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a recovery made pursuant to the voluntary disclosure of an accused?
  • Is a test identification parade mandatory when the eyewitnesses are otherwise credible and consistent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1725 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-04
  terrorismexplosive substancessentencing modificationpossession of explosivesanti-terrorism court jurisdictionremission
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted by an Anti-Terrorism Court for possessing a hand grenade, receiving sentences under the Explosives Act, 1908 and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the offence constituted terrorism. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Ghulam Hussain vs The State, the Court held that for an act to qualify as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it must be committed with the specific design or purpose of creating terror or achieving objectives listed in the Act, rather than merely being a grave or shocking offence. The Court found no evidence of such design or intent, concluding the case did not fall under the terrorism ambit. Furthermore, the Court determined the conviction should have been under Section 5 (possession under suspicious circumstances) rather than Section 4 (endangering life or property) of the Explosives Act, 1908, due to insufficient evidence regarding the latter. Consequently, the Court modified the conviction and reduced the sentence to the time already served, while maintaining the forfeiture of property order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of an explosive substance automatically constitute an act of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What criteria must be met for an offence to be classified as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is a conviction under Section 4 of the Explosives Act, 1908, sustainable without evidence of intent to endanger life or property?
  • Can an appellate court convert a conviction from Section 4 to Section 5 of the Explosives Act, 1908, based on the evidence presented at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Khan vs Ministry of Interior & Others2025 SHC 644 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Rafique vs Aftab Ahmed & Others2025 SHC KHI 2128 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs S.P Complaint Cell Hyderabad & Others2025 SHC 164 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-21
  Ex-officio Justice of PeaceFIR registrationabuse of processcivil disputematrimonial disputeclean hands doctrinecriminal miscellaneous application
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenged an order by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissing a petition for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace is mandatorily required to order FIR registration upon the filing of a complaint, or if such power is discretionary. The Court held that the jurisdiction of an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is discretionary rather than mandatory, intended to prevent the misuse of criminal machinery for settling civil or matrimonial disputes. The Court found that the applicant had suppressed material facts regarding prior applications and that the dispute was essentially of a civil and matrimonial nature. Consequently, the Court upheld the dismissal of the application, emphasizing that the process of the Court cannot be abused for personal vendettas, and that applicants must approach the Court with clean hands to seek discretionary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Ex-officio Justice of Peace legally obligated to mechanically order the registration of an FIR upon the filing of a complaint?
  • Can an application under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be dismissed if the underlying dispute is essentially civil or matrimonial in nature?
  • Does the failure of an applicant to disclose previous complaints regarding the same subject matter justify the dismissal of an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anis vs M/s. Pak Gulf Leasing Company Limited & others2025 SHC 216 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir S/o Shamsuddin vs Rao Abdul Sattar Anjum2025 SHC 238 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC LAR 2016 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin (deceased) through LRs vs Abdul Rahim and others2025 SHC 196 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen s/o Ali Hassan Waggan vs The State2025 SHC 674 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-06
  murderreduction of sentencemitigating circumstancesunproven motiveocular testimonycapital punishmentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for the murder of his nephew under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing him to death, along with a murder reference for confirmation. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the eyewitness accounts given by close relatives, the evidentiary value of a questionable weapon recovery, and whether the unproven motive and single firing warranted the mitigation of the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The Sindh High Court held that the ocular testimony, supported by medical evidence and the natural relationship of the witnesses, successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. However, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive and noting that a single gunshot without repetition negated premeditation—coupled with a doubtful police weapon recovery—the court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The key principles laid down are that unproven motive, lack of premeditation in a single-shot attack, and doubtful recoveries serve as mitigating circumstances warranting the reduction of a death sentence to life imprisonment, and that the testimony of close relatives cannot be lightly discarded merely due to an unverified assertion of enmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of close relatives of the deceased can be relied upon as natural witnesses in the absence of deep-rooted enmity?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive act as a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can a single gunshot fired without repetition negate premeditation and justify the commutation of a death penalty under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the police remand records cast doubt on the timing and fact of such recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alim Shar vs Shahnawaz and Ors2025 SHC 672 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State2025 MLD 381 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-15
  pre-arrest bailShajjah-i-hashimahplea of alibiprinciple of consistencytentative assessmentcriminal procedurebail stage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the accused seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR involving charges under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused, who was specifically nominated in the FIR for causing a head injury classified as Shajjah-i-hashimah, was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail despite the existence of medical evidence and witness statements implicating him. The Court held that the accused was not entitled to pre-arrest bail, noting that the injury inflicted was severe and carried a significant punishment. The Court emphasized that a plea of alibi requires a comprehensive evaluation of evidence, which is the province of the trial court, not the bail stage. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the principle of consistency does not apply when the roles of the accused differ significantly from co-accused who were granted bail. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, holding that pre-arrest bail is an exceptional remedy not applicable where a prima facie case exists and no malice is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of alibi be summarily accepted at the pre-arrest bail stage?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply to co-accused when their roles in the alleged offence are distinct?
  • Is pre-arrest bail available when the accused is nominated in the FIR with a specific role in a non-bailable offence supported by medical evidence?
  • Can bail be granted solely on the ground of delay in the registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Soomro vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 692 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali son of Hameed vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1553 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-23
  criminal appealrobberybenefit of doubtidentification paradenon-production of case propertyfair trialacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a conviction based on unproduced case property, the evidentiary value of in-court identification without a prior judicial identification parade, and the procedural legality of a judgment that failed to adjudicate all accused persons charged in the same challan. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that the non-production of alleged recovered property and the absence of a test identification parade rendered the prosecution's evidence unreliable. Furthermore, the trial court's failure to adjudicate one of the accused and the lack of clarity regarding legal representation violated the right to a fair trial. The Court reaffirmed the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt, the benefit must be extended to the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-production of alleged recovered property during trial vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an in-court identification of an accused without a prior judicial identification parade?
  • Does a trial court's failure to adjudicate the status of all accused persons in a joint trial constitute a jurisdictional error?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution evidence is identical for all accused but only one is convicted without distinguishing reasoning?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Matto & others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC KHI 2065 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-11
  regularizationcontractual employeesdaily wagescivil servicestermination of serviceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, initially hired in 2012 on a one-year contract as Khadim and Naib Qasid, sought regularization of their services under Section 3 of the Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and contract employees) Act, 2013, along with the release of withheld salaries and the suspension of an advertisement for their posts. The respondents contended that the petitioners were daily-wage contract workers whose services were dispensed with in 2016 due to unsatisfactory performance. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the petition, holding that regularization constitutes a fresh appointment into civil services and cannot be claimed as a matter of right solely based on previous temporary or contractual employment. The Court emphasized that regularization must be mandated by law or a structured policy, requiring a fair assessment of performance, merit, and the availability of budgeted positions. Since the petitioners' services were terminated in 2016, the Court declined to resolve the factual controversy, leaving it to the competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractual or temporary employee claim regularization as a matter of right without a legal or policy basis?
  • Does the regularization of a contractual employee constitute a fresh appointment into the civil services?
  • What criteria must an institution consider before regularizing contractual employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Khoso, Raza Muhammad and Arz Muhammad vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1884 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-17
  habeas corpusillegal detentionjurisdiction of Sessions Courtex-officio justice of peacequashing of ordercriminal miscellaneous applicationrecovery of detenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, wherein an application filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was disposed of with directions to the SHO to treat it as a formal complaint and register an FIR if a cognizable offence was disclosed during an inquiry. The core legal question was whether a Court of Sessions has the power under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to exercise jurisdiction akin to Section 22-A and 22-B. The Sindh High Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge exceeded the limited scope of Section 491, which is solely confined to securing the recovery of a person from illegal or improper detention, and cannot be expanded to grant relief meant for quasi-judicial proceedings under Section 22-A and 22-B. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision focused on the recovery of the detenue.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Court of Sessions has the powers under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to exercise jurisdiction under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the true scope and extent of powers available to a court under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are the functions performed by an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 quasi-judicial in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Halepoto & others vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC SUK 2107 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-27
  pay protectionpension benefitsservice continuityautonomous organizationsnegative equalityfundamental rulescivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, former employees of Public School Sukkur, sought a directive for pay protection and the counting of their previous service for pension benefits following their appointment as Lecturers in the Government of Sindh’s College Education Department. The core legal question was whether these employees, having served in an autonomous entity, were entitled to such benefits under Fundamental Rule 22 upon joining government service. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Public School Sukkur is an independent entity with its own service regulations and pay scales. Crucially, the school had not adopted the government pay scale scheme in totality, rendering its employees ineligible for the benefits associated with government service continuity. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioners' reliance on the doctrine of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution, clarifying that 'negative equality' does not exist; a wrong concession previously granted to other employees does not create a legal entitlement for the petitioners to receive similar benefits. The judgment affirms that pay protection is contingent upon the strict adherence to government pay scale policies by the previous employer.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of an autonomous entity entitled to pay protection under Fundamental Rule 22 upon joining government service if the entity did not adopt government pay scales in totality?
  • Does the doctrine of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 allow for the claim of a benefit based on a wrong concession previously granted to others?
  • Does service in an autonomous entity, which is managed by a government-appointed Board of Governors, automatically qualify as government service for the purpose of pension benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and others vs vs Nazaz Ali and others2025 SHC KHI 1864, 2025 SHC KHI 1855, 2025 SHC KHI 1857, 2025 SHC KHI · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and others vs The State and others2025 SHC KHI 1726 · Sindh High Court
  murdervicarious liabilitycommon intentionidentification paradeanti-terrorismdeath sentence reductioneyewitness testimonyarms recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants for murder, terrorism, and arms offences following the fatal shooting of an intelligence agency official by three men on a motorcycle. The Sindh High Court examined whether the incident constituted an act of terrorism, the reliability of the eyewitness testimony and identification parade, weapon recoveries, and the application of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the elements of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 or prove motive, and noted procedural lapses in the identification parade and weapon recoveries. While upholding the credibility of the eyewitness regarding the principal shooter, the Court found insufficient evidence of pre-arranged common intention to hold the accompanying accused vicariously liable. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions under the Anti-Terrorism Act and Sindh Arms Act, acquitted the accompanying co-accused, and reduced the principal offender's death sentence to life imprisonment while modifying the compensation and property forfeiture orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden attack without an established motive or pre-arranged plan satisfy the legal threshold for terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Can an accused person be held vicariously liable under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code in the absence of proof of prior concert or a common intention?
  • Are procedural lapses in conducting a test identification parade fatal to the prosecution's case when the eyewitness testimony at trial is otherwise trustworthy and confidence-inspiring?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused person alongside a principal offender at the scene of a crime establish a common intention to commit the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad AkramNasir Khokhar vs The State and others2025 SHC 170 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-21
  criminal revisioncustody of vehiclespeaking orderremandownership documentstitle documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the trial court regarding the custody or disposal of a vehicle. The core legal question concerned the validity of the trial court's order in light of the material evidence, specifically ownership and title documents, presented by the parties. Upon the consent of the learned counsel for the applicant and the Assistant Prosecutor General, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2024. The matter was remanded back to the trial court with a direction to pass a speaking order. The court held that the trial court must reconsider the matter afresh, taking into account all relevant material, including the ownership and title documents of the vehicle in question, after providing a fair hearing to both parties. The key principle laid down is that a trial court, when deciding on the disposal or custody of property, must issue a reasoned (speaking) order that explicitly considers the documentary evidence of ownership and title submitted by the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court order regarding the custody of a vehicle be set aside if it fails to consider ownership and title documents?
  • Is a trial court required to pass a speaking order when deciding on the disposal of property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State2025 SHC HYD 2001 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-04
  Gutka and Mainpuri Actrecovery of contrabandpolice witnessesindependent mashirschain of custodychemical examiner reportminor discrepancies
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 8 of The Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Mainpuri Act, 2019, for possessing 190 sachets of Mainpuri. The core legal questions involved the reliability of official police witnesses without independent public mashirs, the presence of minor discrepancies versus material contradictions in evidence, and the integrity of the chain of custody for chemical analysis. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal regarding the conviction, holding that consistent police testimony, corroborated by a positive chemical examiner's report and contemporaneous documents, sufficiently proves the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not fatal in contraband recoveries during sudden patrols and that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the prosecution case. However, considering the time already served, the sentence was modified to the period undergone, and the fine was recalled.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under the Gutka and Mainpuri Act be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials without joining independent private mashirs?
  • Does a minor discrepancy in the timing or procedural sequence of a recovery vitiate an otherwise consistent prosecution case?
  • Whether the safe transmission and custody of seized samples validated the Chemical Examiner's report despite a slight delay in dispatch?
  • What distinguishes a material contradiction from a minor discrepancy in criminal witness testimony?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 648 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Baig S/o Sultan Baig vs Mst. Saira Sultan2025 SHC KHI 2176 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs Gulab Khan and others2025 SHC 384 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsaan vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1711 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-12
  honour killingdeath sentence confirmationmurder referenceextra-judicial confessionprovocation defensemitigating circumstancesrecovery of crime weaponSection 302(b) PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  The High Court of Sindh considered a criminal jail appeal along with a murder reference concerning the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein he was sentenced to death for the brutal murder of his wife under the pretext of honour. The prosecution case rested on the appellant's disclosure to police officers at a police post, leading directly to the discovery of the deceased's body at his residence, corroborated by the recovery of blood-stained clothes, weapons (a stick, brick, and stone), and medical evidence. The core legal questions pertained to the admissibility and weight of an extra-judicial confession made before police officials when substantiated by independent recoveries under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the viability of a sudden provocation defense, and whether mitigating circumstances existed to commute the capital sentence to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction and confirmed the death penalty, holding that the confession was admissible to the extent of discoveries made and fully corroborated by forensic and medical evidence. The Court held that snatching a phone does not constitute grave and sudden provocation, and the barbaric nature of honour killings warrants the standard capital penalty without leniency.

  Questions settled

  • Can an admission or disclosure made by an accused while in the presence of police officials be relied upon if it leads to the discovery of the dead body and crime weapons under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does an accused's act of snatching a ringing mobile phone from their spouse legally suffice to establish the defense of grave and sudden provocation?
  • Whether the commission of a brutal murder under the pretext of 'honour' provides any mitigating grounds to commute a death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed vs The State & another2025 SHC KHI 1913 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed Khan & another vs Federation of Pakistan & another2025 SHC KHI 2158 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-01
  pro-forma promotionofficiating chargeLower Division Clerkback benefitssuperannuationregularizationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners approached the Sindh High Court through a constitutional petition seeking a declaration of eligibility for pro-forma promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and the release of corresponding back benefits. The petitioners had served on officiating charges as LDCs for over a decade and had previously obtained a favorable order in earlier constitutional proceedings. However, during the pendency of that litigation, they reached superannuation and retired, leading to the removal of their names from the promotion and regular employee lists. They contended that keeping them in temporary positions despite fulfilling all criteria was arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to established service law precedents. The Assistant Attorney General sought dismissal of the petition without filing comments. Relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to pro-forma promotion and related benefits, disposing of the constitutional petition in terms of the apex court's ruling in Director General Intelligence and Investigation, F.B.R. v. Muhammad Aslam Khan (2020 SCMR 1846).

  Questions settled

  • Whether civil servants serving on officiating charges for an extended period are entitled to pro-forma promotion after retirement?
  • Whether the retirement of an employee during the pendency of litigation bars the grant of pro-forma promotion and consequential financial benefits?
  • Whether prolonged retention of an employee on a temporary or officiating basis without regularization violates established service law principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Zahora Bibi & others2025 SHC KHI 2046 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adil son of Muhammad Haroon vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1484 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-19
  post-arrest bailwhite-collar crimereal estate fraudforgerymisuse of bailproclaimed offenderdishonoured cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Adil, in Crime No. 76/2024 registered at Police Station Nazimabad, Karachi, for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of real estate fraud, forgery, and cheating. The core legal question is whether an accused who has previously misused pre-arrest bail, breached solemn judicial undertakings, submitted forged documents in court, and absconded is entitled to the discretionary relief of post-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant's continuous abuse of the judicial process, active participation in white-collar economic fraud, and post-crime conduct completely disentitle him to equitable relief. The key principles laid down are that recovery is not the sole criterion for bail in economic crimes; that an accused's conduct, bad faith, and flouting of court orders are paramount considerations; and that white-collar offences involving fraudulent real estate transactions and forged documents warrant a strict judicial response.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who has breached solemn undertakings and absconded can claim post-arrest bail as a matter of right?
  • Does the absence of further recovery from an accused warrant the grant of bail in cases of white-collar economic crime and forgery?
  • Whether a dispute arising from a real estate transaction involving forged documents and fraudulent inducement is purely civil in nature?
  • Does the submission of forged documents in court during bail proceedings disentitle an accused from receiving equitable relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst.Fatima Parveen and another vs Muhammad Younus2025 SHC 264 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zulkaif Tahoora and 2 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary2025 CLC 495 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zoya and another vs Province of Sindh and others2025 PLJ Karachi 106 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zoobia Naz vs Province of Sindh, through Chief Secretary and others2025 CLC 272 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina vs Zakaullah Khan & Ors2025 SHC 144 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Wajiha Fatima & another vs Syed Badar Abbas Jafri & others2025 SHC KHI 1382 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sidra vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC SUK 531 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shireen @ Samina vs The State and others2025 SHC KHI 2109 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia, Mst. Tahira Mukhtiar, Mst. Noureen vs The Province of Sindh&2025 SHC HYD 2017 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Shamshad and others vs Abdullah Khokhar and another2025 SHC KHI 1645 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Parveen Jumani vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC SUK 2106 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-27
  family pensionwidowed daughtergender discriminationdependencycivil service rulesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a widowed daughter of a deceased retired civil servant, challenged the administrative decisions of the respondents declining her request for the re-grant of family pension. The respondents had rejected her claim on the ground that she was not dependent on her deceased father because she had an adult son aged over 21 years, relying on Rule 302(b)(6) of the Civil Service Regulations and a Finance Department circular. The High Court of Sindh held that Rule 302 of the Civil Service Regulations applies only to cases where civil servants are killed or injured while serving with military forces, and is inapplicable to ordinary retirements. Under Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules 1963 (as amended in 2016), a widowed daughter is entitled to family pension for life or until remarriage. The Court ruled that administrative circulars cannot override statutory rules, and linking a woman's statutory pension rights to her dependency on a male relative is discriminatory, unconstitutional, and contrary to Islamic principles of independent personhood. The petition was allowed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative circular or policy notification issued by the Finance Department override or restrict the statutory pension rights granted under the Civil Services Pension Rules?
  • Whether the entitlement of a widowed daughter to a family pension under Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules 1963 can be denied on the ground that she has an adult son?
  • Does Rule 302 of the Civil Service Regulations apply to ordinary pension cases of civil servants who retired on superannuation and died of natural causes?
  • Is linking a woman's statutory right to family pension to her dependency on a male relative constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saphooran through L.Rs vs Asif & Others2025 SHC KHI 2021 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-11
  Larger BenchAdministrative discretionChief JusticeCivil RevisionBench constitutionRules and Orders of the Lahore High CourtAppellate Side Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a Larger Bench constituted to resolve conflicting views regarding whether petitions challenging orders passed by Additional District & Sessions Judges in Civil Revision Applications should be heard by a Single Bench or a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court. The Court examined the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, which are adopted by the Sindh High Court, specifically Chapter IV-J, Volume V. The Court observed that these rules grant the Chief Justice the administrative discretion to determine the constitution of benches for specific categories of cases. Noting that the Chief Justice has historically exercised this power to assign various categories of cases—such as those arising under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act—to Single Benches, the Court held that the issue does not require judicial interpretation. Instead, it is an administrative matter. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition by referring the issue to the Chief Justice to consider issuing an administrative circular assigning such Civil Revision matters to Single Benches.

  Questions settled

  • Does the determination of whether a matter should be heard by a Single Bench or a Division Bench fall under the administrative discretion of the Chief Justice?
  • Are petitions challenging orders passed by Additional District & Sessions Judges in Civil Revision Applications required to be heard by a Division Bench by default?
  • Does the Sindh High Court follow the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court regarding the constitution of benches?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sanobar Rizwan vs Mst. Naseera Begum2025 SHC 20 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sana through lawful Attorney and another vs Shoaib Ismail and another2025 CLC 544 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samrah Shear Rafeequi & Ors vs The State & others2025 SHC 222 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-24
  domestic violencecriminal miscellaneous applicationterritorial jurisdictionprima facie casefamily litigationcustody of childrenmalicious prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges the orders passed by the lower courts dismissing the applicants' complaint filed under the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013, on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and failure to establish a prima facie case. The core legal question concerns whether a case of domestic violence was made out and whether the local courts possessed jurisdiction over acts allegedly committed abroad and during a prior foreign litigation period. The Sindh High Court held that no medical evidence supported the allegations of physical injuries, no complaints of domestic violence had been raised during earlier proceedings before the courts in California, and the attempt to convert family disputes into criminal litigation reflected ulterior motives. The court dismissed the application, establishing the principle that family litigation cannot be maliciously converted into criminal proceedings without verifiable prima facie evidence and proper jurisdictional grounding.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a domestic violence complaint is maintainable when no medical evidence or prior allegations were raised in earlier foreign court proceedings?
  • Does the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act, 2013 extend beyond the Province of Sindh?
  • Can family disputes be converted into criminal litigation without establishing a strong prima facie case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1690, 2025 SHC HYD 1692, 2025 SHC HYD 1693 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-03
  Qatl-i-amdcommon intentionjail appealrelated witnessesmedical evidenceSection 34 PPCmurder convictionstep-mother
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Mst. Razia, for the murder of her ten-year-old step-daughter, Baby Amna, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 34. The prosecution alleged the appellant and her husband jointly beat the child to death. While the husband was acquitted following a compromise with the legal heirs, the trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing her to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of related eyewitnesses, and whether the appellant’s conviction remained sustainable despite the co-accused's acquittal. The High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the ocular evidence, corroborated by medical findings and the recovery of weapons at the appellant's instance, proved her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court affirmed that Section 34 PPC establishes joint liability for acts done in furtherance of a common intention, and that a compromise with one co-accused does not negate the independent culpability of another. The judgment reinforces that witness relationship does not invalidate testimony absent proof of enmity, and that medical evidence consistent with ocular accounts strengthens the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused based on a compromise under Section 345(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle the remaining accused to acquittal?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained based on the testimony of related witnesses in the absence of proof of enmity?
  • Does the recovery of weapons at the instance of an accused provide sufficient corroboration to ocular evidence in a murder trial?
  • Is the principle of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applicable where the co-accused has been acquitted via compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bib vs PTCL and others2025 SHC KHI 1374, 2025 SHC KHI 1457 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-15
  Voluntary Surrender of ServicePTCLSeparation Bonuspension benefitsBenevolent GrantGroup Insuranceestoppellachesrecurring cause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was instituted by the widow of a deceased employee of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), seeking monthly pension benefits, Benevolent Grant, and Group Insurance. The deceased employee had retired under the Voluntary Surrender of Service (VSS) scheme with less than 20 years of qualifying service and had accepted an additional Separation Bonus. The legal questions before the High Court were whether the petitioner was estopped from claiming monthly pension benefits after the employee had accepted the Separation Bonus, and whether the widow was entitled to Benevolent Grant and Group Insurance notwithstanding the defense of laches. The Sindh High Court partly allowed the petition. It held that the claim for monthly pension was precluded by the doctrine of estoppel and settled Supreme Court precedent, since the deceased had accepted the Separation Bonus designated for employees falling short of 20 years of qualifying service. However, the Court granted the Benevolent Grant and Group Insurance, holding that under the relevant statutory provisions, the widow is entitled for life to the Benevolent Grant since her husband died before age 70, and that statutory inaction in forwarding such claims creates a recurring cause of action not barred by laches.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee or their legal heir estopped from claiming monthly pension under a voluntary retirement scheme after having accepted a Separation Bonus meant solely for employees lacking the qualifying length of service?
  • Does the failure or inaction of an employer to process and forward a widow's claim for statutory Benevolent Grant and Group Insurance give rise to a recurring cause of action?
  • Can a constitutional petition claiming statutory welfare benefits like Benevolent Grant and Group Insurance be dismissed solely on the ground of laches?
  • Is the surviving spouse of a retired employee who dies before reaching the age of seventy entitled for life to receive a Benevolent Grant under the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Bano vs Public At Large and 3 others2025 CLC 462 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-23
  family pensionsuccession certificatefinancial dependencycivil servantsunmarried sisterdisqualification for pension
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 384 of the Succession Act, 1925 challenged an order of the Additional District Judge-III, Khairpur, dismissing an application filed under Section 372 of the Act. The appellant, an unmarried retired government servant drawing her own pension, sought the transfer of the family pension of her deceased unmarried sister, who was also a retired government servant. The core question was whether an unmarried sister who possesses an independent regular source of income (her own pension) is entitled to receive the family pension of her deceased unmarried sister under the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 and the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's order. The Court held that dependency requires financial reliance rather than mere marital status. Following Supreme Court precedent, a claimant with an independent regular income is disentitled from drawing a family pension.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unmarried sister is entitled to receive the family pension of her deceased unmarried sister when she is already drawing her own personal pension as an independent source of income?
  • Whether marital status alone is sufficient to establish financial dependency for the purpose of claiming family pension under the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963?
  • Does acquiring an independent and regular source of income disentitle a surviving relative from claiming a family pension under civil service pension rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs Municipal Commissioner and Accounts Officer, Sukkur Municipal Corporation Sukkur2025 SHC SUK 2015 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naila Shahbaz vs Mrs. Amna Ashfaq & others2025 SHC 108 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehwish Janvri vs 3rd Additional District Judge Larkana and another2025 SHC LAR 1456 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maryam vs The State2025 YLR 909 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-27
  post-arrest bailnarcotic possessionprohibitory clausefurther inquirycharasbail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Mst. Maryam, who was charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2022, for the alleged possession of 1020 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail given the quantity of the narcotic recovered and the nature of the offense. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that at the bail stage, the lesser of the two potential punishments must be considered, and since the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule rather than the exception. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the applicant's lack of a criminal record and her status as a woman as factors warranting leniency. The Court concluded that the case required further inquiry and granted bail subject to the provision of solvent surety, noting that these observations were tentative and would not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of 1020 grams of charas fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should the lesser of two potential punishments be considered when determining bail eligibility?
  • Is a female accused without a prior criminal record entitled to leniency in bail matters involving narcotic offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mariam Butt vs Asad and 2 others2025 MLD 391 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Majida Parveen vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Water2025 YLR 45 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mai Pathani vs SHO P.S Patni Sukkur & others2025 SHC 172 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-21
  criminal miscellaneous applicationsecond statementexceptional circumstancessection 164 CrPCdismissal of application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenges the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sukkur, whereby the applicant's application seeking permission to record her second statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was dismissed due to the absence of exceptional circumstances. The core legal question is whether a witness or complainant is entitled to record a second statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without demonstrating exceptional circumstances. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order contained valid and cogent reasons and suffered from no illegality or infirmity warranting constitutional or discretionary interference. The court dismissed the application, affirming the principle that recording a successive statement requires exceptional justification.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party record a second statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without exceptional circumstances?
  • Whether the High Court will interfere with an order refusing to record a second section 164 statement when valid reasons are assigned?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khawar Kifayat alias Khawar Saeed vs Chaudhary Muhammad Faisal2025 SHC 374 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Ishrat Gul d/o Abdul Ghafoor vs Nigar Ali and others2025 SHC SUK 1995 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Huma Rafiq and 2 others vs Mst. Huma Rafiq and 2 others2025 CLC 953 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hayat Khatoon vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC LAR 2123 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-28
  family pensionwidowed daughterlachesrecurring cause of actiongender discriminationcivil service regulationsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a widowed daughter of a deceased police department midwife, sought the finalization and release of her mother's family pension, which had been stopped after her mother's death in 1995. The respondents denied the claim, arguing that the petitioner was not dependent on her mother as she had an adult son, citing Rule 302(b)(6) of the Civil Service Regulations, and further asserted that the petition was barred by laches. The High Court of Sindh allowed the petition, holding that under Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules 1963 (as amended in 2016), a widowed daughter is entitled to family pension for life or until remarriage. The Court clarified that Rule 302 of the Civil Service Regulations applies only to employees killed or injured in military-related civil service and is inapplicable to ordinary pension cases. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the concept of dependency cannot be used to deny statutory pension rights to women, and that the doctrine of laches does not bar a claim where there is a recurring cause of action and technicalities would perpetuate injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right of a widowed daughter to receive a family pension under the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules 1963 can be conditioned upon her financial dependency or the age of her children?
  • Does Rule 302 of the Civil Service Regulations apply to ordinary civil service pension cases, or is it restricted to employees killed or injured while serving in a civil capacity with a military force?
  • Can a constitutional petition seeking pension benefits be dismissed on the ground of laches where the denial of pension constitutes a recurring cause of action?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haseena w/o Khair Muhammad Depar vs The State & another2025 SHC LAR 1585 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-19
  registration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peacepolice encounterextrajudicial killingsecond FIRquashing of orderscode of criminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two criminal miscellaneous applications filed by the applicant challenging orders of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, which dismissed her applications under Section 22-A(6)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking directions for the registration of FIRs against police officials for alleged house trespass, abduction, and the extrajudicial killing of her son. The core legal questions involved whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace was justified in refusing to order FIR registration based on police reports and whether a second FIR could be registered for an incident already covered by an existing FIR. The Sindh High Court held that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace correctly exercised quasi-judicial discretion by evaluating the material and finding the allegations motivated and malafide, and further held that under the principle laid down in Mst. Sughra Bibi v. The State, a second or alternate FIR regarding the same incident is legally impermissible when an FIR has already been registered and challan submitted. The applications were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is bound to order the registration of an FIR without evaluating police reports and material on record?
  • Can a second FIR be registered in respect of a single incident when an FIR has already been registered and is under investigation or trial?
  • Does the High Court interfere under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 with orders of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace that show a judicious application of mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haneefa Bano vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC 364 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima & 2 others vs Farooque Ahmed2025 SHC LAR 2245 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fakhra daughter of Muhammad Saeed vs he S.P Complaint Cell, District Korangi and others2025 SHC KHI 2086 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-08
  Justice of PeaceSection 22-A Cr.P.Cregistration of FIRmatrimonial disputepost-divorce settlementdishonored chequecivil disputecriminal color
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application was filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Karachi (East), which dismissed her application under Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking registration of an FIR against her ex-husband and ex-father-in-law over allegedly dishonored cheques arising out of a post-divorce financial settlement. The core legal question was whether criminal machinery can be invoked under Sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C to resolve financial disputes emanating from matrimonial dissolution and settlement agreements. The High Court dismissed the application, upholding the Justice of Peace's order. It held that the controversy between the parties was purely civil and matrimonial in nature. The Court reiterated the established principle that civil disputes cannot be painted with a criminal color merely to intimidate or pressure opponents, and matters concerning matrimonial financial settlements must be pursued before competent Civil Courts, Family Courts, or through arbitration rather than via criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be allowed for registration of an FIR where the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil or matrimonial nature?
  • Can financial liabilities arising out of a post-divorce settlement agreement be enforced by initiating criminal proceedings?
  • Whether the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace commits an illegality in refusing to order the registration of an FIR when the dispute is civil in character and lacks criminal intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Erum Suleman Ali vs The State & another2025 SHC 509 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-25
  supplementary challancognizance of offencenon-bailable warrantsprotective bailtrial court jurisdictionSection 561-A Cr.PC
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge issuing Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) against the applicant. The applicant, not initially named in the FIR or the initial report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was subsequently implicated in a supplementary challan. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the authority to take cognizance against an accused named in a supplementary challan after the charge has already been framed against other co-accused. The Court held that under Section 193(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a trial court is competent to take cognizance of an offense against an accused upon receiving a supplementary report from the Magistrate, even at a later stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court's power to take cognizance but, in the interest of justice, converted the application into a protective bail plea, granting the applicant seven days to surrender before the trial court while suspending the NBW.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court take cognizance against an accused named in a supplementary challan after the charge has already been framed against other co-accused?
  • Is a trial court empowered under Section 193(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to take cognizance upon receiving a supplementary report from a Magistrate?
  • Does the failure to name an accused in the initial FIR or Section 173 report preclude a trial court from subsequently taking cognizance against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Dr. Ismat Bano d/o Ali Muhammad vs The State and others2025 SHC KHI 2186 · Sindh High Court · 2025-09-04
  transfer applicationjudicial biascyber-stalkingjudicial conductcriminal trialtransfer of criminal case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a transfer application filed by the complainant, Mst. Dr. Ismat Bano, challenging an order of the Sessions Court which dismissed her request to transfer a criminal case involving cyber-stalking charges under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. The complainant sought transfer on the grounds that the trial judge made unprofessional and biased remarks, specifically questioning the substance of her case and making inappropriate personal comments. The High Court reviewed the record and found no procedural irregularities or evidence of bias that would warrant transferring the case. While the Court acknowledged that the trial judge's comments were ill-advised and lacked the necessary judicial 'kairos'—the appropriate timing and sensitivity required when addressing sensitive matters—it held that these remarks did not demonstrate actual malice or prejudice sufficient to justify a transfer. The Court emphasized that while judicial language can be improved, isolated remarks do not automatically necessitate the transfer of a trial. Consequently, the application for transfer was dismissed, affirming the trial court's continued jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the making of allegedly unprofessional or insensitive remarks by a trial judge constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a criminal case?
  • Is a trial court required to transfer a case if the complainant alleges that the judge expressed an opinion on the merits of the case during proceedings?
  • What is the standard for determining whether judicial remarks warrant the transfer of a case under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bushra Hamid And Others vs Mst. Farzana Nizam And Another2025 SHC 18 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Azra & others vs The State2025 SHC 16 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayesha and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 SHC HYD 1647, 2025 SHC HYD 1694 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amber Iqbal Khan and 2 others vs Syed Yasir Raza and 3 others2025 YLR 258 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-22
  habeas corpuscustody of minorwelfare of minorGuardian Courtcriminal jurisdictionGuardians and Wards ActSection 561-A Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge in a habeas corpus petition concerning the custody of two minor children. The trial court had granted custody to the mother but imposed restrictive conditions, including the surrender of passports and a bond. The core legal question was whether the High Court, exercising criminal jurisdiction, should interfere in custody matters or impose conditions when a competent Guardian Court exists. The Court held that the High Court should not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Guardian Court, which is the appropriate forum for adjudicating custody disputes. It emphasized that habeas corpus in custody matters should be an exception rather than a rule, reserved for cases involving criminality or abduction, and should not be used to bypass established family law procedures. The Court affirmed that the paramount consideration in all custody matters is the welfare of the minor. Consequently, the application was disposed of, directing the parties to resolve the permanent custody issue before the Guardian Court, which was instructed to decide the jurisdictional question expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to decide custody disputes of minors?
  • Is a writ of habeas corpus an appropriate remedy for determining the permanent custody of a minor?
  • Should the High Court impose conditions on custody in habeas corpus proceedings when a Guardian Court is the competent forum?
  • What is the paramount consideration for courts when deciding the custody of a minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Alia Rani d/o Rehmatullah vs The Senior Superintendent of Police and2025 SHC KHI 2049 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-18
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peacelodging of FIRelectronic forensicscyber crimesblackmailquashing of orderNational Cyber Crimes Investigation Agency
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed the applicant's request for directions to record her statement and lodge an FIR against the proposed accused for allegedly taking compromising photographs and attempting to blackmail her into a porn racket. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace's refusal to order the registration of a criminal case where the allegations lacked bona fides, supporting evidence, and clear timelines, alongside the availability of specialized remedies under electronic crimes legislation. The court held that an FIR need not be ordered in every case, especially where information lacks credibility and does not disclose a clear cognizable offence. The court laid down that electronic forensic examinations are best conducted by specialized agencies like the National Cyber Crimes Investigation Agency under the relevant cybercrime laws rather than standard police procedures, and that remedies under general criminal law and specialized cybercrime regimes may run concurrently.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is bound to order the registration of an FIR in every complaint regardless of the lack of bona fides and supporting evidence?
  • Can remedies under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 be pursued concurrently?
  • Does the examination of data hidden in smartphones for digital crimes require investigation by specialized agencies rather than ordinary police officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst Saira Zarin vs Mohammed Aslam and others2025 SHC LAR 1590 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-15Read full judgment →
• Mst Rubeena Chohan vs Abdul Haq & others2025 SHC 442, 2025 PLJ Karachi 124 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-28Read full judgment →
• Mst Maria & another vs P.O Sindh & Others2025 SHC 434 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-26Read full judgment →
• Ms. Shehzadi vs Home Secretary Government of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 112 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ms. Priyanka Devi D/o Raj Kumar vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1603 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30
  criminal revisionforged degreeusing forged documentmens reabenefit of doubtexcessive sentencevisa fraud
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant filed a criminal revision application before the High Court of Sindh against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Karachi (South), which had upheld her conviction under Section 471 PPC while altering her sentence to time already undergone with a fine. The case originated from a FIA inquiry initiated on information from the U.S. Consulate General, alleging that the applicant submitted a forged University of Karachi degree and transcript to obtain a U.S. visa. The core legal questions involved whether a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum under Section 471 PPC invalidates the conviction and whether the essential mens rea—knowing or having reason to believe the document was forged—was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the applicant. The Court held that a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum renders the conviction under that section unsustainable despite subsequent appellate modifications. Additionally, when co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence and intent remains unproven, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does awarding a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum under Section 471 PPC render the conviction unsustainable?
  • Can a conviction under Section 471 PPC stand without proof that the accused knew or had reason to believe the document was forged?
  • Does the alteration of an illegal sentence by an appellate court cure the fundamental legal flaw in the original sentence?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt under Section 471 PPC when co-accused involved in arranging the forged documents are acquitted on the same evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Mahvish Butt vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2025 SHC KHI 2066 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-11Read full judgment →
• Ms. Aisha Qazi D/o Qazi Muhammad Ismail vs The State2025 SHC 288 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Farzana vs Qamran Constructions (Pvt) Ltd and another2025 SHC 152 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Farah Shoukat vs Mr. Khursheed Inamulah2025 SHC KHI 1591 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mr. Altaf Nazim vs Mr. Riaz Hussain2025 SHC 142 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mr. Abdul Haleem Siddiqui vs Sidra Ali & others2025 SHC KHI 1510 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mossin Wali vs The State2025 YLR 1038 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-26
  post-arrest bailreduction of bailenhancement of bailembezzlementbanking fraudinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from cross-applications filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking reduction and enhancement respectively of a bail amount fixed at Rs.1 Crore in connection with FIR No. 12/2024 involving alleged misappropriation and embezzlement of Rs. 2.1 Crore through fake Term Deposit Receipts by a former professional banker. The core legal question addressed is whether the quantum of bail fixed at approximately fifty percent of the allegedly embezzled amount warrants reduction due to financial constraints or enhancement to match the full misappropriated sum. The Sindh High Court held that the bail amount of Rs.1 Crore is reasonable, consistent with the gravity of the charge, and justified under the inherent powers of the court read with Section 5(7) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, and that neither the accused nor the complainant presented sufficient grounds for altering the surety amount. The key principles laid down include that bail amounts must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the magnitude of the alleged financial misappropriation, and that a low current personal bank balance does not constitute a valid ground for reducing a reasonable bail sum when substantial funds have been allegedly siphoned off.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the quantum of bail fixed at fifty percent of the allegedly embezzled amount can be reduced in the absence of contemporaneous documentary proof of financial hardship?
  • Whether a complainant can successfully seek the enhancement of a bail amount without furnishing fresh information or supporting case law?
  • Does a low current account balance of the accused justify reducing a bail amount when substantial funds were allegedly misappropriated and concealed outside the banking system?
  Read full judgment →
• Molvi Asim @ Muhammad Asim vs The State2025 SHC LAR 1978 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-30Read full judgment →
• Mohammed Hassan vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC 426 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-21
  reinstatement in servicesacked employeesproject employeesregularization of servicenegative equalitylachesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking the reinstatement of the petitioner into service by extending the benefits of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act 2016. The petitioner, originally appointed as a temporary Junior Clerk in a project under the defunct Sindh Arid Zone Development Authority, had his services discontinued in 1997 upon the closure of the project. The core legal questions were whether a project employee qualifies as a "sacked employee" under Section 2(b) of the Act, and whether the regularization of other employees on humanitarian grounds creates a vested right under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the definition of "sacked employee" under Section 2(b) of the Act does not encompass project-based employees whose employment naturally terminates upon project completion. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Article 25 does not recognize the concept of negative equality; hence, illegal or discretionary benefits granted to others cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Finally, the petition was also barred by laches due to an unexplained 23-year delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a project employee whose services were terminated upon the closure of a project falls within the definition of a sacked employee under Section 2(b) of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act 2016?
  • Can a project employee claim regularization of services as a matter of right in the absence of statutory backing?
  • Does Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 protect a claim of negative equality where a benefit was previously granted to others illegally or on purely humanitarian grounds?
  • Can a constitutional petition for reinstatement in service be entertained when there is an unexplained delay of over two decades?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammed Faheem Khan and others vs Moiz Ali and others2025 SHC 420 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-18
  work-charged employeesregularization of servicesKarachi Development Authoritymaster and servantlabor disputeSindh Industrial Relations Act 2012constitutional petitionalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses constitutional petitions filed by work-charged and daily wager employees of the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) seeking regularization of their services. The core legal questions involve whether work-charged employees have a vested right to regularization under statutory law or the Constitution, and whether the High Court can entertain service disputes of this nature under its writ jurisdiction when labor laws provide an alternate remedy. The Court held that work-charged employees are excluded from the regularization statute and cannot claim regularization as a matter of right. Furthermore, since such employees qualify as 'workmen' under labor legislation, their disputes relating to termination and terms of employment must be adjudicated before the appropriate Labor Tribunal rather than through constitutional petitions. The key principles laid down are that work-charged employees are governed by labor laws rather than civil service regulations, negative equality cannot be claimed under Article 25 of the Constitution, and the High Court will not exercise constitutional jurisdiction when efficacious alternate remedies exist under labor statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether daily wagers and work-charged employees are entitled to regularization of service under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act 2013?
  • Does Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 encompass the concept of negative equality to claim regularization based on allegedly irregular regularizations of other employees?
  • Whether employees of the Karachi Development Authority engaged on a work-charged basis fall within the definition of worker or workman under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Can the High Court entertain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for service grievances of work-charged employees when an alternate remedy is available under labor laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammed Bux Kalhoro vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC LAR 2100 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-21Read full judgment →
• Mohammed Adnan vs PTCL and others2025 SHC 432 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-21
  voluntary surrender of serviceseparation bonusmonthly pensionbenevolent grantgroup insurancerecurring cause of actiondoctrine of lachesfederal employee
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner sought directions against Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) for the release of monthly pension, benevolent grant, and group insurance benefits of his deceased wife, who had retired under a Voluntary Surrender of Service (VSS) Scheme. The core legal questions involved whether an employee short of the qualifying length of service for a pension is entitled to it after accepting a separation bonus, and whether claims for a benevolent grant and group insurance are maintainable despite a delay in approaching the court. The Sindh High Court held that the deceased employee's voluntary acceptance of the separation bonus and execution of a waiver form precluded any claim for a monthly pension, as affirmed by Supreme Court precedents. However, the court held that the claims for a benevolent grant and group insurance—governed by statute and funded through salary deductions—involve a recurring cause of action and do not suffer from fatal laches. The court partly allowed the petition, directing the employer to forward the petitioner's claim on the prescribed form to the Board of Trustees for determination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee who accepts a separation bonus under a Voluntary Surrender of Service scheme is entitled to claim a monthly pension despite falling short of the qualifying length of service?
  • Does the doctrine of laches bar a constitutional petition claiming statutory benefits based on a recurring cause of action?
  • Are the spouse and legal heirs of a deceased retired employee entitled to a benevolent grant and group insurance when the employee dies after retirement before attaining the age of seventy years?
  • What is the statutory obligation of the head of a department regarding the forwarding of claims for a benevolent grant and group insurance under the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Rules, 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss. Seema Sanam vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC SUK 1352, 2025 SHC SUK 1356, 2025 SHC SUK 1358 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-13Read full judgment →
• Miss Sana, Hamid Murtaza, Registrar High Court of Sindh & Another vs Province of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 714 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mirza Mehboob (since deceased) through his legal heir Ahmed Ali Rauf2025 SHC KHI 1831 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mirza Aslam Baig vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2025 SHC 594 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-11Read full judgment →
• Mir Saifullah Mugheri vs Station House Officer, P.S Hyderi and others2025 YLR 782 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-16
  registration of FIRJustice of Peacecognizable offensecivil disputeprivate complaintquashing of orderconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed to assail the order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Larkana, whereby the applicant's request for directions to register an FIR regarding the alleged theft of dowry articles by his brothers and nephews was dismissed on the ground that the matter involved a civil dispute over inherited property. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace erred in refusing to direct the registration of the FIR under Sections 22-A and 22-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that where the police have already negated the applicant's version and given adverse comments, no impartial investigation can be expected from them, making a direct private complaint an adequate and proper remedy. The court dismissed the application, laying down the principle that where a civil dispute exists and police are unlikely to conduct an impartial investigation, the appropriate recourse is to file a direct complaint before the trial court rather than seeking constitutional or discretionary remedies for FIR registration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Justice of Peace is justified in refusing to order the registration of an FIR when the dispute between the parties is primarily of a civil nature concerning inherited property?
  • Is a direct private complaint considered an adequate remedy when the local police have already expressed an adverse opinion against the complainant's version?
  • Can the High Court decline to interfere with the order of the Justice of Peace refusing to direct the registration of an FIR under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Nooroze Ali vs The State2025 MLD 597 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-01
  criminal appealoffshoot caseunlicensed weaponacquittalSindh Arms Actappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for the possession of an unlicensed weapon. The appellant had been apprehended following an alleged abduction incident, which formed the basis of a separate main case. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having been acquitted in the main case, was entitled to acquittal in this subsequent case, which the court identified as an offshoot of the main proceedings. The High Court observed that the trial court's reliance on the prosecution's evidence in this case was inconsistent with the acquittal in the main case, where the alleged victim denied the occurrence of the incident. Holding that the recovery of the weapon was rendered doubtful by the acquittal in the main case, the Court set aside the conviction. The principle laid down is that when an accused is acquitted in a main case, they are entitled to acquittal in an offshoot case arising from the same facts and circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal in an offshoot case if they have already been acquitted in the main case?
  • Does the acquittal of an accused in a main case render the recovery of an unlicensed weapon in an offshoot case doubtful?
  Read full judgment →