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.

• Sheikh Nadeem Rehmat through appointed attorney vs Mrs. Zarqa2024 PLD Sindh 202 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-06Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ali Baakza vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Food Security and Research Department of Plant Protection, Government of Pakistan and 5 others2024 CLC 2077 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Shehzad Arshad vs Pervez Arshad and others2024 SHC 304, 2024 CLD 1121, 2024 PLD Sindh 408 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-16
  settlement agreementbreach of contractreflective loss principlecorporate disputemediationalternative dispute resolutionreceiver appointmentcontempt of courtcompany assetsshareholder dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a fraternal dispute concerning the affairs of Rauf Textiles & Printing Mills (Private) Limited, stemming from a Settlement Agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff alleged breach of the agreement by defendant No.1 through unauthorized sale of company assets at depressed values, seeking declarations, injunctions, accounts, and damages for diminution in his shareholding value. The core legal questions included the applicability of the reflective loss principle, whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of the agreement, and if contempt of court orders had occurred. The Court dismissed contempt applications and an application by defendant No.1, finding his actions prima facie consistent with the agreement. It appointed a Nazir as receiver for remaining company assets (Plot S-113 and bank accounts) to preserve them and realize due sums. Crucially, the Court referred the parties to mediation, emphasizing the importance of alternative dispute resolution, particularly in corporate disputes, and advocating for a pro-settlement and pro-mediation bias in the legal system.

  Questions settled

  • Can a shareholder bring a personal claim for loss suffered due to directors breaching fiduciary duties if the loss is merely a reflection of the loss suffered by the company?
  • What is the legal basis for the 'reflective loss principle' and its exceptions?
  • How do courts encourage and facilitate mediation in civil and corporate disputes?
  • What are the benefits of mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism compared to traditional litigation?
  • Under what circumstances can a court appoint a receiver for company assets during ongoing litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharjeel Ahmed @ Sono vs The State and others2024 SHC 962 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-19
  post-arrest bailidentification paradehabitual offenderrobberycriminal trialnon-nomination in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sharjeel Ahmed alias Sono, in connection with a robbery case registered under Sections 392, 397, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite not being named in the FIR, given his subsequent identification by the victim in a judicial identification parade and allegations of him being a habitual offender. The Court held that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for bail. The ratio of the decision is that where an accused is identified by the victim in a judicial identification parade conducted before a Magistrate, and no evidence of mala fide or animosity on the part of the complainant is demonstrated, the lack of nomination in the FIR is not sufficient grounds for bail. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the status of the accused as a habitual offender involved in other similar criminal activities further militates against the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the FIR automatically entitle them to bail?
  • Can an identification parade conducted before a Magistrate be relied upon to deny bail when the accused was not named in the FIR?
  • Is a history of being a habitual offender a relevant factor in considering a post-arrest bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Shams-Ul-Haq vs Karachi Development Authority & others2024 SHC 676 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-20Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed & another vs The Federation of Pakistan & others.2024 SHC 88, 2024 PTD 738 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shamal Media Service (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan & another2024 SHC 1184 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-21Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed vs Gulzar and others2024 CLC 500 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-12Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed S/O Muhammad Siddique & Another vs The State2024 SHC 714 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-01
  criminal transfer applicationspeedy trialfair trialjudicial vacancynarcotic substancesconstitutional rightsadministration of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal transfer application was filed by the applicants seeking the transfer of Special Case No. 14 of 2024 from the vacant Special Court No. II (CNS) Karachi to another competent court. The applicants contended that the vacancy of the presiding officer hindered their fundamental right to a speedy and fair trial as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The State, represented by the Special Prosecutor, offered no objection to the transfer. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its authority under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to transfer the case to ensure the ends of justice. The Court held that where a legal right exists, there must be a remedy, and that judicial propriety and the necessity of a fair, expeditious trial mandated the transfer. Consequently, the Court ordered the transfer of the case to Special Court No. III (CNS) Karachi, emphasizing the judiciary's obligation to maintain public confidence and ensure the efficient administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court transfer a case from a vacant Special Court to another court under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the vacancy of a presiding officer in a trial court justify the transfer of a case to ensure the right to a speedy trial?
  • Is the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 a valid ground for seeking the transfer of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzaib vs The State2024 SHC 846 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-02
  post-arrest bailelectricity theftprohibitory clausefurther inquirynon-prohibitory offensecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of electricity theft under Section 462-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged the applicant used an illegal direct connection to a transformer, causing financial loss. The applicant argued that the offense carries a maximum punishment of three years, thus falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the case required further inquiry due to the lack of independent witnesses and a significant delay in reporting. The Court observed that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and that the prosecution's case suffered from ambiguities regarding the date of occurrence and the absence of independent witnesses. Relying on the principle that bail is a rule and refusal an exception for non-prohibitory offenses, the Court held that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. The application was allowed, granting post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of solvent surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense under Section 462-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the grant of bail a rule and refusal an exception for offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of independent witnesses in a case of electricity theft constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzaib alias Wadero Feroze vs The State2024 YLR 1298 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-25
  narcotics possessionchain of custodysafe custodyindependent witnessesbenefit of doubtchemical examiner reportcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(C) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 5000 grams of Charas. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution proved the recovery beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area and the integrity of the chain of custody for the recovered narcotics. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court emphasized that while police witnesses are competent, the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area, coupled with unexplained contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, created significant doubt. Furthermore, the court held that a six-day delay in transmitting samples to the chemical examiner, without proof of safe custody or transit, broke the chain of custody, rendering the chemical examiner's report unreliable. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, establishing that any reasonable doubt regarding the chain of custody or the fairness of the recovery process entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a narcotic recovery in a populated area render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • What is the legal consequence of a break in the chain of custody regarding narcotic samples sent for chemical examination?
  • Is the report of a chemical examiner admissible if the prosecution fails to establish the safe custody and transit of the samples?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials when there are material contradictions and a lack of independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Riaz vs Millat Tractors Limited and others2024 SHC 228, 2024 PLD Sindh 210 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-15Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Junaid S/O Roshan Ali vs The State2024 SHC 818 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-10
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clausebailable offensescheating and fraudcriminal breach of trustrule of consistencycivil dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 273 of 2023 registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34, and subsequently added Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to a fraudulent sale and purchase transaction of a plot in DHA Karachi. The core legal question involved was whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the alleged offenses either fall within the bailable category or do not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether criminal proceedings can be used as a tool for recovery of civil claims. The Sindh High Court held that since the primary offenses are bailable or punishable with up to seven years without falling within the prohibitory clause, granting bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, and criminal courts cannot be utilized for the recovery of money. The Court laid down the principle that in offenses not falling within the prohibitory limb of Section 497(1), the grant of bail is a right rather than a mere concession, and commercial disputes requiring trial assessment should not prematurely block personal liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused for offenses that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can criminal proceedings under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized primarily for the recovery of civil or monetary amounts?
  • What constitutes criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in contrast to a civil dispute?
  • Does an accused have a right to bail in bailable offenses under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Shar vs The State2024 SHC 218 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-08
  post-arrest bailrailways theftprohibitory clauserecovery of stolen propertycriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant, a scraper by profession, who was implicated in a theft case involving railway engine parts upon the disclosure of co-accused and subsequent recovery from his shop. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature of the alleged offence and the statutory provisions applicable. The Sindh High Court held that the offence was not a routine theft under the Pakistan Penal Code, but rather attracted Section 126-B of the Railways Act, 1890, due to the critical nature of the stolen brake equipment from a running engine which posed a severe threat to human life. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant was not entitled to bail at this stage, while directing the trial court to expedite the examination of material witnesses within two months. The key principle laid down is that theft of vital operational components of public transport infrastructure carrying potential risk to human life attracts penal provisions outside the standard ordinary theft classifications, disentitling the accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether theft of crucial operational parts of a railway engine attracts Section 126-B of the Railways Act 1890?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when prima facie connected to an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
  • Does delay in the registration of an FIR automatically entitle an accused to bail in serious offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Malik vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 634 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Almani vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1535 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-31
  last seen evidencecircumstantial evidenceAnti-Terrorism Actrape and murderpointationcriminal appealconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for the abduction, rape, and murder of a seven-year-old girl. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution's circumstantial evidence—specifically the "last seen" testimony and the recovery of the body upon the appellant's pointation—was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and whether the trial court correctly invoked the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The High Court upheld the convictions under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, finding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and corroborated by medical and chemical reports. However, the court set aside the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The court laid down the principle that while "last seen" evidence requires corroboration, it becomes sufficient for conviction when linked with incriminating recoveries and medical evidence. Crucially, it reaffirmed that the severity or brutality of an offence alone does not constitute terrorism; the specific intent or purpose outlined in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 must be present to attract its provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Is 'last seen' evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder without further corroboration?
  • Does the brutality or heinousness of a crime alone satisfy the requirements for an offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based solely on circumstantial evidence when the chain of events is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahmir vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 510 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
• Shahjahan vs The State through Prosecutor General and 2 others2024 YLR 787 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-22
  transfer of casejudicial biasfair trialconfidence in judiciarycriminal transfer applicationjudicial propriety
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought the transfer of a criminal case from the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC) West, Karachi, to another court of competent jurisdiction. The applicant alleged that the presiding judge had expressed adverse inferences against him and his counsel, thereby undermining his confidence in the court's impartiality and his right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The trial judge denied bias but expressed no objection to the transfer. The High Court observed that while the transfer of a case is an exceptional measure, judicial propriety and the necessity of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice require that litigants feel they are receiving a fair trial. Given the reservations expressed by the applicant and the trial judge's willingness to relinquish the case, the Court held that it was in the interest of justice to transfer the matter. The Court ordered the transfer of the sessions case to the Court of the Sessions Judge, West Karachi, emphasizing the need for a swift and fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a criminal case be transferred from one court to another?
  • Does a litigant's loss of confidence in a presiding judge constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a criminal case?
  • Is the consent of the trial judge a relevant factor in deciding an application for the transfer of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid S/o Abdul Ghani vs The State2024 SHC 822 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-11
  post-arrest bailextortionprohibitory clausecall data recordfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in Crime No. 601 of 2023 registered under Sections 385, 386, and 25-D of the Telegraph Act at Police Station Ferozabad. The applicant was accused of making extortion calls and demanding a hefty sum along with a vehicle, issuing threats of death. The core legal questions involved whether the offenses charged fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., the evidentiary value of Call Data Records (CDRs) at the bail stage, and whether the applicant made out a case for further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that the primary offense carrying a ten-year sentence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, that CDRs alone are not conclusive evidence of guilt without concrete material, and that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The court established the principle that bail in offenses falling outside the prohibitory limb is a rule and refusal is an exception, accepting the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense under Section 386 of the Pakistan Penal Code falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a Call Data Record considered conclusive evidence to establish the guilt of an accused at the bail stage in the absence of concrete corroborative material?
  • Does an offense punishable with imprisonment not falling within the prohibitory clause entitle the accused to post-arrest bail as a rule?
  • When can a case be considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Iqbal Dar & Others vs Public at large2024 SHC 276 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-27
  rectification of trust deedSpecific Relief ActSindh Trust Actdormant trustmutual mistaketrustees appointmentbeneficiaries rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed by beneficiaries of the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Welfare Foundation Trust seeking rectification of clauses 13(e) and 13(f) of the trust deed dated 24.09.1995 under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and Section 92 of the Sindh Trust Act, 2020. The petitioners contended that due to a debilitative vacuum and flaws in the original provisions regarding trustee appointments, the board had fallen below the required quorum threshold of seven, rendering the trust dormant since 2018. The core legal questions involved whether a trust deed is rectifiable under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 at the behest of beneficiaries, and whether a mutual mistake existing from the onset justified such rectification to fulfill the settlor's intention of beneficiary welfare. The Sindh High Court held that trust deeds are rectifiable instruments, beneficiaries qualify as representatives-in-interest, and manifest mistakes regarding non-existent entities justified rectification. The court allowed the petition, rectifying clauses 13(e) and 13(f) to enable proper constitution of the board.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trust deed is an instrument capable of rectification under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Can a beneficiary of a trust institute proceedings for the rectification of a trust deed under the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Whether the court can rectify a trust deed when a mutual mistake at the inception prevents the fulfillment of the trust's objects?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid and another vs Mst. Zainab and others2024 YLR 1584 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-28Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali Memon and another vs The State2024 YLR 1954 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-11
  criminal appealmurderabductionbenefit of doubtchance witnessdelayed FIRrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by the trial court under Sections 364 and 302(b) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, the credibility of chance witnesses, and the evidentiary value of alleged recoveries made days after the incident. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant delays in reporting, unnatural conduct and doubtful presence of the alleged chance witnesses, implausible sequence of events regarding the crime, and unreliable recovery evidence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt and acquitting them of the charges. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions, unexplained delays in FIR registration, and doubtful testimonies of chance witnesses create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, entitling the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of three days in lodging the First Information Report is fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Can the testimony of a chance witness whose presence at the crime scene is unnatural and unexplained form the basis of a conviction?
  • Does the recovery of weapons that were not used in the commission of the crime prove the guilt of the accused?
  • Is an accused entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right when the prosecution case suffers from multiple reasonable doubts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheed Shah Inayat Village & Others vs Ashiq Hussain Vighio & Others2024 SHC 398, 2024 YLR 2738 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-10Read full judgment →
• Shahab Abbas vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 124 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-15Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz and another vs The State2024 YLR 1204 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-07
  narcotics recoverysafe custody of narcoticsburden of proofpolice witness reliabilityControl of Narcotic Substances Actappeal against convictioncharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Court-II (CNS) Karachi, whereby the appellants were convicted under sections 6/9-C read with sections 14/15 of the CNS Act, 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment for the recovery of 79 kilograms of Charas from a vehicle they were occupying. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved safe custody and recovery beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applied to narcotic offences, and whether the onus shifted to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution successfully established its case through consistent police testimony, positive chemical reports, and proper sampling and sealing procedures. The court laid down the principles that police evidence is reliable in the absence of proved enmity, that Section 103 CrPC stands excluded by Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, that the burden shifts to the accused under Section 29 once recovery is proved, and that courts must adopt a dynamic approach rather than acquitting drug offenders on minor technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the evidence of police officials can be relied upon for conviction in narcotics cases without independent corroboration?
  • Does the requirement of independent witnesses under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to offences under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
  • When does the onus shift to the accused under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to prove lack of knowledge regarding recovered narcotics?
  • Whether minor contradictions in police testimony are sufficient to discard the prosecution case in narcotics matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafquat Hussain vs The State2024 MLD 327 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-05
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular testimonycontradictionsabscondencefaulty investigationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant handed down by the trial court under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder and rioting. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, material contradictions among eyewitnesses, unexplained delays in forensic analysis, and the benefit of doubt arising from defective investigation. The Sindh High Court held that numerous discrepancies in the testimonies of eyewitnesses, the non-examination of a material eye-witness who disowned the incident, medical evidence contradicting the prosecution's narrative regarding the firing distance and posture of the deceased, and delayed forensic reporting collectively created reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. The court laid down the principle that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a criminal case is sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused as a matter of right, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between the FIR and ocular testimony regarding the arrival and specific acts of the accused are sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
  • Does the withholding or non-examination of a key eyewitness who filed an application stating he did not witness the incident attract an adverse inference under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Whether long abscondence of an accused alone, without being put to him in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is sufficient proof of guilt?
  • Is an unexplained, prolonged delay in sending recovered crime empties and blood-stained items for forensic analysis fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqatullah son of Azizullah vs The State2024 SHC 932 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-09
  pre-arrest bailProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordernarcoticsbailable offencerecovery witnesscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal bail application filed by the applicant, Shafqatullah, seeking confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The applicant was previously arrested for possession of narcotics and intoxicants, leading to separate FIRs. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the alleged offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and the failure of the police to associate independent witnesses during the recovery. The Court observed that the recovery occurred in a populated area without complying with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Furthermore, noting that the offence under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 is punishable by up to two years, the Court held that the offence is bailable. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that for bail purposes, the lesser punishment provided in a statute should be considered when determining the bailable nature of an offence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the offence of possessing intoxicants under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 considered a bailable offence?
  • Should the court consider the lesser punishment provided in a statute when determining whether an offence is bailable for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Does the failure of police to associate private witnesses during a recovery in a populated area impact the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafaq Ishtiaq vs Principal Government Elementary College of Education2024 SHC 1410 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-01Read full judgment →
• Senator Khalida Ateeb vs The Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 7 others2024 PLD Sindh 273 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-16Read full judgment →
• Searle Pakistan Ltd. & another vs The Competition Commission of Pakistan2024 SHC 660, 2024 CLD 1314 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-07Read full judgment →
• Saturgun vs Engineer Kumar & Another2024 SHC 444 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
• Sartaj alias Sartaja vs The State2024 YLR 2511 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-14
  murderdeath sentenceeyewitness testimonyabsconderforensic ballisticsprompt FIRcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the premeditated murder of the deceased. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder, given the appellant's defense of false implication and alibi. The Sindh High Court held that the eyewitness testimony—corroborated by medical evidence, prompt registration of the First Information Report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, forensic ballistics matching crime-scene empties with a pistol recovered from the appellant upon his arrest in another jurisdiction, and the appellant's status as an absconder—was reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring. The Court established that minor contradictions do not impair the prosecution's case, that the testimony of police witnesses without proven ill-will is credible, and that substitution of the real culprit by close relatives is highly improbable. Consequently, the conviction and death sentence were upheld, and the confirmation reference was answered in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses can be relied upon without corroboration in a murder trial?
  • Does a slight delay in lodging the First Information Report vitiate the prosecution's case when satisfactorily explained?
  • Whether a positive forensic ballistics match between crime-scene empties and a weapon recovered from the accused constitutes strong corroborative evidence?
  • Can the defense of alibi be sustained when it is not put to prosecution witnesses during cross-examination and no defense witnesses are produced?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz alias Faraz and others vs The State and others2024 SHC 396, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 934 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-07
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaymurdercriminal revisionjoint investigation teamtrial delaybail on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves post-arrest bail applications and a criminal revision petition filed by accused persons charged with the brutal murder of a police officer. The core legal questions concern whether the accused are entitled to bail on merits or on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, and whether a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report can be produced as evidence during the prosecution's case. The Court dismissed the bail applications and the revision petition. It held that the accused failed to demonstrate that the delay in trial was attributable to the prosecution, noting that the accused themselves filed numerous obstructive applications to delay proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found no legal basis for the production of a JIT report during the prosecution's evidence phase. The key principle laid down is that when determining statutory delay for bail, courts must assess whether the delay was occasioned by the accused's own conduct, such as filing repetitive or unnecessary applications, rather than relying on mathematical calculations of time. Additionally, the Court affirmed that trial courts should refrain from granting bail once the trial has substantially proceeded.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused claim bail on the ground of statutory delay if the delay in trial was caused by the accused's own conduct?
  • Is there a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 that permits the production of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) report as evidence during the prosecution's case?
  • Should a trial court grant post-arrest bail once the trial has proceeded and material witnesses have been examined?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ali Abro vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 366 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-30Read full judgment →
• Sarem Mukhtar S/o Arif Mukhtar vs Sadia Aquil Ahmed & others2024 SHC 122 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sarang vs The State and another2024 PCRLJ 1151 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-14
  anti-terrorism courttransfer of casejurisdictionterrorismunnatural offencecriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur, which dismissed an application for the transfer of a case involving an offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 to a court of ordinary jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the alleged unnatural offence, committed by a teacher against a minor during tuition, constituted terrorism within the meaning of Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The Sindh High Court held that the element of terrorism was missing, as the act lacked the requisite design, purpose, or nexus contemplated under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 to terrorize the public or coerce government authorities, and was merely a private crime. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the case was ordered to be transferred to the ordinary court having jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that an offence, however grave or gruesome, does not constitute terrorism unless it is committed with the specific design or objective specified in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unnatural offence committed by a teacher against a minor during tuition constitute terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • Whether an offence lacking the design or objective specified in Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 is triable by an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can a case pending before an Anti-Terrorism Court be transferred to a court of ordinary jurisdiction if the element of terrorism is missing?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqlain Abbass @ Ayan S/O Nawab Hussain Shah vs The State2024 SHC 1160 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-21
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauserule of consistencyqatl-bis-sababdiyatco-accused statementfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant seeking release in FIR No. 1098 of 2023 registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Sachal Police Station, Karachi, subsequently challaned under sections 322, 201, 202, and 371-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail where the final charge attracts Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where co-accused facing similar allegations have been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that since the offense under Section 322 falls outside the prohibitory clause and lacks exceptional circumstances to justify continued detention, coupled with the applicability of the rule of consistency due to bail granted to co-accused, the applicant has made out a case for further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that offenses punishable primarily with Diyat falling outside the prohibitory clause warrant bail unless exceptional circumstances are established, and that statements of co-accused implicating another during police investigations require independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offense punishable under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused similarly situated has been admitted to post-arrest bail?
  • Is a statement made by a co-accused to the police during investigation admissible in evidence against another accused without strong corroboration?
  • When can the detention of an accused be justified pending trial for an offense where the primary liability is Diyat?
  Read full judgment →
• Saqib S/o Aurangzeb vs Government of Sindh and Others2024 SHC 514 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-23
  Sindh Payment of Wages ActWorkmen's CompensationConsent OrderConstitutional PetitionEmployment DisputeRegularization of Service
  Summary & questions settled

  The Petitioner challenged an order passed by the Commissioner for Workers' Compensation and Authority Under The Sindh Payment of Wages Act recalling an earlier ex parte order that had allowed the Petitioner's application under Section 15 of the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015 and awarded compensation against the private respondents. The core legal question involved the resolution of monetary claims and employment grievances between a former employee and the establishment. The Sindh High Court disposed of the petition based on a consented settlement between the parties. The court held that the respondents shall issue a regular employment letter to the petitioner, and in return, the petitioner shall withdraw his applications under Section 15 of the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015 and for Workmen's Compensation. The key principle laid down is that constitutional petitions concerning employment and monetary claims can be amicably resolved and disposed of on the basis of a lawful compromise and consent between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition challenging the recall of an ex parte order under the Sindh Payment of Wages Act be disposed of on the basis of a consent settlement between the parties?
  • Whether an employee can withdraw applications under the Sindh Payment of Wages Act and Workmen's Compensation in lieu of regular appointment in an establishment?
  Read full judgment →
• Saniyal Ali S/O Muhammad vs The State2024 SHC 810 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-11
  pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustcheatingdelay in FIRcivil disputebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application arises from an order declining pre-arrest bail to the applicant in Crime No.12/2024 registered under Section 406/420/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a dispute over sugarcane molasses and financial transactions. The core legal question involved whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed for offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where mala fide and delayed FIR registration are alleged. The Sindh High Court held that since the offenses do not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497(1) and the punishment is less than ten years, granting bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, particularly where civil remedies are being pursued through criminal proceedings and delay in lodging the FIR suggests potential malice. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that criminal provisions cannot be utilized merely for the recovery of civil debts and that non-prohibitory offenses merit bail as a general rule.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted as a rule when an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can criminal proceedings under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be utilized as a substitute for civil remedies for the recovery of money?
  • Does an unexplained delay of several years in lodging an FIR create a strong ground for suspecting malafide and granting pre-arrest bail?
  • What is the distinction in the exercise of judicial discretion between bailable and non-bailable offenses under Sections 496 and 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sania Zehra & Atif Ali vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1202 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-30Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Sabzoi vs The State2024 SHC 710 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-08
  appellate jurisdictioncriminal revisionsubstantial sentenceSessions Court jurisdictionSindh Arms Actsentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Kashmore @ Kandhkot, which returned the applicant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant had been convicted under Section 23(i)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, by an Assistant Sessions Judge and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The Sessions Judge declined to hear the appeal, reasoning that the sentence exceeded four years, thereby necessitating an appeal to the High Court. The core legal question was whether a sentence of four years imprisonment plus a fine constitutes a sentence exceeding four years for the purposes of appellate jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court held that the fine is an additional punishment and cannot be calculated as part of the substantial sentence of imprisonment. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the appeal was competent before the Sessions Court. The principle laid down is that for determining appellate jurisdiction under Section 408(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, only the substantial sentence of imprisonment is considered, excluding fines.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sentence of four years imprisonment plus a fine exceed a four-year sentence for the purpose of determining appellate jurisdiction under Section 408(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a fine be included when calculating the duration of a sentence to determine the appropriate appellate forum?
  Read full judgment →
• Samina Alvi & Another vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 1274 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-22Read full judgment →
• Sami Pharmaceuticals Private Limited vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 712 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-11Read full judgment →
• Sami Jamal s/o Shahid Jamal vs Objector2024 SHC 1396 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-24Read full judgment →
• Sameeullah S/O Muhammad Younus vs The Sate2024 SHC 760 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-15
  post-arrest bailtrial delaywitness examinationstatutory grounds for bailjudicial direction
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, Sameeullah, filed a bail application under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking relief in connection with Crime No. 76 of 2020, registered under Sections 302, 397, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had previously dismissed his bail application, citing a lack of fresh grounds. The applicant contended that he had been incarcerated for a significant period and that the prosecution witness, Muhammad Hammad, had only partially testified. The core legal question concerned whether the applicant was entitled to bail due to the delay in the trial proceedings and the failure to conclude the examination of witnesses as previously directed by the High Court. The Court, noting that partial compliance with its earlier directive had occurred, disposed of the bail application by issuing a peremptory direction to the trial court to examine the remaining witnesses within one month. The Court held that failure to comply with this timeline would necessitate administrative intervention, while preserving the applicant's right to seek bail on all grounds, including statutory ones, should the trial remain delayed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bail application be disposed of with a direction to the trial court to expedite witness examination?
  • Does partial compliance with a previous court order regarding trial timelines justify the dismissal of a bail application?
  • What is the remedy for an accused when a trial court fails to comply with a High Court directive to examine witnesses within a specified period?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Shah S/O Haroon Shah vs The State & Others2024 SHC · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-19
  Justice of PeaceFIR registrationcognizable offenseSection 22-A CrPCcriminal investigationpolice dutySection 154 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which directed the police to record a statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the scope of the Justice of Peace’s authority under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the registration of an FIR. The Court held that the Justice of Peace’s role is limited to verifying whether a cognizable offense is disclosed in the complaint; they are not empowered to conduct a full-fledged investigation or fact-finding inquiry, as that would usurp the function of the police. The Court emphasized that the police are statutorily obligated to register an FIR upon receiving information of a cognizable offense without conducting a preliminary inquiry into the truth or falsity of the allegations. The key principle laid down is that the Justice of Peace serves as a supervisory mechanism to redress grievances where police refuse to register reports, rather than acting as an investigative agency, and police must prioritize the registration of cognizable offenses.

  Questions settled

  • What is the extent of the power of a Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the registration of an FIR?
  • Is an Officer Incharge of a Police Station authorized to conduct an inquiry into the truth or falsity of information before registering an FIR for a cognizable offense?
  • Can a Justice of Peace conduct a fact-finding exercise or full-fledged investigation before directing the registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Salma Memon vs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, through Managing2024 PLC (C.S.) 410 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-13
  wrongful dismissalmedical leaveinternal company rulesreinstatementback benefitsservice lawgender discrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a long-serving employee of Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, challenged her dismissal from service following her inability to return from ex-Pakistan leave due to medical reasons. The core legal question was whether the respondent company acted lawfully in dismissing the petitioner for unauthorized absence, despite her submission of medical certificates, and whether the company violated its own internal Sick Leave Rules. The Court held that the dismissal was unlawful, finding that the company acted in sheer hastiness and failed to follow the mandatory procedures prescribed in its internal handbook regarding sick leave, which provided a structured mechanism for granting medical leave and assessing fitness. The Court emphasized that the Chief Medical Officer exceeded his authority by unilaterally rejecting medical evidence based on travel capability rather than adhering to the established leave policy. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal order, ordered the petitioner's reinstatement with full back benefits, and directed an inquiry into the respondent's treatment of female employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer dismiss an employee for unauthorized absence when the employee has submitted medical evidence that qualifies for leave under the company's internal rules?
  • Does a Chief Medical Officer have the authority to reject a medical certificate on the basis that an employee is fit to travel, contrary to the specific provisions of the company's sick leave policy?
  • Is the dismissal of an employee valid if the employer fails to follow the mandatory procedure for granting medical leave as prescribed in the company's internal handbook?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 384 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-06Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 644, 2025 PLD Sindh 138 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-30Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin Ahmed vs Khurram Sultan Abbasi & others2024 SHC 988, 2025 YLR 652 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 350, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1239 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-25
  police recruitmentcriminal antecedentsacquittal by compromisedisciplined forcecharacter verificationcivil service appointmentprobationary period
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the refusal of the Sindh Police Department to appoint the petitioner as a Police Constable, despite his selection, due to his involvement in past criminal cases resulting in acquittal via compromise. The core legal question was whether the police department could deny appointment to a candidate with criminal antecedents who had been acquitted. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the police force is a disciplined body requiring personnel of unimpeachable character. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that the appointing authority possesses the prerogative to evaluate a candidate's character and antecedents, and acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment. The Court emphasized that Section 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, must be read alongside Section 6(3), which mandates satisfactory character verification during probation. Consequently, the Court ruled that the department acted within its discretion in withdrawing the offer letter, as the petitioner’s criminal history rendered him unsuitable for a disciplined force, and the judiciary should not interfere with the executive's assessment of such suitability.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case automatically entitle a candidate to appointment in a disciplined police force?
  • Can the appointing authority withdraw an offer of appointment based on a candidate's past criminal record despite a subsequent acquittal?
  • Must Section 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, be read in conjunction with Section 6(3) regarding the verification of a civil servant's character during probation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs P.O Sindh & others2024 SHC 486 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Anwar Sunny & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1338 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-10
  Police Investigation WingExecutive CadreService MattersPolice Rules 1934Jurisdiction of High CourtArticle 212Terms and Conditions of Service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by directly recruited Inspectors (Investigation) BPS-16 of the Sindh Police, seeking integration into the Executive Cadre, issuance of a seniority list, and declaration of their status as Gazetted Class-II officers. The petitioners argued that, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gul Hassan Jatoi, the police force is an indivisible entity, and they should be eligible for transfer and posting within the Executive Branch. The core legal question was whether officers of the Investigation Wing could be transferred to the Executive Branch under the Police Act, 1861, and Police Rules, 1934. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the transfer of investigation officers to the Executive Branch is not supported by the governing statutes or the cited precedent. The Court further determined that because the petitioners' appointment letters specifically restricted their service to the Investigation Unit, their grievances regarding transfer and posting constitute service matters. Consequently, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Can officers of the Investigation Wing of the Police Department be transferred to the Executive Branch under the Police Act, 1861?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to adjudicate disputes regarding the transfer and posting of police officers?
  • Are appointment letters that restrict police officers to the Investigation Unit binding regarding their future transfer and posting?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajf Shujaat & others vs Government of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1368 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-17
  regularization of contract employeesseniorityretroactive senioritypromotionad-hoc appointmentcivil servantsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, initially appointed on a contract basis as Naib Qasid, sought a declaration from the Sindh High Court recognizing their prior contract service for seniority and promotion to Junior Clerk BS-11. The core legal question revolved around whether seniority and promotion can be reckoned retroactively from the date of initial contract or ad-hoc appointment, or prospectively from the date of regular appointment under the applicable civil servant laws. The court held that seniority and promotion are not absolute rights and must be determined in accordance with the relevant rules, explicitly ruling that contractual service cannot be considered for seniority, which must be reckoned strictly from the date of regular appointment. The court established the principle that ad-hoc and contract appointments cannot be regularized retrospectively for the purpose of seniority, and dismissed the constitutional petition as non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can the seniority of an employee be reckoned from the date of their initial induction in service as an ad-hoc or contract appointment?
  • Whether promotion and seniority are absolute rights under civil servant law?
  • Can contractual or ad-hoc service be considered for calculating seniority and promotion?
  • Does the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 permit the retroactive regularization of employees for seniority purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifal son of Ishaque, Mashooq son of Saifal & Ayub Son of Yaqoob vs The State2024 SHC 966 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-20
  pre-arrest bailamicable settlementSulhnon-compoundable offenceprohibitory clausefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by three applicants, Saifal, Mashooq, and Ayub, who were charged in Crime No. 363/2024 registered at Police Station Sukhan under sections 380, 457, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants sought confirmation of their interim pre-arrest bail after the Sessions Court declined their request. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail could be confirmed despite the non-compoundable nature of the offences, given that the parties had reached an amicable settlement outside of court. The Court held that the settlement between the parties, grounded in the principle of 'Sulh', justified the grant of bail, noting that non-compoundability does not strictly preclude bail when parties have reconciled. Furthermore, the Court observed that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the importance of amicable settlements and the statutory provisions regarding further inquiry in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-compoundable nature of an offence prevent the grant of bail when the parties have reached an amicable settlement?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a case considered to require further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the parties have reconciled?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahib Dino Janwari vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 638 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-29Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali Jalbani vs ZTBL through Authorized Person2024 CLD 845, 2024 PLJ Karachi 109 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-26Read full judgment →
• Saeed Noor Khan and others vs Syed Adnan Ali and others2024 SHC 352 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• Saeed Akhtar & another vs Zafarullah Khan & others2024 SHC 970 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-20Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs Election Commission of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1084 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-17Read full judgment →
• Sadoro Mirbahar vs The State2024 PCRLJ 632 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-12
  murderextortionpolice encounteranti-terrorismocular testimonymedical evidenceforensic ballisticsinterested witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of criminal appeals filed by the appellant, Sadoro Mirbahar, against his convictions and sentences passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court Larkana in two special cases arising from back-to-back incidents involving murder, attempted murder, extortion, and an attack on a police party. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, the effect of minor contradictions in ocular evidence, the evidentiary value of firearm recoveries supported by forensic reports, and whether relationship of witnesses to the deceased renders them interested witnesses. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent ocular accounts, medical evidence, and corroborative forensic science laboratory reports linking the recovered weapon to the crime empties. The court ruled that mere relationship to the deceased does not discredit natural witnesses in the absence of enmity or a motive for false substitution, and minor contradictions are natural over time. The appeals were consequently dismissed, upholding the convictions and sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of eyewitnesses are sufficient to discard the prosecution case?
  • Does the mere blood relationship of an eyewitness to the deceased render them an 'interested witness' requiring mandatory corroboration?
  • Can a positive forensic match between crime empties and a weapon recovered from the accused serve as reliable corroborative evidence of guilt?
  • Whether the unexamined status of certain prosecution witnesses warrants an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 in the presence of overwhelming direct evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadaqat Khan Mahar and others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 590, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 326 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-22
  deceased quotacivil servantspublic employmentconstitutional protectionlimitation periodSindh High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by legal heirs of deceased civil servants of the Government of Sindh, seeking appointments under the quota reserved for deceased employees in accordance with government policies and judicial precedents. The core legal question concerns whether the two-year limitation period introduced for applying under the deceased civil servants quota applies retrospectively to heirs whose predecessors died before the introduction of the restraining clause. The Sindh High Court held that the two-year limitation period is not applicable to cases where the civil servant died before the introduction of the cap, and directed the competent authority to consider the applications in light of established Supreme Court dicta. The court laid down the principle that beneficial policies for deceased employees' quotas aim to minimize family miseries, protect fundamental rights under the Constitution, and cannot be curtailed by retrospective application of restrictive rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the two-year limitation period to apply for employment under the deceased civil servants quota applies retrospectively?
  • Does the denial of appointment under a beneficial deceased quota violate constitutional guarantees under Articles 27, 34, and 35 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Are legal heirs entitled to appointment under the deceased civil servants quota if the government employee died before the introduction of the cap in the relevant rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabre Travel Network Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1276 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-21Read full judgment →
• Sabhago vs S.S.P Sanghar and others2024 SHC 1126 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-26
  quashing of orderfree-will marriageconversion to Islamjustice of peaceregistration of FIRpolice protectionminority age under Muslim lawharassment
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant invoked section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which dismissed his request for the registration of a police case against private respondents regarding the alleged abduction of his daughter, Birjo. The record revealed that the daughter, now known as Aisha, had converted to Islam, contracted a free-will marriage with Naseer Ahmed, and previously obtained a protection order from the Sessions Court. The core legal question concerned whether the Justice of Peace erred in refusing to direct the registration of an FIR where an adult woman contracted a free-will marriage and alleged no abduction, and whether such a marriage was valid under Muslim law despite contentions regarding age. The Sindh High Court held that a major individual possesses the freedom to contract a marriage of their choice and that the marriage was valid under Islamic law. The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application, ruling that no cognizable offense was made out and directing police protection for the married couple while barring harassment by the applicant's family.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is justified in refusing to direct the registration of an FIR when the alleged victim appears voluntarily and confirms a free-will marriage?
  • Does a major individual have the fundamental right to contract a marriage of their own choice without interference or harassment from family members?
  • Whether a marriage contracted by a minor nearing puberty is valid under Muslim Law and protected against criminal allegations of abduction?
  Read full judgment →
• Saba Farhat Rashid vs Farhat Rashid2024 SHC 538 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-24Read full judgment →
• Saalim Kalo vs The State2024 MLD 1010 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-30
  vicarious liabilitycommon intentionmurderfree fightcriminal appealsentence reductionhurtPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 302(b)/34, 324, 337-A(i), and 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who performed a minor role of inflicting lathi blows, could be held vicariously liable for the murder committed independently by his co-accused during a sudden incident on the land of the accused party. The Sindh High Court held that in the absence of evidence establishing a common intention or material facilitation for the murder, a co-accused cannot be held vicariously liable merely for being part of the attacking party. The court set aside the conviction under Section 302/34, maintained the convictions for minor injuries, and converted the sentences to the period already undergone by the appellant, establishing the principle that vicarious liability requires clear proof of shared intent and active participation in the primary offense.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused performing a minor role be held vicariously liable for murder committed by a co-accused without proof of a common intention?
  • Whether an appellant can be released on the basis of a sentence already undergone when convictions for major offenses are set aside?
  • Does the absence of pre-planning and the occurrence of an incident on the accused party's land negate common intention?
  • Is a co-accused responsible for independent acts of violence committed by another participant in a sudden fight?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadat Ali Dahri vs Shah Nawaz & others2024 SHC 22 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-17Read full judgment →
• Saadabad Coop Housing Society vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 314 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-16Read full judgment →
• Saad Aqil vs Province of Sindh & Others2024 SHC 130 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-15Read full judgment →
• Rustam, Ali Asghar vs The State2024 SHC 1358 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-19
  Jail Criminal AppealMurder convictionDeath sentenceBenefit of doubtFIR delayContradictory evidenceMotiveAcquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Jail Criminal Appeal challenged a judgment convicting the appellant for qatl-e-Amd under Section 302(b) PPC and sentencing him to death. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering significant delays in FIR registration, material contradictions in eyewitness accounts, lack of supporting medical records for initial treatment, and the prosecution's failure to establish a motive. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The court held that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient for acquittal, which is a matter of right, not grace or concession. Consequently, the death sentence reference was answered in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained despite a significant delay in the registration of the First Information Report?
  • What is the impact of material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses on the outcome of a criminal trial?
  • Is the benefit of doubt a matter of grace or a matter of right for an accused person?
  • Can a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt lead to the acquittal of an accused?
  • What is the significance of an unproven motive in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Mahar s/o Hakim vs Ghulam Ali Dahar and Four (4) Others2024 SHC 280 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-01Read full judgment →
• Roque Martin D'Mello & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 882, 2025 MLD 49 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-23Read full judgment →
• Riffat Humayun vs Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd & Others2024 SHC 354, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1415 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-24
  res judicatalocus poenitentiaesuperannuationstatus quo orderrecovery of salarycivil servicecause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal arises from a civil suit challenging the recovery of salary received by the Appellant during a period of continued service at the Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd (PTV) following her retirement. The Appellant had previously obtained status quo orders to remain in service, which were later vacated upon the dismissal of her constitutional petition. The core legal question concerns whether an employee who persists in service beyond retirement age under the protection of interim court orders is entitled to retain remuneration received during that period, and whether the employer is barred from recovery. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. The Court held that the principle of locus poenitentiae is inapplicable where no lawful order from a competent authority exists, and payments were made solely under the compulsion of interim orders. Consequently, an employee cannot profit from their own self-initiated litigation or use court orders to shield themselves from the consequences of unauthorized service extensions, rendering the recovery of such payments legally justified.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee retain salary received during a period of service continued solely under the protection of an interim status quo order after the underlying petition is dismissed?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect an employee from the recovery of salary payments made in the absence of a lawful order from a competent authority?
  • Is a suit barred by res judicata if it attempts to re-litigate issues regarding the recovery of payments already addressed in a previous constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Rifat Saeed and Another vs Zahid Saeed and Eleven (11) Others2024 SHC 76 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-01Read full judgment →
• Riazuddin Qureshi Thr. Syed Muhammad Farhaj Uddin vs International2024 SHC 658 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-27Read full judgment →
• Riaz Khan S/O Mushad Gul vs The State2024 SHC 776 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-15
  post-arrest bailnarcotics possessionprocedural lapsemodern investigative techniquesstatutory barsearch and seizurecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application concerns an accused charged with the possession of 2110 grams of Charas. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the recovery of narcotics, particularly in light of the prosecution's failure to adhere to Supreme Court directives regarding the documentation of arrests and searches. The High Court granted bail, holding that the police's failure to record or photograph the search and arrest using modern devices, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Zahid Sarfaraz Gill v. The State, constitutes a significant procedural lapse. The court established that while the offense of narcotics trafficking is heinous, bail is not an acquittal but a transfer of custody, and courts retain the power to grant bail despite statutory bars in narcotics legislation. The court emphasized that procedural apathy by the prosecution in failing to comply with constitutional commands and Supreme Court directives regarding modern investigative techniques should benefit the accused at the bail stage, without prejudice to the merits of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of police to record or photograph a search and arrest using modern devices, as mandated by the Supreme Court, entitle an accused to bail?
  • Do the Sessions Court and High Court retain the power to grant bail in narcotics cases despite the bar contained in Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is the grant of bail equivalent to an acquittal of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs Province of Sindh Through Chief Secretary Sindh2024 PLC (C.S.) 1097 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-10
  civil servant promotionannual confidential reportslocus standiservice tribunal jurisdictionprovincial selection boardwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, serving as a Project Director, challenged the decision of the Provincial Selection Board No. II allowing the promotion of respondent No. 8 to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) (BS-19) in the absence of certain Annual Confidential Reports. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had the locus standi to challenge the promotion and whether the High Court had jurisdiction given that the matter pertained to terms and conditions of service. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any infringement of his fundamental rights, lacked locus standi as an aggrieved person, and that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution read with Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. The court dismissed the petition in limine, laying down the principle that service matters relating to promotion and ACRs are barred from writ jurisdiction under Article 212 and that evaluation by selection boards should not be lightly interfered with.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant has the locus standi to challenge the promotion of a co-employee without showing an infringement of a fundamental right?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution to entertain petitions relating to the terms and conditions of service such as promotion?
  • What is the effect of the absence of Annual Confidential Reports on the consideration of a civil servant for promotion by the Provincial Selection Board?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs The State2024 YLR 1144 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-11
  post-arrest baildishonour of chequeprohibitory clausecriminal liabilitycommercial integritybail as rulestale cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged dishonor of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail for an offense that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly given the delay in FIR registration and the nature of the offense. The Court held that the offense under Section 489-F, punishable by up to three years, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and therefore, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court emphasized that Section 489-F is not a mechanism for debt recovery, which should be pursued through civil remedies like Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant detention, the Court granted post-arrest bail, noting that bail is a procedural relief independent of the ultimate trial outcome.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 intended to be used as a mechanism for the recovery of money?
  • Can bail be refused in a non-prohibitory offense absent exceptional circumstances like abscondence or tampering with evidence?
  • What is the legal status of a cheque presented for encashment beyond a reasonable time under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  Read full judgment →
• re-Kamran @ Wago vs The State2024 SHC 772 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-15
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirypolice encounterSindh Arms Act 2013attempt to murderprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns post-arrest bail applications filed by the applicant in two FIRs involving charges of attempted murder, obstruction of public servants, and possession of unlicensed weapons. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the prosecution's allegations of a police encounter, despite the absence of injuries to any police personnel and the completion of the investigation. The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, determining that the case falls within the scope of "further inquiry." The Court reasoned that the lack of injuries to police officials, the absence of independent witnesses, and the fact that the investigation was complete warranted the grant of bail. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the legal distinction between "arms" and "firearms" under the Sindh Arms Act 2013, noting that the applicability of specific penal provisions required trial court determination. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's story appears improbable and reasonable doubt exists regarding an accused's participation, the accused should not be deprived of their liberty, as freedom is a precious right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of injuries to police personnel in an alleged encounter constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and no independent witnesses are associated with the recovery of weapons?
  • What is the legal distinction between 'arms' and 'firearms' under the Sindh Arms Act 2013 regarding the applicability of penal provisions?
  • Should an accused be granted bail when the prosecution fails to substantiate the charge with evidence beyond the testimony of police officials?
  Read full judgment →
• re-Imtiaz Ali & Raj Kumar vs The State2024 SHC 768, 2025 PCRLJ 786 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-15
  post-arrest bailprohibitory clauseextra-judicial confessionpolice custodystolen propertyfurther inquirycriminal record
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from post-arrest bail applications filed by the applicants seeking release in F.I.R. Nos. 182 and 183 of 2024 registered under Section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Joharabad, Karachi. The core legal questions involve the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions made in police custody, the evidentiary value of recoveries, and whether bail should be granted when the alleged offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that extra-judicial confessions made to police are inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, that mere registration of other criminal cases without conviction does not justify withholding bail, and that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause warrant bail as a rule. The key principles laid down include that the liberty of a person is a precious right, that grant of bail in non-prohibitory clause offences is the norm with refusal as the exception, and that pending cases without proof of previous conviction cannot form the sole basis to deny bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an extra-judicial confession made while in police custody admissible in evidence?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused solely on the ground that other criminal cases have been registered against them without proof of conviction?
  • Does an offence under Section 381-A or Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary requirement for establishing dishonest receipt of stolen property under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ghazi vs The State2024 SHC 1288 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-26
  joint trialamalgamation of casessame transactionAnti-Terrorism Courtjudicial discretionexplosive substancesballistic reportcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court amalgamating three separate special cases arising from different First Information Reports for a joint trial under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question involves whether the joinder of distinct offenses, including a murder case and an explosive substances case, is justified under the doctrine of 'same transaction' and statutory provisions regarding joint trials. The Sindh High Court held that while offenses linked by a common weapon (such as the murder case and an arms possession case) may satisfy the nexus for a joint trial under Section 21-M of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, unrelated offenses with distinct dates, times, locations, and nature—such as the explosive substances case—cannot be arbitrarily consolidated without a demonstrable connection. The court established the principle that judicial discretion to order joint trials must be exercised judiciously based on sound legal principles, avoiding prejudice or hardship to the defense, and set aside the improper consolidation of the explosive substances case while directing independent adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Anti-Terrorism Court can amalgamate distinct criminal cases for a joint trial under Section 21-M of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 without establishing a direct nexus between the offenses?
  • Does the recovery of the same weapon in separate cases sufficiently establish a 'same transaction' to warrant a joint trial under criminal law?
  • Whether the discretionary power to order joint trials under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be exercised judiciously to prevent prejudice to the accused?
  • Is an explosives possession case legally connected to a murder case occurring at a different time and place for the purpose of consolidating trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ali Rajper vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1141 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-15
  narcoticschemical reportnegative chemical analysisacquittalcharasmiscarriage of justicecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirwah, convicting and sentencing the appellant under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for alleged recovery of Charas. The core legal question was whether a conviction for narcotics possession can be sustained when the chemical examiner's report concludes that the recovered substance is not a narcotic. The Sindh High Court held that an accused cannot be convicted of a narcotics offence when the chemical lab report is negative and un-rebutted, as the charge becomes groundless regardless of the oral testimony of witnesses. The court laid down the principle that positive chemical analysis establishing the illicit nature of the substance is a mandatory prerequisite for conviction in narcotics cases, and ignoring a negative report results in a gross miscarriage of justice. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 when the chemical examiner's report is negative?
  • What is the legal effect of a negative chemical report on the prosecution's charge in a narcotics case?
  • Is oral testimony of recovery witnesses sufficient to sustain a narcotics conviction in the face of a contrary chemical report?
  Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Alam & one another vs Dr. Qadeer Muhammad Ali & others2024 SHC 1408 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-01Read full judgment →
• Rana Munir Ahmed Khan & another, Jawaid Sarwar vs Jawaid Sarwar, Rana Munir Ahmed Khan & another2024 SHC 1166, 2025 PLD Sindh 242 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
• Ramz Ali Gopang vs The State2024 MLD 1105 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-15
  kidnapping for ransomabductionAnti-Terrorism Courtcall data recordappellate reduction of sentenceillegal weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and Section 23(1)(a) of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, sentencing him to life imprisonment and concurrent terms. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the essential ingredients of kidnapping for ransom and terrorism, given the absence of call data records or documentary proof of ransom payment. The Sindh High Court held that while the prosecution successfully proved the abduction of the minor victim, it failed to prove the demand and payment of ransom due to a lack of corroborative electronic and documentary evidence. Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, converting the conviction from Section 365-A to Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code, reducing the sentence to seven years rigorous imprisonment, setting aside the conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and reducing the arms act sentence to the period already undergone, while extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce call data records or documentary evidence proving the demand and payment of ransom?
  • Can an offence originally tried under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 be converted to a lesser charge under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the element of terrorism is not proved?
  • Whether the absence of forensic or documentary proof regarding telephonic ransom demands warrants the conversion of a conviction from kidnapping for ransom to simple kidnapping?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramiaz Ali vs P.O Sindh & others2024 SHC 484 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Rameez Arshad vs The State2024 SHC 318 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-16
  chain of custodynarcotics possessioncomplainant as investigatorproperty register-19fair trialbenefit of doubtcontrol of narcotic substances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 for the alleged possession of chars. The core legal questions involve the integrity of the chain of custody of the recovered contraband, the legality and evidentiary value of an investigation conducted by the complainant himself, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a secure chain of custody due to the absence of the property register-19 entry and contradictory testimony regarding the physical custody of the case property, and further ruled that the dual role of the complainant as the investigation officer caused procedural prejudice. The court laid down the principle that a secure, unbroken chain of custody—demonstrated through register entries, malkhana records, or dispatch documentation—is mandatory in narcotics cases to sustain a conviction, and that an investigation by the complainant where prejudice ensues vitiates the trial's fairness under Article 10-A of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce the property register-19 entry break the chain of custody in a narcotics case?
  • Can a complainant of an offense legally act as the investigating officer in the same criminal matter?
  • What constitutes a secure chain of custody for recovered contraband before it is sent to the chemical examiner?
  • Does a prejudicial investigation by a complainant compromise the fundamental right to a fair trial under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Rameez Ahmed vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 132, 2024 PLJ Karachi 118 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• Rakesh Keshwani S/o Lachman Dan vs Assistant/Deputy Commissioner &2024 SHC 422 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Raja Hafeez Khan, Muhammad Tariq vs KDA & others2024 SHC 1272 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-22Read full judgment →
• Rais Muhammad Mithal vs Muhammad Hassan & Ors.2024 SHC 224 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-15Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bux Soomro vs The State2024 SHC 246 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-20
  assets beyond known sources of incomeNational Accountability Ordinanceburden of proofcorruption and corrupt practicescriminal accountability appealbenamidarplea bargain
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal accountability appeal challenged a trial court judgment convicting the appellant for accumulating assets beyond his known sources of income while serving as a public officer. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the disproportionate assets and whether the appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of guilt. The High Court held that the prosecution established a prima facie case through documentary and oral evidence, demonstrating that the appellant’s assets significantly exceeded his documented salary and agricultural income. The Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the appellant failed to produce credible evidence or documentation to justify the acquisition of these assets. The Court laid down the principle that once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case of assets disproportionate to known sources, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a written statement submitted under Section 265-F(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not constitute evidence and cannot substitute for the accused’s obligation to testify or produce documentary proof to substantiate claims of legitimate income.

  Questions settled

  • Does a written statement filed under Section 265-F(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute evidence in a criminal trial?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the accused in cases involving assets beyond known sources of income under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Can an accused rely on a written statement in lieu of testifying on oath or producing documentary evidence to rebut prosecution allegations of corruption?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheemullah S/O Basheerullah vs The State2024 SHC 820, PTCL 2025 CL. 199 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-11
  post-arrest bailDNA testingmandatory DNA testing in rape casesidentification paradefurther inquirysodomy
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of F.I.R No. 262/2024 registered under Sections 364-A, 377-B, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mominabad. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of identification, absence of the applicant's name in the victim's Section 164 statement, and failure to conduct mandatory DNA testing under Section 156-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that tentative assessment reveals reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the applicant's guilt due to the missing identification parade, omitted name in the statement, and lack of forensic DNA evidence. The key principle laid down is that mandatory DNA testing and timely forensic analysis are vital scientific methods in investigating sexual offenses, and their absence, coupled with evidentiary gaps at the pre-trial stage, can tilt the balance in favor of granting further inquiry bail to an accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the victim's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not name the accused and no identification parade is conducted?
  • Is DNA testing mandatory in cases involving sexual offenses under Section 156-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the evidentiary significance of modern scientific and forensic methods like DNA profiling in criminal investigations?
  Read full judgment →
• Raheel vs The State2024 PCRLJ 121 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-17
  identification paradebenefit of the doubtcriminal appealmurder convictionterrorismrecovery of weaponprosecution evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by an Anti-Terrorism Court for murder and terrorism-related offenses. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the reliability of the sole eye-witness identification and the alleged recovery of the weapon. The High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to meet the required standard of proof. The Court established that identification parades are merely corroborative and must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards, including promptness and the exclusion of police influence. The identification in this case was deemed unreliable because the suspect was shown to witnesses beforehand, the parade was delayed, and the appellant was uniquely identifiable among dummies. Additionally, the court found the recovery of the weapon suspicious due to the lack of independent witnesses and the illogical circumstances of the arrest. Consequently, the Court ruled that the prosecution's case collapsed, necessitating the appellant's acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade conducted after an unreasonable delay and without proper safeguards constitute reliable evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the sole eye-witness identification is flawed and the recovery of the weapon is doubtful?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to produce independent witnesses for a recovery of an incriminating weapon?
  • Is an identification parade where the accused is uniquely identifiable among dummies legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs The State2024 PCRLJ 1601 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-17
  murderbenefit of doubtpolice witnesssafe custody of crime weaponocular and medical contradictioncriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and under section 24 of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal questions involved the reliability of sole police witness testimony, the contradiction between ocular and medical evidence, and the legal effect of failing to prove the safe custody and transmission of crime weapons. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unnatural police conduct, withheld independent witnesses, material contradictions in evidence, and failure to establish safe custody of recovered items. The court laid down the principle that the uncorroborated and unnatural testimony of police officials, coupled with a failure to prove safe transmission of crime weapons to forensic experts and the existence of multiple reasonable doubts, entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the uncorroborated testimony of police officials can form the basis of a conviction when independent witnesses are available but withheld?
  • Does a contradiction between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the side of firearm injuries create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Is the positive report of a ballistic expert admissible when the prosecution fails to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of the crime weapon?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Qasim Anwar S/O Muhammad Anwar vs The State2024 SHC 748 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-10
  post-arrest bailmurdercriminal trialfurther inquiryforensic evidencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302/201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on his claims of innocence and false implication, or if the prosecution's evidence necessitated his continued detention. The court dismissed the bail application, holding that a tentative assessment of the record—including medical reports, forensic DNA analysis, and call detail records—established a prima facie connection between the applicant and the crime. The court emphasized that it would not interfere with the merits of the case while the trial was ongoing, as doing so could prejudice either party. The key principle laid down is that where a trial is in progress, bail applications should not be decided on merits; rather, the matter should be left to the trial court. The applicant was granted liberty to file a fresh bail application before the trial court after the examination of material witnesses if the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Should a court decide a bail application on its merits when the trial is already in progress?
  • Does the presence of forensic and medical evidence linking an accused to a crime constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Can an accused file a fresh bail application after the examination of material witnesses if the case warrants further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Qamber vs The State2024 SHC 1312 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-27
  narcotics controlchain of custodydelay in chemical analysiscriminal appealbenefit of doubtillegal possessionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 6/9-C of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing 310 grams of Ice, resulting in a ten-year sentence. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established the safe custody and timely transmission of the narcotic samples to the chemical examiner and proved the recovery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to dispatch the sample to the laboratory within the mandatory 72 hours, leaving an unexplained six-day delay and a broken chain of custody, alongside a failure to associate private witnesses. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key legal principle established is that in narcotics cases, the prosecution must strictly prove every link in the chain of custody from recovery to laboratory transmission, and any unexplained delay or missing link entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in transmitting narcotic samples to the chemical examiner vitiates the conviction?
  • Does a broken chain of custody in handling recovered narcotics entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is the prosecution bound to prove every step from recovery to the laboratory analysis of contraband beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Nadeem vs Shah Asif Masood & others2024 SHC 1054 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh alias Dau vs The State2024 PCRLJ 982 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-16
  murderocular evidencereasonable doubtcriminal appeallife imprisonmentwitness credibilitycorroborationmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court for an offence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a fatal assault with a brick following a dispute over a government plot. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, given the defense's claims of false implication and material contradictions in ocular evidence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent, reliable eye-witness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the murder weapon. The court affirmed that minor contradictions do not undermine the prosecution's case, and that the relationship of a witness to the deceased does not inherently disqualify their testimony. Furthermore, the court clarified that corroboration is a rule of caution rather than a rule of law, and that the prosecution is not obligated to produce every potential witness if the case is otherwise proven.

  Questions settled

  • Does a relationship between an eye-witness and the deceased automatically render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is the prosecution required to produce every potential eye-witness to prove a criminal charge?
  • Are minor contradictions in witness testimony sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused in a murder case?
  • Is corroboration of ocular evidence a mandatory rule of law or a rule of caution?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Hussain Shah vs The State2024 SHC 1016 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-02
  pre-arrest baildishonestly issuing a chequeabsconsionvoluntary surrenderfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court by the applicant seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves whether an accused who was previously granted bail on merits, but later absconded for a brief period before voluntarily surrendering, is entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail when the offence carries a minor penalty and the case falls within the scope of further inquiry. The Sindh High Court allowed the application and confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail. The court held that mere absconsion is not sufficient ground to deny bail if the accused has a good case on merits and has voluntarily surrendered to the jurisdiction of the court, thereby reposing confidence in the administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere absconsion disentitles an accused from pre-arrest bail if he has otherwise made out a good case on merits and surrendered voluntarily?
  • Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused was previously granted bail on merits and the offence carries a minor penalty?
  • Is an accused who voluntarily surrenders before the court entitled to a different consideration regarding bail compared to a proclaimed offender who is arrested after police raids?
  Read full judgment →