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.

• Aisha Anum and others,Sumbal Zaman, Raja Mahadve vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC HYD 842 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali and others vs Mst. Shamul and others2025 SHC 670 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-02Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali @ Arbab Ali and others vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1914 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-18
  gutka and manpuriillegal raidchain of custodychemical examiner reportreasonable doubtindependent witnessescriminal appealstatutory authorization
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction under the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019, for the alleged possession and manufacture of hazardous substances. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a raid conducted by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector, the failure to associate independent witnesses, the integrity of the chain of custody due to an unexplained eight-day delay in chemical analysis, and the reliability of the chemical examiner's report. The Court held that the conviction was unsustainable, noting that the raid was conducted by an unauthorized officer, violating the Act's specific mandate. Furthermore, the absence of independent witnesses in a public area, coupled with material contradictions in police testimony regarding the timing of the FIR and the arrival at the police station, created reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the chain of custody and the evidentiary value of the flawed chemical report. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, affirming that even a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained under the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and Use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019 if the raid was conducted by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector?
  • Does an unexplained delay in sending seized contraband to the chemical examiner vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Is the testimony of police officials sufficient to sustain a conviction when no independent witnesses are associated in a public place?
  • Can a co-accused be convicted solely on the basis of an out-of-court statement made by another accused while in police custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ahmed and others vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC LAR 1516 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ramzani and others vs Province of Sindh & others2025 SHC KHI 2155 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-29
  repatriationSCUG serviceconstitutional jurisdictionservice mattercompliance with Supreme Court judgmentdemotionjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an office order dated April 12, 2021, issued by the Sindh Local Government Board, which withdrew the petitioners' merger into the Sindh Councils Unified Grade (SCUG) service and repatriated them to their original, lower-grade positions. The petitioners argued that their demotion was abrupt, lacked a regular inquiry, and violated their constitutional rights. Conversely, the respondents contended that the petitioners' initial absorption into the SCUG service lacked legal backing and that the repatriation was a mandatory compliance measure following the Supreme Court's directives in Criminal Original Petition No. 89 of 2011 and the principles established in Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh. The High Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution when an impugned order is issued in direct compliance with a Supreme Court judgment. Emphasizing that the High Court's jurisdiction is supervisory rather than appellate, the Court concluded that any grievance regarding such compliance must be addressed to the Supreme Court itself, particularly as similar matters were already pending before that forum. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution with an order issued in compliance with a Supreme Court judgment?
  • Does the High Court possess appellate jurisdiction to review administrative actions taken in compliance with Supreme Court directives?
  • Is a petition challenging repatriation to a parent department maintainable in the High Court when the action is based on a Supreme Court order?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1696, 2025 SHC HYD 1697, 2025 SHC HYD 1698 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-02
  illegal dispossessionland grabbingcivil disputedemarcation of landcriminal revisionsurvey numberspossession vs ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hala, regarding a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Applicant alleged that Respondent No. 1 had illegally occupied his agricultural land, while the Respondent claimed ownership of an adjoining survey number, asserting the dispute was purely civil. The Court examined whether the facts constituted illegal dispossession under the Act. The Court held that the Applicant failed to establish the essential elements of illegal dispossession, noting a significant delay in filing the complaint and a lack of evidence regarding the use of force or the nature of the alleged dispossession. The Court emphasized that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is intended to combat land grabbing, not to resolve civil disputes over land demarcation or survey numbers. The ratio established is that where a dispute primarily concerns the identification, demarcation, or ownership of land rather than forceful dispossession, the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 cannot be invoked, and such matters must be adjudicated by civil courts of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be invoked to resolve civil disputes regarding the demarcation of land or survey numbers?
  • What is the primary threshold for establishing an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does a criminal court have the jurisdiction to determine disputed ownership of property under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali and others vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1704 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-02
  post-arrest bailsodomyDNA evidenceminor accuseddelay in FIRcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants/accused in Crime No. 12/2025, registered under Sections 377 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the rejection of their bail plea by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sanghar. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific circumstances of the case, including the age of the accused, the delay in reporting the incident, and the forensic evidence. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the cumulative effect of the applicants being minors, the unexplained five-day delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the critical fact that the DNA evidence did not match the applicants. The Court established the principle that where forensic evidence fails to link the accused to the crime and there are mitigating factors such as the minority of the accused and procedural delays in initiating the criminal process, a case for further inquiry is made out, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mismatch in DNA evidence provide sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail in a case involving Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the minority of the accused, combined with a delay in the registration of the FIR, constitute valid grounds for post-arrest bail?
  • Is a court required to consider the absence of forensic corroboration when evaluating a bail application for an offence of an unnatural nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Shariq Raza vs The State2025 YLR 808 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-14
  criminal appealacid throwingfair trialde novo trialstate counselpauper counselcross-examinationremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing him under Sections 324, 334, and 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 265-H(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in an acid-throwing case. The primary legal issue was whether conducting the trial and examining all prosecution witnesses in the absence of defence counsel caused serious prejudice to the accused and infringed his constitutional right to a fair trial. The High Court observed that none of the seven prosecution witnesses were examined or cross-examined in the presence of defence counsel. Holding that Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitles an unrepresented accused to state-appointed counsel and Section 353 mandates recording evidence in the presence of the accused and counsel, the Court ruled that the trial violated Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a complete de novo trial to be concluded within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Does recording prosecution evidence in the absence of defence counsel violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a criminal court obligated under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to appoint a pauper counsel at state expense if the accused is unrepresented?
  • Whether the failure to ensure legal representation during the examination of prosecution witnesses necessitates setting aside a conviction and ordering a de novo trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1865 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-11
  attempted murderlurking house-trespassrelated witnessesdelayed FIRinvestigative lapsescriminal appealappreciation of evidencemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the appellant’s conviction for attempted murder and lurking house-trespass under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the defence’s contentions regarding the reliability of related eyewitnesses, the delay in lodging the FIR, and alleged investigative lapses. The Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution’s case consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. It held that relatives of a victim are natural witnesses whose testimony is credible absent proof of ulterior motive. Furthermore, the Court established that prior enmity can serve as a motive for the crime rather than a ground for false implication. It ruled that a delayed FIR is not fatal when the delay is justified by the necessity of prioritizing emergency medical treatment for the victim. Finally, the Court affirmed that procedural investigative lapses do not invalidate a conviction when the ocular and medical evidence is otherwise sufficient and reliable to establish guilt.

  Questions settled

  • Are related witnesses automatically considered 'interested' witnesses whose testimony requires independent corroboration?
  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained despite procedural lapses in the investigation by the police?
  • Does prior enmity between the parties inherently suggest a motive for false implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed Rashid & 07 others vs The State2025 SHC HYD 1838 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-04
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtcontradictory medical evidencedelayed recovery of crime emptyinterested witnessesnon-recovery of weaponfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under multiple provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rioting, house-trespass, attempt to commit murder, hurt, and mischief. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in the face of major material contradictions, medical discrepancies, and investigative lapses. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions, holding that the prosecution's case suffered from incurable defects, including a highly suspicious and delayed recovery of the crime empty shell, complete absence of independent corroboration, a direct conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular account regarding the location of the firearm injury, non-recovery of any weapons or damaged property, and a total failure to substantiate the charges. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's evidence is laden with material contradictions and missing links, and where eyewitness testimony is directly contradicted by medical findings, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right under the fundamental guarantee of a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate and unexplained delay in producing a crime empty shell by the complainant vitiates its evidentiary value?
  • Does a direct conflict between the ocular account of an injury and the medical evidence invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on the testimony of closely related and interested witnesses in the complete absence of independent corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of the non-recovery of the alleged weapon of offence and failure to prove property damage on the overall prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Adnan son of Muhammad Nawaz Khan vs The State2025 SHC KHI 1646 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-30
  criminal appealjuvenile offendermurderdying declarationbenefit of the doubtacquittaleyewitness credibilityforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a juvenile, challenged his conviction under section 302(c) PPC for the murder of a seventeen-year-old victim following a stabbing incident. The Sindh High Court evaluated the prosecution's case, which rested on an oral dying declaration conveyed four days after the incident, belatedly introduced eyewitnesses who were related to the deceased and suffered from visual impairment, and an uncorroborated weapon recovery lacking forensic linkage. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to profound contradictions, procedural lapses in recording the dying declaration, and the absence of forensic or credible ocular corroboration. The core legal principle laid down is that where a dying declaration is procedurally defective, eyewitness testimony is belated and contradictory, and crucial forensic links such as bloodstained clothing and weapon analysis are missing, the resulting cumulative doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused, warranting acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an oral dying declaration narrated days after the incident by a third party can sustain a conviction when medical evidence shows the deceased was unfit to make a statement?
  • Does the belated introduction of eyewitnesses whose names are absent from the FIR vitiate their credibility?
  • Can a conviction for murder stand in the absence of forensic linkage, bloodstained clothing, and independent corroboration of the weapon recovery?
  • What is the standard of proof required to overcome cumulative evidentiary deficiencies and contradictions in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Bashir S/O Muhammad Bashir vs SSP Complaint Cell Khi East & Ors2025 SHC KHI 2040 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-08Read full judgment →
• Abdullah s/o Dilawar and others vs The State2025 SHC 326 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-27
  pre-arrest baildoctrine of consistencymalafide intentpolice encountercriminal jurisprudenceequal treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by applicants accused in FIR No. 10/2024, registered under Sections 324, 353, 506(ii), 147, 148, 149, 427, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of attacking a police party and damaging official vehicles. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the absence of injuries, the lack of corroborative evidence regarding vehicle damage, and the fact that a co-accused with an identical role was placed in column 2 of the challan. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail, citing the doctrine of consistency, which mandates equal treatment for co-accused with similar roles. The Court further observed that the prosecution’s failure to provide evidence of damage and the questionable identification of the accused suggested malafide intent. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of consistency, which allows for equal treatment of co-accused, is applicable to pre-arrest bail proceedings, and that bail should be granted where there is a prima facie case of malafide intent or where refusal would cause irreparable harm.

  Questions settled

  • Is the doctrine of consistency applicable to applications for pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the placement of a co-accused in column 2 of the challan provide grounds for granting bail to other accused with identical roles?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted where there is a prima facie case of malafide intent by the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wasim vs Messrs NTN Corporation and another2025 CLD 50 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wali Achakzai Pathan s/o Wali Muhammad, Abid Noor s/o2025 SHC 244, 2025 YLR 1071 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-25
  narcotics controlsafe custodysafe transmissionchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of the doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged transportation of narcotics. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the unbroken chain of safe custody and safe transmission of the seized contraband from the time of recovery until its receipt at the chemical laboratory. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody and safe transmission due to unexplained delays in depositing the samples, non-production of the warehouse in-charge, and missing register entries. The court reaffirmed the principle that any break in the chain of custody or failure to prove safe transmission vitiates the reliability of the chemical report, necessitating the extension of the benefit of the doubt and an acquittal of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to establish the safe custody and safe transmission of narcotics to the laboratory vitiates the conviction?
  • Does unproven safe custody of seized narcotics entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  • Is the non-examination of the warehouse in-charge fatal to the prosecution's case in narcotics trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Shar vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1617 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-05
  post-arrest bailjoint recovery memofurther inquiryillegal arms possessionevidentiary valueindependent witnessespre-trial punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications filed by the applicant, who was nominated in two separate FIRs for offences related to the illegal possession of arms and ammunition. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution's reliance on a single joint recovery memo for two distinct FIRs and the failure to associate independent witnesses in the recovery proceedings rendered the case one of further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail. The Court held that the preparation of a joint recovery memo for separate cases is legally defective and inadmissible, significantly undermining the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the absence of independent witnesses in a populated area and the fact that the applicant was no longer required for investigation further weakened the prosecution's position. The Court affirmed the principle that bail is the norm and jail the exception, particularly when the case requires further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant, ruling that continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single joint recovery memo prepared for two separate FIRs possess evidentiary value?
  • Is the absence of independent witnesses in recovery proceedings from a populated area a ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
  • Does the potential maximum punishment under the Sindh Arms Act 2013, when left to judicial discretion, necessitate further inquiry for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Khan vs Khush Muhammad Bhutto2025 SHC KHI 878 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Chohan vs Province of Sindh & Ors2025 SHC HYD 2222 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Shah and Another vs Muhammad Islam Badshah and Others2025 SHC 206 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Abbasi vs The State2025 MLD 555 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-25
  embezzlementscholarship fundsNational Accountability Ordinancecorruptionmisuse of authorityburden of proofcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a conviction by an Accountability Court for the embezzlement of scholarship funds under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal questions concern the jurisdiction of the National Accountability Bureau to initiate the reference, the sufficiency of evidence to prove the appellant's guilt, and whether the defense of discriminatory prosecution and enmity holds legal weight. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. It held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent oral and documentary evidence, while the appellant failed to rebut the case or provide credible evidence for his defense. The Court laid down the principle that under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the offense of corruption includes the misuse of authority to gain benefits for others, regardless of personal gain. Furthermore, it affirmed that a plea of discrimination in prosecution is not a valid defense to absolve an accused of criminal liability, and that courts must maintain zero tolerance for corruption to protect the national economy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the offense of corruption under Section 9(a)(vi) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 require proof of personal financial gain by the accused?
  • Can an accused successfully challenge a prosecution on the sole ground that other alleged culprits were not included in the reference?
  • What are the valid modes for the National Accountability Bureau to initiate a reference under Section 18(b) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is a photocopy of a document admissible as evidence in the absence of proof regarding the loss of the original record?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wadood vs Syed Raziullah Qadri and others2025 SHC KHI 1949 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-24
  illegal dispossessionappeal against acquittaldouble presumption of innocenceburden of prooflawful ownershipappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court acquitting respondents of charges under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The appellant claimed lawful ownership and possession of plots from which he was forcibly dispossessed by the respondents. The core legal question was whether the appellant had established ownership, lawful possession, and illegal dispossession by the respondents beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court's acquittal judgment warranted interference. The Sindh High Court held that an acquittal judgment carries a double presumption of innocence and appellate courts should exercise restraint unless the judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from misreading of evidence. Finding that the appellant failed to produce convincing oral or documentary evidence of ownership, possession, or dispossession, the court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeal. The key principle laid down is that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court's judgment is perverse, arbitrary, or capricious, and the burden remains squarely on the complainant to prove ownership and illegal dispossession through cogent evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal carrying a double presumption of innocence?
  • Is it incumbent upon a complainant under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to prove lawful ownership and possession through convincing documentary evidence?
  • Does the mere oral assertion of a complainant suffice to establish illegal dispossession without supporting evidence or examination of inquiry officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC SUK 2062 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-19
  civil servantconstitutional petitionservice tribunalterms and conditions of serviceouster of jurisdictionreversionmala fideArticle 212
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged his reversion from the post of Junior Clerk to Sanitary Worker through a constitutional petition, alleging the order was passed with mala fide intentions without a proper inquiry. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, specifically when a Service Tribunal exists, and whether allegations of mala fides bypass this constitutional bar. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the Court ruled that the jurisdiction of the High Court is explicitly ousted in matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. The Court affirmed that the Service Tribunal is the exclusive forum for such disputes, and this constitutional bar applies even where orders are challenged as mala fide, ultra vires, or coram non judice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, directing the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition by a civil servant regarding terms and conditions of service?
  • Does the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution apply to service matters even when the impugned order is alleged to be mala fide or ultra vires?
  • Is a Service Tribunal the exclusive forum for adjudicating grievances related to the terms and conditions of service for civil servants in Sindh?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam Arif vs The State2025 MLD 300 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-15
  criminal appealmisappropriation of public fundsanti-corruptionbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidenceconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for offences of misappropriation and forgery under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act-II of 1947. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, a District Program Manager in a human development commission, misappropriated funds allocated for women trainees under a government youth development program. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge due to material gaps in the investigation, lack of direct evidence, failure to examine key beneficiaries, and the dropping of co-accused who were originally implicated. The court laid down the principle that in cases of public fund misappropriation, the prosecution must establish its case through unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence, and any reasonable doubt arising from flaws in the investigation must be resolved in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the conviction for misappropriation of public funds can be sustained when the prosecution fails to examine the primary beneficiaries or trainees to verify non-payment?
  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to collect direct documentary proof or bank transactions linking the accused to the embezzlement vitiate the conviction?
  • Whether material contradictions and the exoneration of co-accused initially nominated in the first information report create reasonable doubt requiring the acquittal of the appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State2025 YLR 561 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-12
  criminal appealrobberybenefit of the doubtreasonable doubtpresumption of innocenceacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial for robbery. The core legal question was whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery involving the use of a deadly weapon when no such weapon was recovered from the appellant and the co-accused was acquitted. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the complainant admitted the appellant did not use a weapon, and the acquittal of the co-accused undermined the prosecution's case. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside. The judgment reaffirms the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused. It emphasizes that conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence, and the benefit of the doubt is an inalienable right of the accused, not a matter of grace.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained when no deadly weapon is recovered from the accused?
  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused in a joint trial necessarily create reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the remaining accused?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt a matter of grace or a legal right for an accused person in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Niaz Ahmed and others2025 SHC LAR 1512 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman S/o Shaukat Ali and others vs The State and others2025 SHC MPK 2075, 2025 SHC MPK 2076 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-20
  pre-arrest bailcross-casescommon intentionprohibitory clausetentative assessmentmala fidemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated applications for pre-arrest bail filed by several accused persons in connection with FIR No. 17 of 2025, registered for offenses including murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the existence of counter-FIRs and allegations of false implication. The Court held that the applicants failed to establish grounds for pre-arrest bail, noting that the prosecution's case was supported by specific roles attributed to the accused, corroborating medical evidence, and the recovery of incriminating material from the crime scene. The Court emphasized that the mere existence of cross-cases does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly when the allegations involve serious offenses like murder. The Court reiterated that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect against mala fide and abuse of process, not a substitute for post-arrest bail. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail applications, recalling the interim bail previously granted, as the allegations fell within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere existence of counter-FIRs or cross-cases automatically entitle an accused to the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute for post-arrest bail in ordinary criminal cases?
  • What is the standard for granting pre-arrest bail in cases involving offenses falling under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasool alias Farooque Ahmed & Ors vs D.E.O (Primary) & Ors2025 SHC 586 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30
  writ jurisdictionpublic service recruitmentdisputed questions of factmerit-based appointmentconstitutional petitionservice matterfake appointment orders
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed constitutional petitions seeking the implementation of appointment orders for the position of Primary School Teachers (PST) in the School Education Department, District Dadu. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who failed to produce recruitment records and whose appointment orders were contested as fake by the department, were entitled to judicial intervention to enforce their employment. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable, as they involved disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of appointment orders and the recruitment process, which cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction without recording evidence. The Court emphasized that recruitment in public service is an internal departmental affair that must adhere to strict merit and transparency. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed because the petitioners failed to establish an undeniable legal right or demonstrate that their appointments were legitimate. The Court affirmed the principle that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is not appropriate for resolving complex factual controversies that require plenary jurisdiction and the examination of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the genuineness of employment orders in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction?
  • Is the recruitment process for public service positions considered an internal departmental affair that courts should generally avoid interfering with?
  • Does the failure to produce recruitment records during a departmental scrutiny process preclude a petitioner from seeking judicial enforcement of an appointment order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed Khanzada & another vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC 140 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Quddoos & 2 other vs Khalid Yousuf2025 SHC KHI 1289 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Cooperation2025 CLC 312 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer Khan vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2009 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nasir S/o Muhammad Essa vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2121 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-19
  narcotic drugsrecovery of contrabandsafe custodychemical examiner reportofficial witnessescriminal appealnon-association of private witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the possession of 40 kilograms of Charas, recorded by the Trial Court under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, whether the non-association of private witnesses vitiated the conviction, and whether the Chemical Examiner’s report met the required legal protocols. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and the factum of recovery through consistent ocular and documentary evidence. The Court affirmed that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is not inherently suspect, and that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is expressly excluded in cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. Furthermore, the Court held that minor discrepancies in testimony do not undermine the prosecution's case if the core facts remain consistent, and that the Chemical Examiner’s report, adhering to established protocols and guidelines, constitutes valid evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, dispense with the requirement of associating private witnesses during a search and recovery?
  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely because they are official witnesses in a narcotics case?
  • What are the essential requirements for a Chemical Examiner's report to be considered legally valid under the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001?
  • Do minor discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses automatically invalidate a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mateen vs Province of Sindh and others2025 SHC KHI1957 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik Munhano vs The State2025 SHC SUK 1626 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-05
  post-arrest baildacoityfurther inquiryrobberydelayed FIRcriminal procedurestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Malik, who was charged under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the unexplained eight-day delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of any incriminating recovery, and the failure of the prosecution to establish the essential ingredients of dacoity as defined under Sections 390 and 391 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the accused caused or attempted to cause death, hurt, or wrongful restraint, which are necessary elements for the offence of robbery and, by extension, dacoity. Consequently, the Court determined that the applicant's case fell within the ambit of 'further inquiry' as contemplated under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court granted bail, emphasizing that the absence of these essential elements and the lack of recovery rendered the case suitable for bail, while noting that the observations were tentative and would not prejudice the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does a generalized expression of fear without specific allegations of hurt or wrongful restraint satisfy the legal threshold for robbery under Section 390 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a case be considered for bail under the 'further inquiry' provision of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the essential elements of the charged offence are absent from the FIR?
  • Is an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR a valid ground to doubt the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed s/o Sachal Bhayo vs The State2025 SHC LAR 2006 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Lateef vs Services, General Administration and Co-Ordination2025 PLC (C.S.) 732 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-26
  superannuationdisciplinary proceedingspensionary benefitsabatement of proceedingscivil servantvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired government officer, challenged a notice for a personal hearing in disciplinary proceedings issued after his superannuation. The core legal question was whether departmental disciplinary proceedings could continue post-superannuation and whether such proceedings justified withholding pensionary benefits. The Court held that, pursuant to Fundamental Rule 54-A, disciplinary proceedings against a government servant who attains the age of superannuation before the completion of the inquiry automatically abate. Consequently, the Court ruled that the impugned notice was of no legal effect and that the petitioner was entitled to full pensionary benefits, including gratuity, G.P. Fund, and leave encashment, from the date of his retirement. The key principle laid down is that pension is a vested right and a legitimate expectation, not a bounty, and cannot be withheld due to incomplete disciplinary proceedings that abate upon the employee's superannuation. The Court directed the respondents to release all due benefits within six months.

  Questions settled

  • Do departmental disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant abate upon their superannuation?
  • Can a government department withhold a retired civil servant's pensionary benefits due to pending disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is a pension considered a bounty or a vested right for a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs SSP Sukkur and others2025 SHC SUK 2044 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-29
  Ex-Officio Justice of Peaceregistration of FIRcriminal miscellaneous applicationhabitual litigatorburden of proofwater disputepolice protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the Applicant challenging an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed his request for the registration of an FIR against private respondents. The core legal question was whether the Applicant had established sufficient grounds to compel the police to register an FIR regarding alleged criminal actions occurring on 06.05.2025. The Court observed that the history between the parties involved protracted disputes over water rights and irrigation, with the Applicant having a history of frequent litigation. Crucially, the Applicant failed to produce any medical evidence, recordings, or substantial material to support the allegations of injury or threats. The Court emphasized that in the modern era of digital connectivity and ubiquitous recording technology, the absence of any audio or visual evidence to substantiate the alleged incident undermined the claim. Consequently, the High Court upheld the impugned order, finding no justification to intervene, while clarifying that the dismissal did not preclude the Applicant from seeking legal protection should his rights to liberty or property be genuinely threatened in the future.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of medical or digital evidence regarding an alleged criminal incident justify the refusal to register an FIR?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismiss an application for FIR registration when the applicant fails to provide substantial proof of the alleged offense?
  • Does a history of frequent litigation between parties affect the court's assessment of a new application for FIR registration?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs Nadeem Tarique Khan and others2025 CLC 215 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Saleem vs Imran Hyder2025 SHC 396 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Lashari vs The Governor of Sindh through Principal Secretary2025 CLC 734 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-24
  sexual harassmentprovincial ombudsmandoctrine of electionconstitutional jurisdictionworkplace harassmentservice removalinquiry committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the order of the Provincial Ombudsman of Sindh, which found the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment and ordered his removal from service under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. The petitioner contended that the doctrine of election barred the Ombudsman from entertaining the complaint while a departmental inquiry was pending, and that the Ombudsman lacked the authority to impose penalties, being limited to making recommendations. The Court held that the doctrine of election is inapplicable in sexual harassment cases where the internal departmental inquiry mechanism is sluggish or ineffective, as this would deny victims an efficacious remedy. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Section 10(2) of the Act, the Ombudsman possesses the explicit statutory power to impose major and minor penalties, including removal from service. Finally, the Court ruled that it cannot reassess factual findings in its constitutional jurisdiction unless such findings are perverse. The petition was dismissed, upholding the Ombudsman's order and emphasizing the necessity for efficient, time-bound departmental inquiry committees.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of election bar a complainant from approaching the Ombudsman if a departmental inquiry is already pending?
  • Does the Ombudsman have the power to impose major penalties, such as removal from service, or is the Ombudsman limited to making recommendations?
  • Can the High Court re-examine factual findings of the Ombudsman in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Khan vs M/s. Shevron Pakistan Limited & others2025 SHC KHI 1854 · Sindh High Court · 2025-07-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Abbasi and others vs Government of Sindh & Others2025 SHC 696 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Chachar vs The State and another2025 MLD 336 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-01
  criminal transfer applicationtransfer of casejudicial impartialityapprehension of biasfair trialloss of confidencejudicial conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Transfer Application was filed by the applicant seeking the transfer of Sessions Case No. 262 of 2022 from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kandhkot, to another court of competent jurisdiction. The core legal question concerned whether a case should be transferred when the accused has lost confidence in the trial judge following the judge's decision to issue a show-cause notice and remand the accused to custody after the accused expressed a lack of confidence. The Court held that the transfer was warranted to ensure a fair trial and maintain public confidence in the judicial process. The ratio established is that judicial impartiality and the perception of fairness are paramount; where a litigant has a reasonable apprehension of bias or loss of confidence in the trial court, the interests of justice may necessitate the transfer of the proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial patience and the duty of the court to operate without prejudice, ultimately ordering the case to be transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kandhkot, for expeditious disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a criminal case be transferred from one trial court to another?
  • Does a litigant's loss of confidence in a trial judge constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a case?
  • What is the significance of judicial patience and impartiality in the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and others vs Waqar Hussain Shah and 13 others2025 MLD 189 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem Baloch vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2025 MLD 99 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Mandhai vs The State2025 SHC KHI 2096 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-25
  registration of FIRJustice of Peacecognizable offencecriminal miscellaneous applicationprocurement disputemala fide complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed the applicant's request to direct the Station House Officer (SHO) to register an FIR against the respondent. The applicant alleged that the respondent, an officer of the D.G. Park Baldia Uzma Frere Hall, Karachi, used abusive language and issued threats of murder during a procurement-related meeting. The respondent contended that the complaint was mala fide, intended to influence a separate civil action regarding the procurement, and asserted his presence was official. The applicant argued that the respondent was not a member of the Complaint Redressal Committee and that the alleged conduct constituted cognizable offences independent of the civil litigation. Upon review, the High Court found no defect in the impugned order. The Court held that neither the police compliance report nor the documents provided by the applicant established the commission of a cognizable offence. Consequently, the Court maintained the order of the Justice of Peace and dismissed the application, affirming that no case for the registration of an FIR was made out.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace refusing to direct the registration of an FIR when no cognizable offence is established?
  • Does the existence of a parallel civil dispute regarding procurement preclude the registration of an FIR for alleged threats made during a meeting?
  • Is the presence of an individual in a committee meeting, without official membership, sufficient to establish a cognizable offence when they are accused of verbal abuse and threats?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Khaskheli vs The District & Sessions Judge Kamber-2025 SHC LAR 2018 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-08
  pensionary benefitsvested rightservice record verificationsuperannuationjudicial stafffundamental rightsadministrative delay
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired Bailiff with 37 years of service, challenged the withholding of his pensionary benefits by the District & Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shahdadkot. The respondent cited discrepancies in the petitioner's domicile certificate and missing documents as grounds for withholding payment. The core legal question was whether pensionary benefits could be withheld based on trivial administrative discrepancies after decades of service. The Court held that pension is a vested right, not charity, and the department, as the custodian of service records, cannot raise objections regarding documents after an employee has served for 37 years without complaint. The Court found the withholding of benefits illegal, unjustified, and a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights. It directed the respondent to process and release the pensionary benefits within a specified timeframe. The judgment establishes that pensionary benefits cannot be withheld on trivial pretexts, and departmental heads are obligated to ensure the swift processing of retirement benefits, as any delay constitutes a failure of duty and a violation of the retiree's rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can pensionary benefits be withheld by the department on the ground of trivial discrepancies in service documents after decades of service?
  • Is the payment of pension to a retired civil servant a vested right or a discretionary act of the employer?
  • Does the head of a department have the authority to withhold pensionary benefits due to alleged discrepancies in a domicile certificate submitted years prior?
  • What is the legal obligation of a department regarding the timely processing of pensionary benefits for a retired employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Commissioner for Workers Compensation and Others2025 SHC KHI 2091 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Alim Quadri vs Rauf Ahmed Rufi and another2025 SHC 114 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
• Abdar Khan son of Abdul Jabbar Khan vs Shahid son of Muhammad2025 SHC 358 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aamir Ali & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2025 SHC KHI 2113 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-27
  deputationpermanent absorptionrepatriationcivil serviceFIA (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules 1975constitutional petitionlegitimate expectation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, police constables from the Sindh Police serving on deputation within the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), filed a constitutional petition seeking permanent absorption into the FIA. The core legal question was whether deputationists possess a legal right to be permanently absorbed into the borrowing department upon the expiry of their deputation term. The court dismissed the petition, holding that deputation is inherently temporary and does not confer a right to permanent absorption. The court ruled that the FIA (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1975, do not authorize such absorption, and upon the expiry of the deputation term, the petitioners must be repatriated to their parent department. The key principle laid down is that civil servants on deputation have no guaranteed right to remain in a post indefinitely, and the absorption of deputationists into cadre posts is legally impermissible, as it undermines competitive recruitment processes. The court emphasized that transfer and absorption are distinct concepts and that absorption is only permissible under specific statutory exceptions, such as for surplus staff.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a legal right to permanent absorption into the borrowing department upon the expiry of their deputation term?
  • Do the FIA (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1975, authorize the permanent absorption of deputed provincial police officers into the Federal Investigation Agency?
  • Is the repatriation of a deputationist to their parent department after the expiry of their deputation term legally permissible?
  Read full judgment →
• A. Qutubuddin Khan (d/b/a "QM R Expert Consultants") and others vs2025 SHC 618 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-18Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs The State and others2024 SHC 1226 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11
  criminal appealcheatingforgerybenefit of the doubtappraisal of evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotri, convicting the appellant under sections 467, 468, and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly providing a fake online bank slip to purchase cigarettes through deception. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the prosecution had successfully proved the charge of forgery and cheating beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, omissions in the FIR, lack of handwriting verification, and failure to investigate the actual account holder. The key principle laid down is that if a single circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of an accused, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as an inalienable right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a charge of forgery and cheating?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Does a conviction stand when prosecution witnesses suffer from material contradictions and important facts are omitted from the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ahmed Chachar and others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 420 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Zorlu Enerji Pakistan Ltd. vs Naseem Banu & others2024 SHC 340 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
• Ziauddin Ahmed & Co. (Pvt.) Limited vs Karachi Shipyard & Engineering2023 SHC 708, 2024 CLD 1170, 2024 PLD Sindh 374 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-31Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Younus vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 672, 2025 CLC 363 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-20Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan vs The State2024 SHC 920 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-04
  retrospective punishmentex post facto lawnarcotics controlcharas recoverysentence modificationconstitutional protectioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Control of Narcotics Substances, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(1) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997, as amended by the Control of Narcotics Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022, for possessing 1160 grams of charas. The core legal question was whether an accused can be sentenced under an amended penal statute retrospectively for an offence committed prior to its promulgation. The Sindh High Court held that Article 12 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 protects individuals against retrospective punishment, prohibiting penalties greater than or different from those prescribed at the time the offence was committed. The court laid down the principle that ex post facto criminal legislation cannot be applied to impose a heavier punishment than what was applicable when the crime was committed, modifying the appellant's sentence in accordance with the law prevailing at the time of the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted and sentenced under an amended penal statute retrospectively for an offence committed prior to its promulgation?
  • Does Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan prohibit the imposition of a greater penalty than the one prescribed at the time the offence was committed?
  • How does the constitutional protection against ex post facto legislation apply to amendments enhancing punishments under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan vs P.O Sindh & others2024 SHC 472, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 547 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14
  deceased quotacivil service appointmentconstitutional petitionrecruitment ruleseligibility criteriaSindh Civil Servants Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Zeeshan, filed a constitutional petition seeking appointment as a Police Constable in the Sindh Police Department under the deceased quota, following the death of his brother during service. The petitioner contended he was eligible for the position. Conversely, the respondents argued that the deceased quota policy does not extend to siblings, noting that the petitioner failed to meet the physical eligibility criteria (specifically, a one-inch chest deficiency) and that the deceased quota cannot be invoked a second time for the same family. The Sindh High Court examined Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, Transfer) Rules, 1974, which restricts the deceased quota to the children of a deceased civil servant. The Court held that the petitioner, being a brother, did not fall within the scope of the rule. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that appointments to the police force must adhere to prescribed recruitment criteria, including physical standards, and cannot be bypassed through quota claims not supported by law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the deceased quota under Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, Transfer) Rules 1974 extend to the siblings of a deceased civil servant?
  • Can a candidate be appointed to the police force without meeting the physical eligibility criteria prescribed in the recruitment rules?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable for a claim of appointment under the deceased quota when the petitioner does not meet the statutory requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Mughal and others vs Export Processing Zone Authority & others2024 SHC 1048, 2024 PLJ Karachi 167 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Malik vs Muhammad Nasir and 5 others2024 PCRLJ 1163 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-19
  acquittal appealpremature acquittaldouble presumption of innocenceillegal dispossessionfruitless trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal was filed under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 8(A) of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, challenging the trial court's order acquitting the respondents under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the material on record and prematurely acquitted the respondents. The High Court examined the scope of Section 265-K, noting that the provision empowers trial courts to acquit an accused at any stage of the trial if there is no probability of conviction, thereby preventing fruitless trials and saving judicial time. The Court held that an order of acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and can only be interfered with if it is capricious, perverse, arbitrary, or based on a gross misreading of evidence. Finding no such infirmity in the trial court's reasoned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential pre-requisites for a trial court to exercise its powers of acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court exercise its powers under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on its own motion without a formal application by the accused?
  • On what grounds can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan @ Salman son of Saleem vs The State2024 SHC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-08
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesprohibitory clauselesser punishmentfurther inquirycharas possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Zeeshan @ Salman, who was charged with the possession of 3170 grams of charas under Section 9(i) and 3-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amended) Act, 2022. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the statutory punishment range for the alleged offence and the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that since the statute provides for a punishment range, the lesser punishment of nine years should be considered at the bail stage. Because this lesser punishment does not exceed the threshold of the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court further noted that the applicant was not a previous convict and that the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to the furnishing of solvent surety.

  Questions settled

  • Should the lesser of two punishments provided by a statute be considered when determining bail?
  • Does an offence carrying a minimum punishment of nine years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the pendency of other criminal cases a sufficient ground to deny bail to an accused who is not a previous convict?
  Read full judgment →
• Zamir Hussain & others vs Abdul Khalique & others2024 SHC 386 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →
• Zain Pervez vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1014 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-03Read full judgment →
• Zahur vs S.S.P District Badin & Others2024 SHC 1194 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-21Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed S/O Umer Khan & 02 Ors vs The State2024 SHC 738 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-08
  post-arrest bailfree fightcounter versionfurther inquiryattempt to murdergunshot injurieshabitual offenders
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail before the High Court of Sindh in a case registered under Sections 324, 109, 34, 337-F(iii), and 337-F(iv) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an armed clash between rival groups. The prosecution contended that indiscriminate firing took place between rival gangs, relying on the applicants' criminal record. Conversely, the defence argued that the incident was a free fight involving counter-versions where both sides sustained gunshot injuries, making it uncertain which party was the aggressor. The Court observed that essential ingredients under Section 324 PPC, such as intent and surrounding circumstances, alongside the mutual injuries sustained by both the complainant's side and the accused, necessitated determination by the trial court. Emphasizing that bail is a rule and refusal an exception in free fight scenarios, and noting that the case required further inquiry, the High Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicants subject to furnishing adequate surety.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the grant of post-arrest bail is the rule when injuries are sustained on both sides during a free fight between rival groups?
  • Does the mere pendency of other criminal cases or criminal record ipso facto disentitle an accused from the concession of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether an incident involving a mutual clash with cross-injuries calls for further inquiry into the question of determination of the aggressor for the purposes of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah and others vs The State2024 MLD 813 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-28
  narcoticsCNS Actchain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of the doubtcriminal appealsafe custodyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, which resulted in life imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically concerning the integrity of the chain of custody, safe transmission of narcotics samples to the chemical examiner, and material contradictions in police testimony. The Sindh High Court held that numerous contradictions among prosecution witnesses, failure to prove safe custody and safe transmission of the recovered contraband, and the non-production of the vehicle used in the alleged crime vitiated the prosecution case. The court laid down the principle that a broken chain of custody renders the chemical examiner's report unreliable, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a break in the chain of custody and safe transmission of narcotic samples render the chemical examiner's report unreliable for sustaining a conviction?
  • Whether material contradictions between the testimonies of the complainant and the mashir are fatal to the prosecution's case in a narcotics trial?
  • Is the mere heinousness of a charge or the recovery of a large quantity of contraband sufficient to dispense with the proof of safe custody of case property?
  • Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahidullah Khan vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority & Others2024 SHC 1080 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-16Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2024 SHC 1234 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1104 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain & 15 others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 214 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-13Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ali vs P.O Sindh & Others2024 SHC 368 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hassan Khan vs Habib Bank Limited2024 CLD 25 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-30Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hasan Khan and 2 others vs Messrs Habib Bank Limited2024 CLC 1068 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-15Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmed Shaikh s/o Abdul Hakeem vs Province of Sindh and others2024 SHC 326, 2025 MLD 14 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
• Younis son of Abdul Aziz Katohar and others vs The State2024 SHC 1314 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-11
  criminal appealdacoitybenefit of doubtdelayed FIRmashirnamaSection 103 CrPCacquittalevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 397, Section 149, Section 337-A(i), and Section 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity and causing injuries. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the impact of unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the consequences of violating Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the association of independent witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt, citing material contradictions in witness testimony, an inordinate nine-hour delay in lodging the FIR without explanation, and the failure to associate independent mashirs during the arrest process. Furthermore, the complainant and injured witnesses filed affidavits stating the appellants were not the real culprits. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants. The judgment reaffirms that the prosecution must prove its case to the hilt, and any reasonable doubt arising from evidence, procedural lapses, or contradictions must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging an FIR cast doubt on the entire prosecution case?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during arrest or recovery a violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused when material contradictions exist in the prosecution's evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant and injured witnesses testify that the accused were falsely implicated due to a misunderstanding?
  Read full judgment →
• Yaseen Balouch vs The State2024 MLD 703 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-11Read full judgment →
• Yaseen Ahmed Khaki vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 482 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Water & Power Development Authority & another vs Kadir Bakhsh &2024 SHC 1316 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wateen Telecom (Pvt.) Limited through Authorized Officer vs Abdul Sattar2024 PLC 237 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-06
  difference of wagestrans-provincial entityminimum wagesalternative remedyjurisdictioninquiryconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a decision awarding wage differences and compensation to private respondents under the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, bypassing the statutory appeal remedy on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, failure to conduct a proper inquiry, and because a co-respondent had already filed an appeal. The core legal question concerned the validity of the impugned decision regarding a trans-provincial entity, the necessity of an inquiry under the Act, and whether the alternative remedy bar applied. The Sindh High Court held that the authority failed to properly address jurisdictional objections and omitted the mandatory inquiry regarding claims made on behalf of numerous workers, particularly when the underlying minimum wage notification was set aside by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petition was accepted, the impugned decision was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the authority for a fresh decision after determining the issue of jurisdiction first.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a wage authority decision when a co-respondent has filed an appeal and the entire awarded amount is deposited?
  • Is a statutory authority required to conduct a proper inquiry under Section 15 of the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, when claims are advanced on behalf of numerous workers?
  • Whether the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, applies to trans-provincial entities or if the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, governs them?
  • Does an authority under the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015, have the duty to address objections regarding its jurisdiction and maintainability before awarding claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Hussain Shah vs Sindh Industrial Estate (Site) & others2024 SHC 490 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Waqar Ali Awan vs The State/NAB2024 PCr. LJ 2041 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-17
  accountabilitycorruptionmisappropriation of wheatmitigating circumstancesreduction of sentencesentence already undergonenational accountability ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Accountability Court, Sukkur, wherein the appellant, Waqar Ali Awan, was convicted under Sections 9 and 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for corruption and corrupt practices relating to the misappropriation of wheat stock, resulting in a sentence of 14 years rigorous imprisonment and a substantial fine. During the appeal, the appellant's counsel conceded to the prosecution's case on merits and pressed solely for a reduction in sentence, citing mitigating factors including the appellant's advanced age, deteriorating health, and the fact that he had already served over 12 years in custody. The Sindh High Court examined the record, affirmed that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and addressed the sole issue of sentencing. Holding that sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion involving the assessment of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the Court maintained the conviction but exercised its powers under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone, while upholding the fine and statutory disqualifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone based on mitigating circumstances such as age and health?
  • Is the infliction of conviction and sentencing a mechanical exercise or does it require the conscious application of judicial discretion?
  • Can a conviction under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 be maintained while modifying the substantive sentence of imprisonment?
  • How should a court exercise its discretion in determining a fair and adequate sentence commensurate with the gravity of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Ahad Khan vs Mumtaz Ali Mallah & others2024 SHC 1110 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24
  transfer of criminal caseSection 526 CrPCthreats to complainantfair trialspeedy trialJudicial Magistrate KhiproDistrict Judge Sanghar
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Transfer Application under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was brought by the complainant seeking the transfer of Criminal Case No. 117/2024 from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Khipro, to any other competent court in Mirpurkhas, Umerkot, Nawabshah, or elsewhere. The complainant alleged that the accused persons had issued direct death threats warning him not to pursue the case or record his evidence at Khipro. The presiding trial magistrate submitted comments stating no objection to the transfer, noting the trial was stalled at the evidence stage. The High Court observed that while case transfers are exceptional remedies intended to serve the ends of justice without curtailing parties' rights, the preservation of human life takes precedence. Holding that judicial propriety required an objective local assessment, the High Court referred the matter to the Sessions Judge/District Judge, Sanghar, to determine the feasibility of transferring the trial to another competent court within District Sanghar after hearing the parties to ensure a safe, smooth, and speedy trial.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a criminal trial be transferred from one court to another under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether allegations of life threats by the accused against a complainant justify referring a case for transfer to secure a fair and speedy trial?
  • Can the High Court direct a District Judge to determine the feasibility of transferring a criminal case between subordinate courts within the same district?
  Read full judgment →
• Wakeel vs The State2024 PCRLJ 592 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-16
  narcotics possessionchain of custodychemical examiner reportweight discrepancycriminal appealacquittalindependent witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the Appellant for the possession of 1025 grams of charas, an offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the weight of the recovered narcotics. The Trial Court had convicted the Appellant based on the police testimony and the Chemical Examiner's report. Upon review, the High Court found that the weight of the charas recorded in the FIR and seizure memo differed from the weight reported by the Chemical Examiner, creating a fatal ambiguity regarding the identity of the substance analyzed. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of independent witnesses despite the police having prior information. The court held that such discrepancies and the failure to maintain an unbroken chain of custody render the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing that the prosecution must prove an indisputable chain of custody to secure a conviction in narcotics cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between the weight of narcotics recorded at the time of seizure and the weight reported by the Chemical Examiner create reasonable doubt?
  • Is the prosecution required to establish an unbroken chain of custody for narcotic samples to sustain a conviction?
  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 completely absolve the police from associating private witnesses in recovery proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ali Rind Baloch vs R.O PS-76 & Others2024 SHC 64 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
• Waheed Akhtar vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1366 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-17Read full judgment →
• Virgoz Oils & Fats Pte. Limited vs Faisal Exports (Pvt.) Limited2024 SHC 834 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-05Read full judgment →
• Uzair Saboor and others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 358 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Usuf Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Muhammad Sabir Chippa and another2024 CLC 1279 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-21Read full judgment →
• Usman Ghani vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1284 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-22Read full judgment →
• Yasir Kalwar vs Mst. Farzeen & others2024 SHC 982, 2025 PLD Sindh 134 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24Read full judgment →
• Usman Bajwa vs The State & others2024 SHC 1190 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Universal Recycling through authorized Representative vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division_Chairman FBR and 2 others2024 PTD 754 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-18Read full judgment →
• Unity Foods Ltd vs Security & Exchange Commission of Pakistan & another2024 SHC 938, 2025 CLD 86 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-11Read full judgment →
• United Refrigeration Industries Limited & Dawlance (Private) Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal Zone, Large Taxpayer Office, Karachi and others2024 SHC 1006 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Ghulam Nabi Sheikh2024 CLD 864 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-03Read full judgment →
• Umed Ali alias Umedo Narejo vs The State2024 MLD 546 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-02
  police encounterbenefit of doubtcriminal appealindependent investigationevidentiary lacunaFIR delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for offences arising from an alleged police encounter. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite significant evidentiary gaps. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, extending the benefit of doubt. The Court established that in cases of police encounters, the standard of proof is higher, and it is imperative that the investigation be conducted by an independent agency rather than the police investigating their own cause. The prosecution's case was found to be unnatural and unreliable due to an unexplained delay in FIR registration, the failure to explain how police identified the accused, the non-production of crucial documentary evidence like the Roznamcha entry, and the failure to send recovered weapon empties for forensic analysis. Furthermore, the Court held that general allegations and the absence of independent witnesses in a daytime incident, where such witnesses were available, render the prosecution's narrative insufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained in a police encounter case where the police act as the investigators of their own cause?
  • Does the failure to send recovered weapon empties for forensic analysis create a fatal gap in the prosecution's case?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to explain a significant delay in the registration of the FIR?
  • Does the failure to produce key documentary evidence like a Roznamcha entry undermine the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Umair Tariq Bijrani vs The State & Ors2024 SHC 198 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ubedullah S/O Gul Muhammad vs The State2024 SHC 720 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-03
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayjuvenile offendernarcotics traffickingCNS Actpassenger in vehicleprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 6(5) of the Juvenile Justice System Act 2018, arising out of an F.I.R. registered under Sections 6/9(c) and 14/15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The applicant sought bail primarily on statutory delay grounds, having been incarcerated for over two years without conclusion of trial, and on the ground of being a juvenile offender aged approximately 14 years at the time of arrest. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the statutory delay proviso to offences carrying the death penalty under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and the entitlement of a juvenile and passenger in a vehicle containing narcotics to post-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the applicant was entitled to bail as a matter of right due to unconscionable statutory delay not attributable to him, his status as a juvenile, and his mere passenger status in the vehicle. The court laid down the principle that statutory delay rights under Section 497 Cr.P.C. apply to narcotics cases notwithstanding the bar under Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, and that minors and vulnerable persons are entitled to favourable consideration for bail even in prohibitory clause offences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted on the ground of statutory delay under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 despite the bar contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is an accused who is a juvenile and has been detained for a prolonged period without conclusion of trial entitled to post-arrest bail as of right?
  • Does a passenger sitting in a vehicle from which narcotics are recovered incur a prima facie liability sufficient to deny bail without proof of active connection?
  • What constitutes a shocking and unconscionable delay in a trial sufficient to warrant the concession of bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ubaidullah Qazi vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 SHC 906 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-04
  civil servicemutual transferabsorptionrepatriationsurplus civil servantservice lawwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, sought a writ to enforce Supreme Court judgments regarding the repatriation of a respondent civil servant from the Federal Finance Division to his parent department, the Appellate Tribunal Local Councils (ATLC), Government of Sindh. The parties had previously engaged in a mutual transfer arrangement. The core legal question was whether the absorption of the respondent into the Federal Finance Division was legally permissible, given the Supreme Court's established jurisprudence against unauthorized absorption of civil servants. The Court held that the purported absorption of the respondent was invalid, as it did not comply with Section 11A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which only permits absorption for civil servants rendered surplus due to reorganization or abolition of posts. The Court emphasized that absorption contrary to statutory provisions and Supreme Court precedents is illegal. Consequently, the Court directed the Finance Division to repatriate the respondent to his parent department and allowed the petitioner to rejoin the Finance Division, rejecting the argument that such unauthorized absorptions constitute past and closed transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be absorbed into a new department based on a mutual transfer arrangement?
  • Does Section 11A of the Civil Servants Act 1973 permit the absorption of a civil servant who is not surplus?
  • Is an absorption of a civil servant that violates established Supreme Court precedents considered a past and closed transaction?
  Read full judgment →