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.

• Tufail Ahmed Soomro vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1374 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-19
  constitutional petitionabsorptionrepatriationsurplus poolcivil servantprivatization
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former supervisor at Pak-Saudi Fertilizers, whose service was transferred and absorbed into the Sindh Local Government Board, seeking adjustment in a government department and payment of salary in Grade-19 pursuant to Supreme Court judgments. The core legal question was whether a non-civil servant whose privatized parent department ceased to exist could claim benefits, surplus pool placement, or adjustment under Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act 1973 or Supreme Court repatriation directives. The Sindh High Court held that non-civil servants governed by separate contracts do not fall under the category of individuals covered by Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act 1973 and cannot be accommodated via surplus pools meant for civil servants. The court laid down the principle that while Supreme Court judgments in rem apply broadly, statutory mechanisms for surplus absorption like Section 11-A are strictly restricted to civil servants and do not extend to employees of privatized corporate entities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a non-civil servant from a privatized entity can be accommodated in a surplus pool under Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  • Does Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act 1973 apply to employees whose terms and conditions are governed by separate employment contracts rather than civil service laws?
  • How are employees affected by the nullification of illegal absorptions and the privatization of their parent organizations to be treated under Supreme Court precedents?
  Read full judgment →
• Trustees of Port of Karachi & others vs Muhammad Zahir Shah & others2024 SHC 828, 2024 CLC 1862 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-30Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan vs Sadan General Trading LLC & another2024 SHC 1354, 2025 CLC 525 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan vs Mv Han Zhong Men through Master_Chief Officer and 3 others2024 PLD Sindh 174 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Punjab Trading Agency2024 SHC 408 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-09Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner Inland2024 SHC 908, 2024 PTD 1571 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-05Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs The State2024 SHC 926 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-02
  constitutional petitionindustrial relationsworkman definitionvoluntary retirement schemepensionary benefitsmerger of corporationsNIRC orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition was filed by the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited impugning the concurrent decisions of the Single Member and Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission, Karachi, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the order granting pensionary and regular service benefits to Respondent No. 1. The core legal questions involved whether an employee who opted for a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) but whose services were retained continuously through corporate mergers is entitled to past service regularization and pensionary benefits, and whether a person holding the designation of Assistant Manager falls within the definition of a 'workman' under labor laws. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of the NIRC were passed within lawful authority and jurisdiction, that appraisal of evidence cannot be re-opened in writ jurisdiction absent perversity or excess of jurisdiction, and that the nature of duties—not mere job designation—determines whether an employee is a workman. The Court laid down that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked as a substitute for an appeal where no jurisdictional defect exists, and that an employee's status as a workman is governed by the actual manual or operational nature of their duties rather than their formal title.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised as a substitute for an appeal against orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  • Does an employee holding the designation of an Assistant Manager fall within the definition of a workman under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Whether the status of an employee as a workman is determined by their job designation or by the actual nature of their duties and functions?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact rendered by the National Industrial Relations Commission open to interference under Article 199 of the Constitution in the absence of perversity or jurisdictional error?
  Read full judgment →
• Trade Smart Securities (Private) Limited vs Securities & Exchange2024 SHC 1334, 2025 PLD Sindh 151, 2025 CLD 620 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-13Read full judgment →
• Touqeer Ali Kalwar and another vs The State2024 YLR 126 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-26
  capital punishmentright to fair trialstate counselcross-examinationappeal against acquittalremandbenefit of doubtmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, acquittal appeal, and confirmation reference arose from a judgment passed by the I-Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC), Ghotki, convicting the appellant Tauqeer under sections 302(b) and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death, while acquitting the co-accused. The primary legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the appellant was denied a fair trial and the right to effective legal representation when his state-appointed counsel failed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and merely adopted the co-accused's questions, and whether the acquittal of the other co-accused warranted interference. The court held that the trial judge failed in his statutory duty under Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to ascertain the truth when the defense counsel was ineffective, resulting in a miscarriage of justice with respect to the appellant. However, the acquittal of the co-accused was maintained as they enjoyed a double presumption of innocence and were implicated solely on weak suspicion and hearsay. The court set aside the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, answered the confirmation reference in the negative, dismissed the acquittal appeal, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a de novo opportunity of cross-examination and re-decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a state-appointed counsel to cross-examine prosecution witnesses constitutes a denial of a fair trial requiring a remand of the case?
  • What is the scope of a trial judge's power under Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 to question witnesses when defense counsel fails to adequately represent the accused?
  • Can an order of acquittal be interfered with when the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence and the prosecution relies on mere suspicion and hearsay?
  • Is an accused who has been convicted and sentenced to death entitled to be released on bail upon the remand of his case for retrial or fresh cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• The State/ANF vs Muhammad Javeed2024 SHC 1322 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-05
  re-examination of witnessSection 540 CrPCevidentiary lacunadiscretionary power of courtcriminal trial procedureAnti-Narcotics Force
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the order of the Special Court-I (CNS), Karachi, which dismissed the prosecution's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the re-examination of a prosecution witness. The prosecution sought to recall the witness to testify regarding the handing over of a sample parcel to a parcel witness, claiming this was an inadvertent omission during the initial examination. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the re-examination of a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to rectify an alleged evidentiary lacuna. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's decision was justified as the witness had already been fully examined and cross-examined. The Court affirmed that while Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants courts broad powers to summon or re-examine witnesses to ensure a just decision, this discretionary power cannot be utilized merely to fill evidentiary lacunas or permit a party to improve its case after the conclusion of testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Can Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked by the prosecution to fill evidentiary lacunas?
  • Is a trial court's refusal to recall a witness for re-examination under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to interference if the witness has already been cross-examined?
  • What is the scope of the court's discretion under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the re-examination of witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Talib Hussain & another2024 SHC 82 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Umar Kamal2024 SHC 1240 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Shaikh Kaiser Waheed and another2024 SHC 1318 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-05
  case propertysuperdarinarcotics seizureperishable goodsrelease of propertyinventoryControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the State against the trial court's judgment releasing 744 cartons of medicine seized alongside prohibited narcotic tablets in a container. The core legal questions involved whether these unrelated cartons of medicine constituted case property necessary for the trial and whether they were liable for confiscation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Sindh High Court held that since the investigating officer confirmed no incriminating articles were found in the 744 cartons and the items risked perishing if detained, the trial court's order releasing the medicines on superdari with a proper inventory was justified and reasonable. The court laid down the principle that perishable goods or items unrelated to an offense and found not to be incriminating should not be detained indefinitely to rot, and the trial court has the authority to order their release on appropriate security after ensuring an inventory is prepared.

  Questions settled

  • Whether cartons of medicine unrelated to seized narcotics and containing no incriminating articles are liable for indefinite detention as case property?
  • Does a court have the authority to release perishable goods on superdari during the pendency of a trial?
  • Are vehicles or accompanying goods automatically liable to confiscation under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when carrying lawfully imported substances alongside narcotics?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Manoo Kolhi2024 SHC 150 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-31
  criminal acquittal appealdouble presumption of innocencemurderappreciation of evidencedelay in FIRreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondent of murder charges under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence, and whether the prosecution had established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court’s judgment was well-reasoned and free from illegality. The Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from significant flaws, including an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, failure to prove motive, and lack of independent corroboration. The Court reaffirmed the principle that in an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is doubled, and appellate interference is limited to cases where the trial court’s findings are arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the acquittal, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of appellate interference in a criminal acquittal appeal?
  • Does the doctrine of double presumption of innocence apply to appeals against acquittal?
  • Can an acquittal be set aside when the prosecution fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for a significant delay in lodging the FIR?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to establish guilt in the absence of reliable ocular evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Faqir Hussain2024 SHC 880, 2025 PCRLJ 913 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-22
  revision applicationplea of guiltnarcotic substanceillegal sentencebailControl of Narcotic Substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed by the State through ANF against the judgment dated 16.01.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge CNS-1 Karachi, whereby the private respondent was convicted on a so-called plea of guilt made through a subsequent application during trial and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years without imposing a mandatory fine, for possessing and transporting 65 kg of Charas. The core legal question was whether an accused can plead guilty at a subsequent stage of trial via an application and whether the imposed sentence was lawful. The Sindh High Court held that the law does not permit accepting a plea of guilt at a subsequent stage of the trial, and since the recovered narcotic substance exceeded 10 kg, it entailed a much harsher punishment under the law. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment, directed the trial court to proceed with the case per law, and allowed the respondent to remain on bail subject to fresh surety.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court accept the plea of guilt of an accused made through an application at a subsequent stage of the trial?
  • Does the recovery of narcotic substances exceeding 10 kg entail a mandatory sentence of death or imprisonment for life and fine?
  • Whether an appellate or revisional court can set aside a patently illegal sentence and remand the matter for fresh disposal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Anwar Ali Brohi and others2024 PLD Sindh 165 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-09
  contempt of courtcriminal contemptunconditional apologyjudicial officerillegal detentionhabeas corpuspolice high-handednesssui generis proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a contempt reference made by a Sessions Judge after police officials at a police station—including an SHO and constables—physically assaulted, abused, and wrongfully confined a judicial magistrate who was executing a surprise raid pursuant to a habeas corpus petition under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The contemnors snatched official and personal items from the magistrate and obstructed him from discharging his lawful duties. The core legal question concerned the liability of the police officials for criminal contempt and the legal effect of their subsequent unconditional apologies. The Sindh High Court held that the acts of the contemnors constituted grave criminal contempt aimed at obstructing the administration of justice and undermining the judiciary. Although an unconditional apology admits guilt and obviates the need for a full trial, the court convicted the contemnors while adopting a lenient stance due to their remorse. The court laid down that interfering with judicial officers executing lawful warrants constitutes serious criminal contempt, and while unconditional apologies signify remorse, courts retain discretion to impose sentences while considering mitigating circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the tendering of an unconditional apology in contempt proceedings obviate the need for framing a charge and recording evidence?
  • Whether physical assault and wrongful confinement of a judicial magistrate during a court-ordered raid constitutes criminal contempt?
  • Can a court accept an unconditional apology while still convicting and sentencing a contemnor based on the gravity of the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• The Director, Directorate General of Intelligence & Investigation-FBR, Regional Office, Karachi vs M_s. Sun Shine Company Airport Road, Gawadar2023 SHC 692, 2024 PTD 325 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-06Read full judgment →
• The D. G. Customs Valuation, Karachi & others vs M/s. A.A. Tyre , Karachi2024 SHC 700 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Time Press (Private) Limited vs Sui Southern Gas Company & Others2024 SHC 1244 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-15Read full judgment →
• The Standard Chartered Bank Pakistan Ltd. vs Nasim Ahmed & others2024 SHC 506 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
• The Collector, Collectorate of Customs, Hyderabad vs M/s. Frontier2024 SHC 16 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
• The Collector, Collectorate of Customs, Hyderabad vs Fazal Qadeer S/o2024 SHC 1178, PTCL 2025 CL. 293 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• The Collector, Collectorate of Customs, Hyderabad vs Akhtar Ali S/o2024 SHC 856 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-06Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, through the Additional Collector of Customs2024 SHC 290 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Through Additional Collector of Customs MCC2024 SHC 86 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Karachi vs M/s. Maqsood Faisal Printing Press2024 SHC 876 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-19Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Karachi vs M/s. M.T. Baering, Karachi2024 SHC 1176 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Karachi vs M/s. Allmed Laboratories, Karachi &2024 SHC 1350, PTCL 2025 CL. 255 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-18Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs, Enforcement, Karachi vs M/s Taj Gasoline Pvt.2024 SHC 20 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-16Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs vs M/s. Dua International & Co.2024 SHC 994 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-26Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs through Additional Collector of Customs (Law), Model Customs Collectorate vs Messrs HKL Traders, Peshawar2024 PTD 595 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-27Read full judgment →
• Telephone Employees Coop House and others vs Province of Sindh &2024 SHC 1248 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Teerath vs Sht Beena2024 SHC 1088 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-26Read full judgment →
• TCB Aviation (Pvt.) Limited vs Sri Lankan Airlines Limited through Country2024 CLD 1145, 2024 PLD Sindh 387 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-17Read full judgment →
• Tarique Hussain Chajro vs P.O Sindh & Others2024 SHC 562 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23Read full judgment →
• Tariq Irshad son of Irshad Ellahi and others vs The State and others2024 SHC 830 · Sindh High Court
  forfeiture of assetsnarcotics smugglingjurisdiction of special courtControl of Narcotic Substances ActPrevention of Smuggling Actproceeds of crimemaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a forfeiture order passed by the Special Judge (Anti-Smuggling) regarding properties allegedly acquired through narcotics smuggling under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977. The core legal question was whether the Anti-Narcotics Force could initiate forfeiture proceedings under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, for assets allegedly derived from narcotics smuggling after the enactment of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and whether the evidence sufficiently established the nexus between the alleged smuggling and the property. The Court held that after the enactment of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, proceedings for forfeiting assets derived from narcotics smuggling must be conducted exclusively under that Act, rendering proceedings under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution failed to establish the necessary link between the alleged smuggling and the property acquisition. Consequently, the forfeiture order was set aside, and the appeal by the Anti-Narcotics Force was dismissed for lack of maintainability. The principle established is that the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, occupies the field for narcotics-related asset forfeiture, ousting the jurisdiction of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977.

  Questions settled

  • Can proceedings for the forfeiture of assets allegedly acquired through narcotics smuggling be initiated under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, after the enactment of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • Is the Anti-Narcotics Force considered an aggrieved person under section 43 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, to maintain an appeal against the dismissal of information?
  • Does the Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, possess jurisdiction to order the forfeiture of assets derived from narcotics smuggling?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain vs Ghulam Abbas Sangi and others2024 YLR 2795 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-09Read full judgment →
• Tameer Ali vs The State2024 SHC 1070 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-30
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryfirearm injurytentative assessmentpolice encounter
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant Tameer Ali seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No. 126 of 2024 registered at Police Station Matli for offences including sections 324, 353, 427, 147, 148, 149, 109, and 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the absence of a Medical Legal Certificate for the alleged firearm injury and lack of corroborative transport inspection reports concerning the alleged damage to the police vehicle. The court held that the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where essential corroborative evidence such as an MLC or expert vehicle damage report is missing to support specific grievous allegations, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the medical legal certificate supporting the alleged firearm injury is absent from the record?
  • Does the lack of a transport inspection report regarding damage to a police vehicle make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires tentative assessment of evidence regarding injury at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Talha Samoo S/O Ghulam Nabi vs The State2024 SHC 806 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-12
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquirycivil disputecriminal breach of trustmoney launderingrule of consistencybail as a rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Talha Samoo, in FIR No. 08/2023 registered at FIA ACC Karachi for offenses under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given that the dispute is civil in nature, the offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the rule of consistency applies with co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the dispute primarily appears to be a civil transaction regarding property dealings, the offenses do not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., and the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The court laid down the principle that bail in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal an exception, criminal proceedings cannot be used for the recovery of money in civil disputes, and the lesser punishment provided by statute is to be considered during bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil and business dispute can be converted into a criminal prosecution for the recovery of money through bail proceedings?
  • Does an offense carrying a maximum sentence of ten years where the statute uses the word 'may' fall strictly within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail by the trial court?
  • Does the mere pendency of other criminal cases without a conviction serve as an absolute bar to the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Taimoor Ali vs Messrs Continental Biscuits Ltd. through Factory Manager2024 PLC 287 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-30
  trans-provincial establishmentlabor court jurisdictionNational Industrial Relations Commissiongrievance applicationIndustrial Relations Act 2012constitutional petitionservice termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the judgment of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (SLAT), which had directed the return of the petitioner's grievance application for presentation before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The petitioner, a former employee of the respondent factory, had initially approached the Sindh Labour Court (SLC) regarding his dismissal. The core legal question was whether the respondent factory constituted a trans-provincial establishment, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of provincial labor courts in favor of the NIRC under federal law. The High Court upheld the SLAT's decision, affirming that once an establishment is determined to be trans-provincial, the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 applies, overriding provincial legislation pursuant to Article 143 of the Constitution. The Court held that the SLC lacked jurisdiction to entertain the grievance. Consequently, the High Court directed the SLC to transmit the application to the Registrar of the NIRC for adjudication on merits, emphasizing that provincial labor laws do not extend to trans-provincial entities.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 override provincial industrial relations laws for trans-provincial establishments?
  • Does a provincial labor court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a grievance application against a trans-provincial establishment?
  • What is the legal definition of a trans-provincial establishment under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• Taha Bin Abu Talha vs Ahsaan Yousuf2024 SHC 1422 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-10Read full judgment →
• Syeda Rubina Shahid vs Syed Shahrukh Abbas Zaidi & Others2024 SHC 886, 2025 MLD 544 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Ali Shah vs The Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary2024 PLC (C.S.) 267 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-17
  quo warrantoout of cadre postingown pay and scalerecruitment rulesterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunal jurisdictionpublic interest litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the notifications promoting and posting respondent No.3 to the post of Senior Headmaster and subsequently as District Education Officer (Primary) on an additional charge basis, arguing it violated recruitment rules and Supreme Court precedents against out-of-cadre postings and 'Own Pay and Scale' (OPS) assignments. The court examined whether a writ of quo warranto is maintainable and whether respondent No.3 met the qualifications and cadre requirements under the relevant recruitment rules. Holding that the appointment of respondent No.3 to the administrative posts was contrary to the recruitment rules and made without lawful authority, the court allowed the petition. It directed the Chief Secretary of Sindh to ensure compliance with Supreme Court judgments regarding transfers and postings and to fix responsibility on the delinquents responsible for the unlawful postings.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan bar the High Court from entertaining a petition in service matters under Article 199?
  • Can a civil servant be appointed or posted to a higher post on an 'Own Pay and Scale' (OPS) or additional charge basis in violation of recruitment rules?
  • Is a writ of quo warranto available to challenge the holding of a public office by a person without legal warrant?
  • Do appointments and promotions made outside the prescribed administrative cadres and recruitment rules carry any legal sanction?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Wajahat Hussain Zaidi and another vs United Bank Limited2024 CLD 380 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Sharafat Hussain vs Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh2024 SHC 1236 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahzad Ali Shah vs The State & others2024 SHC 456 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13
  registration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peacecognizable offencecriminal miscellaneous applicationinfructuous petitionSection 22-A Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the applicant, Syed Shahzad Ali Shah, challenging an order passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood)/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Sukkur. The impugned order had allowed an application under Section 22-A & B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, directing the registration of an FIR against the applicant based on allegations of injury. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the challenge to the lower court's order remained maintainable following the subsequent registration of the FIR. During the proceedings, it was brought to the Court's attention that the police had already registered FIR No. 107 of 2024 against the applicant for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on the medical certificate provided. Consequently, the Court held that the primary grievance regarding the non-registration of the FIR had been rendered infructuous by the actual registration of the case. The Court disposed of the application, recalling its earlier interim order, and directed the aggrieved party to pursue appropriate legal remedies available under the law regarding the registered FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of an FIR render a pending application under Section 22-A & B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 infructuous?
  • Can a High Court interfere with an order of an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace once the underlying investigation has commenced through the registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Saulat Hussain Naqvi vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1056, 2024 PLJ Karachi 156, 2025 CLD 23 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Saqib Ali and others vs The State2024 SHC 1028 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-07
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausedelayed FIRfurther inquirycriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the applicants seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.198 of 2024 registered at Police Station Sharif Abad, Karachi, for offences under Sections 289, 380, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail considering the delay in lodging the FIR, the non-prohibitory nature of the alleged offences, and the absence of recoveries. The Court held that since the offences carried a maximum punishment not exceeding the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the prosecution failed to provide a plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in reporting the crime, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2). Consequently, the High Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants, laying down the principle that bail should generally be granted in non-prohibitory offences where further inquiry is warranted and no plausible justification for delayed reporting is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR makes a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the charged offences fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where recoveries of alleged stolen articles have not been effected by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Samar Hassan Shah vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others2024 MLD 343 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Qurban Ali Shah and others vs The State2024 SHC 438, 2025 YLR 246 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-18
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymedical evidence discrepancybenefit of doubtrecovery of weaponsSindh Arms Actattempted murder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns post-arrest bail applications filed by the accused in connection with FIRs registered under sections 324, 506(2), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 25 of the Sindh Arms Act 2013. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail given the apparent discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, finding that the case required further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The holding was based on significant contradictions between the FIR and the medico-legal certificates regarding the number of injuries and the date of the incident, as well as the failure to associate independent witnesses during the recovery of alleged crime weapons. The Court affirmed the principle that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused at the bail stage where the prosecution’s narrative is inconsistent with medical evidence and where the accused's continued detention serves no useful purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the bail stage?
  • Does a discrepancy between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during the recovery of weapons a ground for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muzaffar Ahmed Ashraf and others vs Anwar Ali Janwri and Others2024 SHC 114 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Kazim, Advocate and another vs Rub Razi Co-Operative2024 YLR 1668 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal vs Chief Sect: and Others2024 SHC 614 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal Shah vs The State2024 PCRLJ 444 · Sindh High Court · 2021-05-20
  circumstantial evidencelast-seen evidencemitigating circumstancescommutation of death sentencesodomy and murderjoint recoverychance witnesscapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for the abduction, sodomy, murder, and disappearance of evidence regarding a nine-year-old boy, sentencing him to death under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside sentences under sections 377 and 201. The core legal questions involved the reliability of circumstantial evidence, last-seen testimony by independent chance witnesses, and the admissibility of recoveries made pursuant to the appellant's information under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Sindh High Court held that the circumstantial evidence, including reliable last-seen evidence and the subsequent discovery of the victim's personal effects exclusively known to and pointed out by the appellant, formed an unbroken chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, considering that the case rested on circumstantial evidence and that the appellant was a young man of twenty-three years at the time of the incident, the court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life under section 302(b) and set aside the separate conviction under section 201 as erroneous in law. The key principle laid down is that where a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, the youth of the offender and the nature of circumstantial proof serve as mitigating circumstances justifying the substitution of a death sentence with imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can establish guilt solely through circumstantial evidence and last-seen testimony in a murder case?
  • Does the discovery of a deceased's personal effects upon the pointing out of an accused in custody fall within the scope of Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether the youthful age of an offender and the reliance on circumstantial evidence constitute valid mitigating circumstances for reducing a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can an accused be simultaneously convicted of murder under section 302 and causing the disappearance of evidence under section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 under the facts of the same transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ghous vs Mst. Najma and 7 others2024 CLC 900 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Asif Raees vs The State2024 PCRLJ 284 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-29
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtidentification paradeeye-witness testimonyforensic evidenceillegal arms possessionanti-terrorismfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and illegal arms possession. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of delayed eye-witness testimony and forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the crime scene. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt. The court found the eye-witnesses unreliable due to an unexplained three-month delay in reporting, the absence of prior descriptions, and procedural flaws in the identification parade. Furthermore, the court ruled that the alleged confession to law enforcement was inadmissible, and the forensic match was suspicious, suggesting the weapon was planted. The court emphasized that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the court reinforcing the principle that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay of three months in recording the statement of an eye-witness render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is a confession made before a police officer or a ranger's official admissible in evidence?
  • Does the failure to provide a prior description or hulia of the accused by an eye-witness undermine the validity of a subsequent identification parade?
  • Can an accused be acquitted if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt regarding their guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohsin Mahzar vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 128 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehmood Ali, Amjad Yousuf vs Amjad Yousuf, Syed Mehmood Ali2024 SHC 1050, 2024 PLJ Karachi 161 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Mansoor Ali Shah vs The State2024 MLD 915 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-21
  criminal appealoffshoot caseacquittalhostile witnessrecovery evidenceillicit armsdoubtful recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, for which he was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, while in custody for a separate murder case, led police to recover an illicit pistol. The core legal question is whether the appellant is entitled to acquittal in this arms recovery case, given that the recovery evidence was dubious and the case was an offshoot of a main murder case in which the appellant had already been acquitted. The Court found that the primary recovery witness turned hostile, denying the recovery process, thereby rendering the recovery highly doubtful. Furthermore, the Court held that where an accused has been acquitted in a main case, they are entitled to acquittal in a secondary case that is an offshoot of the main proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that the collapse of the main case necessitates the acquittal of the accused in related offshoot matters.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal in a secondary case if they have already been acquitted in the main case from which the secondary case originated?
  • Does the testimony of a hostile witness regarding the recovery of an illicit weapon render the recovery evidence doubtful?
  • Can a conviction be sustained in an offshoot case when the evidence supporting the recovery of the weapon is unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mansoob Ahmed Bukhari and 28 others vs Federation of Pakistan2024 YLR 713 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Mahmood Jaffar Zaidi vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1266 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Kazim Abbas Rizvi and others vs The State2024 PCRLJ 880 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-24
  in-court identificationidentification paradeballistic reportforensic evidencebenefit of doubttarget killingenhancement of sentenceanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeals and a criminal revision were filed challenging a judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court, Karachi, which convicted two appellants under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013. The case arose from a targeted armed attack resulting in a fatality and injury. The High Court reviewed the evidence against both appellants separately. As to appellant Nauman, the Court found no physical recovery or corroborative material, and held that in-court identification without a prior identification parade was insufficient; he was acquitted on benefit of doubt. Regarding appellant Syed Kazim Abbas, the Court found strong corroboration including matching forensic ballistic reports, positive fingerprint analysis on the crime weapon, and credible identification by an independent eyewitness in a properly conducted identification parade. Consequently, the High Court upheld Kazim's conviction and life imprisonment, finding the lesser sentence justified by mitigating circumstances, and dismissed the complainant's revision for sentence enhancement.

  Questions settled

  • Is in-court identification without a prior test identification parade sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of corroborative evidence?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on matching ballistic evidence, positive fingerprint analysis, and credible test identification parade evidence?
  • When is the sentence of life imprisonment preferred over the death penalty in a case of target killing?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Jehanzaib and Syed Murtaza Jillani vs The State2024 SHC 1398 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-10
  circumstantial evidencelast seen evidenceidentification paradebenefit of doubtrecovery of weaponcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences of the appellants, Syed Jehanzaib and Syed Murtaza Jillani, for the murder of two individuals. The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, specifically 'last seen' testimony, identification parade results, and the recovery of a weapon and stolen items. The core legal questions were whether the circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain leading exclusively to the appellants' guilt and whether the identification parade and recoveries were legally valid. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The 'last seen' evidence was found to be tenuous, lacking independent corroboration, and inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the time of death. Furthermore, the identification parade was flawed due to the potential prior exposure of the accused to witnesses, and the recoveries were deemed unreliable due to procedural failures, including the lack of safe custody of the weapon and the failure to record statements leading to discovery. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be maintained on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution fails to establish an unbroken chain of events?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine material witnesses warrant an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is a test identification parade valid if there is a possibility that the accused were shown to the witnesses prior to the parade?
  • Does the failure to prove safe custody and transmission of a crime weapon to a ballistic expert render the recovery evidence unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Inayat vs The State2024 YLR 913 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-21
  carnal intercoursebenefit of doubtcriminal jail appealdelay in FIRnon-examination of witnessacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenges the appellant's conviction under Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code for committing carnal intercourse. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the inconsistencies in evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, non-examination of material witnesses including the examining doctor and independent locals, and absence of corroborative seminal material. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the accused's guilt entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Does the non-examination of the medical officer who initially examined the victim create a material gap in the prosecution case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Iftikhar Haider Rizvi vs Vith Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi Central and others2024 MLD 1768 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Habib Haider Zaidi vs Syed Hussain Khursheed Bilgrami2024 SHC 244 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Furqan Ali S/O Syed Ashfaq Ali vs The State2024 SHC 716 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-02
  post-arrest baildishonest issuance of chequeprohibitory clausefinancial disputerecovery of moneycommercial transactionsecurity cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application arising out of F.I.R. No. 23/2024 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Eidgah Karachi, wherein the applicant was accused of issuing a dishonored cheque amounting to Rs. 15,000,000/- in connection with a marketing business transaction. The core legal question centered on whether the offense under Section 489-F PPC falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether bail should be granted when the transaction involves a civil dispute over commercial dealings and security cheques. The Sindh High Court held that the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., that Section 489-F PPC is not intended to be used as a coercive mechanism for the recovery of money, and that grant of bail in non-prohibitory offenses is a rule while refusal is an exception. The Court laid down that mere issuance of a cheque and its dishonor do not constitute an offense under Section 489-F PPC unless dishonest intent at the time of issuance and fulfillment of all statutory ingredients are prima facie established, and that criminal courts should not permit the misuse of criminal machinery for debt recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Can Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code be utilized as a coercive tool for the recovery of civil debts or loans?
  • What are the essential ingredients that must be established by the prosecution to constitute an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does the mere issuance of a cheque and its subsequent dishonor by itself constitute a criminal offense without proof of dishonest intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Feroze Ali vs M/s. Aurora Broadcasting Service (Pvt) Ltd and others2024 SHC 282, 2024 CLC 1190 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Dur Muhamamd Shah and others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 574 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Bachal Shah vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 608 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Ayaz Haider vs National Bank of Pakistan and 2 others2024 YLR 2773, 2024 CLD 1373 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Ayaz Ali Shah vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 524 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Ayaz Ali Shah vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 74 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Muhammad vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2024 PLC (C.S.) 954 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-29
  transfer and postingconstitutional petitionexecutive domainservice matternon-existent post
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged transfer and posting orders issued by the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) directing the petitioner, a Deputy Director (Finance), to report to the Standards Development Centre, Lahore. The core legal question concerned the scope of judicial interference under Article 199 of the Constitution in executive matters of postings and transfers, and whether an employee could be transferred to a post that allegedly did not exist under the departmental regulations. The Sindh High Court held that while transfers and postings are within the exclusive domain of the executive and ordinarily not amenable to constitutional jurisdiction unless vitiated by mala fide, transferring an employee to a non-existent post places them at a disadvantage regarding appointment and promotion. The court disposed of the petitions, directing the competent authority of PSQCA to ensure a proper posting is given to the petitioner in accordance with his appointment and promotion at Lahore. The key principle laid down is that executive transfers must align with the availability of posts and departmental rules so as not to prejudice the employee's service rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether transfer and posting of government officials can be interfered with under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does a government employee have a vested right to claim posting or transfer to a particular place of choice?
  • Can an employee be transferred to a post that does not exist under the applicable service regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Afsar alias Rizvi vs The State2024 YLR 947 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-24
  retracted judicial confessionbenefit of the doubtmurderanti-terrorismcriminal appealcorroborationconfessional statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for murder under Section 302(b)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Sections 6(1)(b), 7(1)(a), and 7(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, resulting in life imprisonment and fines. The core legal question was whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted judicial confession made after prolonged detention in law enforcement custody, in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the detailed retracted confession implausible, involuntary, and unsupported by independent corroborative evidence such as weapon recovery or pointing out unknown crime scenes. The court laid down the principle that while a retracted judicial confession can legally form the basis of a conviction if found true and voluntary, it is a matter of judicial prudence and caution that such a confession requires independent corroboration from an unimpeachable source, especially when the confession is vast, detailed, and obtained following prolonged custody.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted judicial confession form the sole basis for a conviction in a capital case without independent corroboration?
  • Whether a detailed judicial confession covering multiple historic crimes obtained after prolonged custody can be safely relied upon as voluntary?
  • Does pointing out a public crime scene already known to the police constitute valid corroborative evidence against an accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a retracted confession when the circumstances indicate it may not have been made voluntarily?
  Read full judgment →
• Surfactant Chemicals Company (Pvt) Ltd vs Directorate of Input Output2024 SHC 934, 2025 PTD 10 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• Suresh Kumar Manglani, Tehseen Haroon, Waqas Jawed vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-12Read full judgment →
• Sunni Ittehad Concil vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2024 SHC 204 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-08Read full judgment →
• Summair vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 1349 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-26
  robbery-cum-murdersole eye-witnessspot arrestfirearm recoveryfsl reportdeath sentence confirmationomission to frame chargeprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was tried and convicted by the Model Criminal Trial Court/1st Additional District and Sessions Judge (East), Karachi under sections 392/397, 302(b), and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving sentences including death and rigorous imprisonment, along with compensation orders under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case alleged that the appellant, during an armed robbery at a scrap shop, shot and killed the deceased and subsequently shot and injured the complainant while attempting to flee, before being apprehended on the spot by the public and police. The appellant challenged his conviction through an appeal, raising contentions regarding identification, medical evidence, and procedural irregularities concerning an amended charge. The Sindh High Court evaluated the evidence, addressed the procedural irregularity under section 535 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and held that the sole eyewitness testimony was natural, consistent, and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, including a positive FSL report matching the recovered weapon and empties. The court upheld the convictions and answered the murder reference in the affirmative, emphasizing the need for deterrent punishment in violent robberies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission to include an accused's name in an amended charge vitiates the trial under Section 535 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of a failure of justice?
  • Can a conviction for murder and robbery be safely sustained solely on the testimony of a sole eye-witness when corroborated by prompt lodging of the FIR and medical and forensic evidence?
  • Whether ocular evidence takes preference over medical evidence regarding the attribution of fatal injuries to an accused?
  • What is the legal effect of a positive Forensic Science Laboratory report matching recovered crime empties with a pistol seized from the accused upon arrest at the spot?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali Panhwar vs Vice Chancellor, University of Sindh, Jamshoro &2024 SHC 1212, 2025 MLD 148 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• Suleman Lalani and two others vs Aqeel Karim Dhedhi and another2024 SHC 620 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-30
  defamationissuance of processrevisional jurisdictionprima facie caseprivate complaintquashing of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from revision applications filed against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon a private complaint for defamation under Section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court applied its mind correctly and found sufficient grounds for issuing process against each of the accused persons, including corporate officers and relatives, alleged to be involved in a defamatory newspaper report. The Sindh High Court held that while revisional jurisdiction under Section 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be properly invoked to examine the legality and propriety of an order under Section 204, process cannot be issued against individuals without a prima facie case or specific allegations connecting them to the offense. The Court laid down the principle that at the stage of issuing process, a court must carefully scrutinize the complaint to ensure no person is subjected to unwarranted litigation without sufficient grounds or direct allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court examine the legality and propriety of an order issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through revisional jurisdiction?
  • What is the test for issuing process against an accused person under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether process can be issued against an accused in a defamation complaint without specific allegations connecting them to the publication or the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Sukhio Khan and others vs Ali Nawaz and 4 others2024 MLD 656 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-17Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. vs Irshad Ali Bhutto and Another2024 SHC 78, 2024 PLD Sindh 205 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
• Subash S/O Jayram vs The State2024 SHC 734 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-08
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausetentative assessmentattempted murdermedical evidencebail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Subash, under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an FIR registered under Sections 324, 147, 148, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously dismissed the bail plea on the grounds that the applicant was specifically nominated with the role of causing a sharp-edged weapon injury to the victim on a vital body part. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to the extraordinary discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail where prima facie material, medical evidence, and witness statements connected him to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant was nominated with a specific role, supported by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, and that the offense under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attracted the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be granted lightly where tentative assessment reveals reasonable grounds connecting the accused to a serious crime, and deeper appreciation of evidence is to be avoided at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is specifically nominated with a role involving a fatal injury on a vital body part?
  • Does an offense under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under appropriate circumstances?
  • To what extent can a court touch upon the merits of a case while considering an application for pre-arrest bail?
  • Is the statement of an injured victim sufficient at the tentative assessment stage to connect the accused with the crime for bail purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Ahsan Baseer Sheikh & others2024 SHC 360 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-29Read full judgment →
• Spec Engergy DMCC vs Pakistan Petroleum Limited & another2023 SHC 736, 2024 CLC 1549 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-18Read full judgment →
• Sona Khan and others vs The State2024 YLR 504 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-09
  criminal appealmurderalteration of sentencemitigating circumstancesdelayed forensic reportinstigationland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life for the murder of the deceased following a land dispute. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established its case through ocular and medical evidence, and whether the sentence warranted reduction or alteration in light of mitigating circumstances such as advanced age, role of mere instigation, delay in sending weapons to the forensic laboratory, and the substantial portion of the sentence already served. The Sindh High Court held that while the ocular and medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case regarding the occurrence and the cause of death, the mitigating factors—including the ninety-two-year-old appellant's role of instigation, the delay in forensic analysis, and the prolonged incarceration of the other appellant—justified modifying the conviction. The court laid down the principle that while concurrent findings on guilt based on reliable eye-witness and medical accounts may be maintained, appellate courts can alter convictions from intentional murder under Section 302(b) to sudden or mitigated circumstances under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the presence of strong mitigating factors.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the delay in sending offensive weapons to the forensic science laboratory is fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Can an appellate court alter a conviction under Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on mitigating factors like advanced age and length of incarceration?
  • Does a role limited to instigation warrant leniency in sentencing for a murder conviction?
  • Whether ocular evidence corroborated by medical testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction when minor discrepancies exist?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed Siddiqui vs The State2024 YLR 811 · Sindh High Court
  anti-terrorismmurderfirearm injurybenefit of the doubtweapon recoverydelayed FSL transmissiondefective investigationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Sohail Ahmed Siddiqui, challenged his conviction and death sentence awarded by the Anti-Terrorism Court for offences under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act 2013, arising from a terrorist attack resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the place of incident inspection memo, the credibility of the weapon recovery, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from fatal flaws, including fabricated inspection memos, unexplained delays in sending weapons to the FSL, violation of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding private mashirs, and failure to establish a safe chain of custody. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentences, extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a memo of inspection of the place of incident prepared in contradiction to the timeline of the complainant's hospital admission and medical evidence possesses any legal sanctity?
  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to associate private witnesses during the recovery of an alleged crime weapon violate the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the unverified chain of custody and delay in transmitting recovered crime empties and weapons to the Forensic Science Laboratory vitiates the prosecution's recovery evidence?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal by way of benefit of the doubt when the prosecution evidence is fraught with material discrepancies, overwriting, and doubtful recovery circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Sirbuland Khan vs Returning Officer PS 112 & others2024 SHC 928 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-12Read full judgment →
• Sindh Revenue Board and Commissioner Appeals-II, SRB vs M/s. Ali2024 SHC 978 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Silver Corrugators & Packages (Pvt) Ltd., Karachi vs Appellate Tribunal2024 SHC 910 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-09Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali Kolachi S/o Dost Muhammad Kolachi, Abdul Ghaffar Narejo2023 SHC 750, 2024 PCRLJ 1890 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-15
  functus officiocoram non judiceterritorial jurisdictiontransfer of judgescontempt of courtbar-bench relation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment passed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge convicting the appellants under section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following a dispute between the Bar and the Bench. The core legal question was whether a judgment rendered by a judge after the issuance of a notification transferring him with immediate effect from that territorial jurisdiction is valid. The Sindh High Court held that upon transfer, the judge became functus officio regarding that jurisdiction and lacked territorial authority, rendering any subsequent judicial actions coram non judice and null and void. The key principle laid down is that a judge who is transferred with immediate effect loses the mandate and territorial jurisdiction to conduct proceedings or deliver judgments in their former station, making such acts void ab initio.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judge rendered functus officio upon transfer retain jurisdiction to pass judgments in their former station?
  • Whether proceedings conducted by a judge who has lost territorial jurisdiction are vitiated as coram non judice?
  • Can a judge issue a valid judgment after the issuance of a notification transferring them with immediate effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Sicpa Inks Pakistan Pvt Ltd. and others vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2024 SHC 754 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shoaib Hassan and others vs The State and others2024 SHC 990 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-25
  post-arrest bailunnatural offencesodomyfacilitatorDNA evidenceprohibitory clausefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This order decides two connected criminal bail applications filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by applicants nominated in an FIR for committing and facilitating an unnatural offence under Sections 377, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the principal accused committed sodomy on a 12-year-old boy, while the co-accused acted as a facilitator by keeping watch outside. The applicants argued that the medical evidence was inconsistent, the DNA profile showed a mixture of multiple individuals, and the case required further inquiry. The High Court of Sindh observed that the FIR was promptly lodged, the victim and witnesses categorically implicated the accused in their statements, and no animosity or malafide intention was shown on the part of the complainant. Holding that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that the lack of a conclusive DNA report does not override strong corroborative ocular and medical evidence, the court dismissed both bail applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a minor discrepancy or mixture in a DNA profile is sufficient to grant post-arrest bail where strong corroborative ocular and medical evidence exists?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted in an offence falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of any proven malafide or enmity by the complainant?
  • Is a facilitator who stands guard outside the crime scene equally liable to be denied bail under the principles of vicarious liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Ahmed Shaikh vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 1980 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-26
  hawalaforeign exchange regulationcognizance of offenceState Bank of Pakistan complaintquashing of proceedingsFederal Investigation Agencyacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from an order of the trial court dismissing an application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving alleged illegal foreign exchange transactions through hawala under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the trial tribunal could take cognizance of offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 without a valid written complaint from a person authorized by the State Bank of Pakistan, and whether the foundational mandatory procedures had been satisfied. The Sindh High Court held that the Federal Investigation Agency initiated proceedings and the tribunal took cognizance without the mandatory statutory complaint from the State Bank of Pakistan, and that the officer who purported to file the complaint lacked legal authorization at the relevant time in 2015. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and quashed the criminal proceedings. The key principle laid down is that compliance with the mandatory requirement of a formal complaint by an authorized officer of the State Bank of Pakistan is a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction and taking of cognizance by a tribunal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tribunal can take cognizance of an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 without a complaint in writing by a person authorized by the State Bank of Pakistan?
  • Was a Deputy Director of the State Bank of Pakistan legally authorized to file a complaint under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 in the year 2015?
  • Can criminal proceedings initiated without fulfilling the mandatory prerequisites of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 be quashed by the High Court?
  • Does the absence of evidence and lack of a valid complaint by the State Bank of Pakistan vitiate proceedings arising out of an FIR under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
  Read full judgment →
• Shiraz Mazhar & others vs Defence Housing Authority & others2024 SHC 1364 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-16Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Hakeem & another vs Agha Khan University & others2024 SHC 1046 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and others2024 SHC 148, 2024 YLR 2537 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-21Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan s/o Liaquat Ali Jakhrani vs Federation of Pakistan and others2024 SHC 140 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-15Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rizwan Ahmed Jillani vs National Accountability Bureau (NAB)2024 MLD 161 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-18
  National Accountability Ordinanceembezzlementfake bank statementsabatement of appealsentence of finehandwriting proofacquittal of co-accusedcorrupt practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased appellant, Sheikh Rizwan Ahmed Jillani, challenging his conviction and sentence of fine under Section 9(a)(xii) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, passed by the Accountability Court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the charges of forgery, preparation of fake bank statements, and active connivance in embezzlement against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the sentence of fine could be maintained after the appellant's death during the pendency of the appeal. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the appellant's guilt, noting a lack of handwriting expert evidence, the impossibility of the appellant preparing bank statements for a period when he was not posted at the branch, and the acquittal of a co-accused with a nearly identical role. The court laid down the principle that witnesses found false or untrustworthy regarding co-accused cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration, and accordingly set aside the sentence of fine.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against a conviction abate entirely upon the death of the appellant, or can it proceed regarding a sentence of fine?
  • Can a conviction for preparing fake bank statements be sustained without submitting the disputed writings and signatures to a handwriting expert?
  • Whether the testimony of prosecution witnesses found untrustworthy with respect to an acquitted co-accused can be relied upon against a remaining accused without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →