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.

• Qadeer Hussain Shah son of Muhammad Hussain Shah vs The State2024 SHC 940, 2025 PCRLJ 98 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-12
  pre-arrest bailvoluntary surrenderabsconsionfurther inquirydishonestly issuing a chequebail confirmation
  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 concerns whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed where the accused was earlier granted bail on merits, subsequently absconded for a period leading to the recall of bail, but eventually surrendered voluntarily and rejoined the trial which is now at the stage of recording a statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that mere absconsion does not disentitle an accused to bail if they have a good case on merits, particularly where the surrender is voluntary and the trial is at its concluding stage. The High Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down that voluntary surrender distinguishes an accused from a proclaimed offender evading arrest, and that an accused granted bail on merits whose case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should not be incarcerated when no useful purpose would be served.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere absconsion by an accused disentitle them to bail if they otherwise have a good case on merits?
  • What is the legal effect of voluntary surrender by an accused who previously jumped bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the trial has reached the stage of recording the statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a case require further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where the accused was earlier granted bail on merits and later surrendered voluntarily after a period of absconsion?
  Read full judgment →
• Punhoon and others vs The State2024 SHC 1026 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-07
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clausecriminal trialbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by six applicants seeking confirmation of their interim bail in connection with FIR No. 475 of 2024, registered at Police Station Gaddap City, Karachi, for offences under Sections 379, 454, 457, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the potential punishment involved. The Court observed that the offence charged carries a maximum punishment of seven years, but even if the prosecution succeeded, the likely sentence would not exceed three years. Consequently, the Court held that the case against the applicants required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court confirmed the interim bail, emphasizing that where the maximum punishment for an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, provided the case requires further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case require further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the potential punishment for the alleged offence is less than the threshold of the prohibitory clause?
  • Is the confirmation of pre-arrest bail appropriate when the trial court has already challaned the case and the maximum likely sentence is relatively low?
  • What powers does a trial court possess under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if an accused misuses the concession of bail or tampers with evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• PTCL and others vs PTA & others2024 SHC 1238 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-13Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh and others vs M/s Amar Lal Traders2024 SHC 606 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh & others vs Muhammad Faisal & others2024 SHC 678 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-25Read full judgment →
• Prof: Dr. Kheo Ram vs M/s Changan Mehran Motors Ltd. & another2024 SHC 1262, 2025 CLC 393 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-07Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Pirzada Jamaluddin Ahmed Siddiqui vs The Federation of Pakistan2024 PLC (C.S) 23 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-13
  service matterappointment of directorcentre of excellence in marine biologyconsent orderselection boardcabinet approval
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking declarations that the petitioner is the sole eligible candidate for the post of Director of the Centre of Excellence in Marine Biology, University of Karachi, and challenging the appointment of the fifth respondent to the said office. The core legal question concerned the lawfulness and procedural propriety of the appointment of the fifth respondent under the relevant statutory framework, following prior litigation and a consent order. The Court held that the appointment process strictly adhered to the governing statutory provisions, including the unanimous recommendation of a competent selection board, consultation with the Vice-Chancellor, and approval by the Federal Cabinet in compliance with established legal principles. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the appointment or any vested right to the post. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of the Director of the Centre of Excellence in Marine Biology complied with the mandatory statutory consultation and approval requirements?
  • Can the High Court substitute its own evaluation for the unanimous recommendation of a duly constituted selection board regarding the suitability of a candidate?
  • Does a candidate have an enforceable vested right to be appointed to an academic and executive administrative post?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Aneela Atta-u-Rahman w/o Atta-u-Rahman vs Mashooque Ali,2024 SHC 380, 2025 PLD Sindh 251 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-29Read full judgment →
• Production Engineer PPL, I/C Camp office, Kandhkot and 04 others vs2023 SHC 654, 2024 PLD Sindh 259 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-24Read full judgment →
• Prime Builders vs Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (Pvt) Ltd &2024 SHC 872, 2025 PLD Sindh 166 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-15Read full judgment →
• Premium Textile Mills Ltd. & Others vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2024 SHC 904, 2025 CLC 332 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-06Read full judgment →
• Power Station (Pvt) Ltd vs NEPRA and Others2024 SHC 1208 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Popular International (Pvt.) Limited through duly authorized officer vs Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue and Ex-Officio Chairman and another2024 PTD 846, 2024 PLD Sindh 325, 2024 PTD 1121 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
• Pirbhu Lal vs Jhaman Das & another2024 SHC 1148 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-02
  criminal appealacquittalbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecivil disputewitness credibilitysettlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, which set aside the conviction of the respondent, Jhaman Das, for offenses under sections 337-F(vi) and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the appellate court erred in acquitting the respondent due to alleged contradictions in the prosecution's evidence and the existence of admitted civil litigation between the parties. Upon review, the High Court noted significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainant and prosecution witnesses, alongside the admitted enmity between the parties, which cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case. The court observed that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right when evidence is not confidence-inspiring. Ultimately, the parties reached a mutual settlement to maintain peace and avoid further criminal activity. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal by consent, directing the Deputy Commissioner and the Senior Superintendent of Police to monitor compliance with the peace arrangement, without disturbing the acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of admitted enmity and civil litigation between parties create reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to warrant the acquittal of an accused?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a conviction based on contradictions and lacunas in the prosecution's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ali vs Province of Sindh2024 SHC 32 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-25
  fundamental right to educationclosed schoolsbiometric attendanceScheduled New Expenditureteacher recruitmentpublic librarieseducational reformsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking the restoration of a Government Boys Primary School in Sindh that had been deleted from the database, alongside the rectification of biometric attendance errors for its sole teacher. Taking judicial notice of the systemic crisis of closed, deleted, and non-viable schools across Sindh, the High Court of Sindh ordered comprehensive inspections by District Magistrates. The reports revealed thousands of schools closed due to non-posting of teachers, lack of infrastructure, and non-sanctioning of Scheduled New Expenditure (SNE). The Court held that education is an inalienable fundamental right under Article 25-A of the Constitution, which the State has a non-negotiable duty to provide. The Court disposed of the petition with exhaustive directions, including: the immediate restoration of deleted schools; transparent, merit-based recruitment of teachers within two months; the mandatory sanctioning of SNEs; the implementation of the Dr. Iqbal Hussain Durrani Education Reforms Committee report; the transition of degree programs from two to four years; and the revitalization of public libraries and digital labs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the state can justify the closure or deletion of public schools on the grounds of financial constraints or non-availability of teachers under Article 25-A of the Constitution?
  • Can the discretionary powers of the Chief Minister under Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 be used to grant personal financial benefits or scholarships from public endowment funds?
  • What is the role of the District Judiciary in monitoring and ensuring the proper functioning and removal of encroachments from public educational institutions?
  • Is the state constitutionally mandated to provide free and compulsory secondary education under the Directive Principles of State Policy and Article 25-A?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ahmed @ Paroo Rajper vs The State2024 SHC 112 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-13
  murderdeath sentenceconfirmation referencerefusal to marryeyewitness testimonyrelated witnessesmotivemedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal and confirmation reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Pervaiz Ahmed, under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the premeditated murder of a young girl following her refusal to marry him, sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involve whether the prosecution successfully established its case through ocular and medical evidence despite minor contradictions, the non-production of an eyewitness who was allegedly won over, and the reliability of related witnesses. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through trustworthy eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and a proven motive, and that the mere relationship of witnesses to the deceased or the non-production of a won-over witness does not impair the prosecution's case. The court maintained the conviction, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses can be relied upon to sustain a conviction in a murder trial in the absence of independent corroboration?
  • Does the non-production of an eyewitness for cross-examination due to being won over vitiate the entire prosecution case?
  • Whether minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses are sufficient to create a doubt regarding the guilt of the accused?
  • What is the standard for awarding capital punishment versus a lesser penalty in cases of Qatl-e-Amd proven beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• PC Veeram Khan and another vs The State2024 YLR 2323 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-19
  criminal breach of trustmisappropriation of service weaponbenefit of doubtunexplained delay in FIRnon-sealing of recovered weaponadverse inferenceanti-corruption appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two criminal appeals assailing the judgments of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Larkana, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1947 for allegedly misappropriating official service rifles and failing to return them or depositing fake replacements. The core legal questions revolved around whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of criminal breach of trust beyond a reasonable doubt, the effect of inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIRs, the failure to follow mandatory procedures regarding the sealing and safe transmission of recovered weapons, and the lack of independent corroboration. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of the doubt. The court held that multiple serious lapses by the prosecution—including unexplained delays in lodging FIRs, failure to seal the alleged weapons at the time of recovery, non-examination of key recovery witnesses, violation of provisions requiring independent private mashirs, and failure to prove safe custody and transmission of evidence—vitiated the evidentiary value of the prosecution case, entitling the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging an FIR create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution case when alleged recovered weapons are not sealed at the time of recovery and lack safe transmission?
  • Can an accused be convicted of criminal breach of trust under Section 409 PPC when recovery memos are not prepared and essential witnesses are withheld?
  • Does the failure to associate private independent witnesses during recovery proceedings violate statutory safeguards under criminal procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Parvez Khan Son of Talazar vs The State2024 SHC 152 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-31
  narcotics traffickingcriminal appealpossession of narcoticsdriver liabilitychemical examiner reportofficial witnessesburden of proofprocedural technicalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, who was found guilty of transporting 46 kilograms of heroin powder in a truck. The core legal questions concerned whether the prosecution sufficiently established the appellant's guilt, whether the driver of a vehicle can be held liable for narcotics found therein, and whether procedural omissions regarding the investigation and chemical analysis vitiated the conviction. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court affirmed that a driver in charge of a vehicle is presumed to have knowledge and control over its contents, establishing liability for narcotics found within. Furthermore, the court held that official witnesses are competent, and their testimony is not discarded solely due to their status. Emphasizing a dynamic approach, the court ruled that minor procedural technicalities should not override substantive evidence of guilt, particularly when the prosecution has discharged its initial burden, thereby shifting the onus to the accused under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, to prove otherwise.

  Questions settled

  • Is the driver of a vehicle legally responsible for the transportation of narcotics found within the vehicle?
  • Can the testimony of official witnesses be discarded solely because they are police or excise officials?
  • Does the failure to associate private witnesses in a narcotics search under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a conviction?
  • Can a complainant also act as the investigating officer in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Parvez Ahmed vs Province of Sindh & Another2024 SHC 302 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-17Read full judgment →
• Paru vs Sagram & another2024 SHC 1118 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-26
  cancellation of bailpre-arrest bailprohibitory clausedelay in FIRfurther inquirymisuse of bailgrievous hurt
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application was filed by the complainant under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Tharparkar in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 337-F(vi), 337-F(i), 506(2), and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions addressed were whether pre-arrest bail was appropriately granted despite an unexcused delay in lodging the FIR, and whether strong grounds existed to warrant cancellation of bail. The High Court dismissed the application, confirming the trial court's order. The Court held that an unexplained 12-day delay in lodging the FIR raised doubts of consultation and false implication. Furthermore, the non-bailable offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC, and there was no evidence that the respondents had misused the concession of bail or violated established legal principles governing bail cancellation.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail granted by a court of competent jurisdiction be cancelled without proof of misuse of the concession of bail?
  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  • What are the established grounds on which superior courts may recall or cancel an order granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Paras Ali Gadani vs The State2024 YLR 693 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-03
  murderfirearm injuryocular evidencemedical corroborationinterested witnessesminor contradictionscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III/MCTC-II, Sukkur, whereby the appellant Paras Ali was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment as Tazir with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case was that the appellant, along with an absconding co-accused, attacked the complainant's brother due to a dispute over neighborhood residence, resulting in fatal firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular accounts, medical evidence, and prompt registration of the FIR. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant through reliable and confidence-inspiring testimony of eye-witnesses, duly corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of crime weapons, while minor discrepancies did not affect the core case. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in the registration of an FIR is successfully explained when the complainant first shifts the injured victim to the hospital?
  • Does a close inter se relationship between the complainant, witnesses, and the deceased render their testimony inherently unreliable?
  • Can minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses detract from an otherwise consistent ocular and medical account?
  • Whether conflicts between expert medical evidence and direct ocular testimony are sufficient to discard the eyewitnesses' account if accepted by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited & Another vs Rasheed2024 SHC 900, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1555 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-05
  service regulationsdisciplinary proceedingscompetent authorityboard of directors resolutioncivil appealwrongful terminationmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Sindh High Court in a service dispute, wherein the trial court had ruled in favor of the Respondent employee and awarded damages for wrongful termination. The core legal question was whether the General Manager (HRA) of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) possessed the requisite jurisdiction and authorization to issue a show-cause notice and charge-sheet to an officer in Grade BPS-18, given an amendment to Paragraph 7.01 of the PTCL Service Regulations, 1996, enacted via a Board of Directors resolution. The High Court held that the Board resolution amending the service regulations came into force on the date it was passed rather than the date it was communicated internally, and that under the amended regulations, the General Manager (HRA) was duly competent to issue and communicate the disciplinary notices. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree, ruling on the competency issue in favor of PTCL and remanding the matter back to the trial court to decide the remaining settled issues afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Board of Directors resolution amending service regulations come into effect from the date of its passage or the date of its internal communication?
  • Whether the General Manager (HRA) is competent to issue and communicate show-cause notices and charge-sheets under the amended Pakistan Telecommunication Limited Service Regulations, 1996?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a trial court judgment and remand the case for a fresh decision on remaining issues when the foundational finding on officer competency is reversed?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Authority vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 946 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-18Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Post office Employees Cooperative Housing Society vs Government of Sindh & others2024 SHC 612 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association, Pakistan Chemists &2024 SHC 892, 2025 CLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-22Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Medical Commission vs Province of Sindh and others2024 CLC 53 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporat vs Collector of Customs2024 SHC 1036 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-07Read full judgment →
• P&T Coop Housing Society vs Sect: Coop Department and Others2024 SHC 296 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-08Read full judgment →
• Orient Energy System Pvt Ltd. vs Asst: Commissioner Ir and Others2024 SHC 382, 2025 PTD 431 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• Omer Khalid Ali vs Federation of Pakistan through President of Pakistan2024 PLC (C.S.) 995 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-13
  quo warrantoState Owned Enterprisesconflict of interestcaretaker governmentjudicial reviewpublic officedisqualification
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of the respondent as Chairperson of Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (SSGCL) while simultaneously holding the office of Caretaker Finance Minister. The petitioner contended that this dual role constituted a conflict of interest and violated the State Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023, and the Companies Act, 2017, alleging the respondent was ineligible and held the position without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the respondent suffered from any statutory disqualification or conflict of interest warranting judicial intervention. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any inherent disqualification under the governing Act. The Court clarified that a Caretaker Minister is not a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora and that the petitioner provided only unsubstantiated allegations rather than evidence of illegality or cronyism. The principle laid down is that judicial review of administrative appointments is confined to determining the legality of the decision-making process, and courts will not interfere absent proof of specific statutory disqualification or abuse of power.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ of quo warranto be maintained by a person who is not an aggrieved person?
  • Does the appointment of a Caretaker Finance Minister as a Chairperson of a State Owned Enterprise violate the State Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023?
  • Is a Caretaker Minister considered a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora for the purpose of disqualification from holding public office?
  • On what grounds can a court exercise judicial review over administrative appointments in State Owned Enterprises?
  Read full judgment →
• Oil & Gas Development Company Ltd vs M/s. Shah Latif CNG and others2024 SHC 626, 2024 CLC 1846 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-31Read full judgment →
• Nuaman Tarique Jat vs The State & others2024 SHC 452 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-10
  registration of FIRJustice of Peacecognizable offencequashing of orderduty of SHO
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the applicant assailing the order of the Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, whereby his application seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR was dismissed on the ground that no robbery was committed and a civil suit filed by the applicant's father had been rejected. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace and the SHO could refuse to record an FIR for a cognizable offence based on the rejection of a civil plaint or the perceived falsity of the allegations. The Sindh High Court held that the SHO has no authority to refuse to record the statement of a complainant under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a cognizable offence irrespective of its authenticity, and that the remedy against false information is penal action under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court disposed of the application by directing the Senior Superintendent of Police to ascertain the factual position and take appropriate action.

  Questions settled

  • Does an SHO have the authority to refuse to record the statement of a complainant under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of authenticity or falsity?
  • Can the rejection of a civil plaint serve as a valid ground for a Justice of Peace to refuse a direction for the registration of an FIR for a cognizable offence?
  • What is the statutory check against the lodging of false First Information Reports under criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Nooruddin & others vs M/s Sindh Industrial Trading Estate & others2024 SHC 12 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-11Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad, Faiz Muhammad vs The State2024 SHC 320 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-01
  narcotics possessionconscious possessionchain of custodycriminal appealreasonable doubtacquittalControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of two appellants for the possession of narcotic drugs under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The appellants were sentenced to ten years of imprisonment after narcotics were allegedly recovered from a vehicle they occupied. The core legal questions addressed were whether the appellants had conscious possession of the narcotics and whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the recovered evidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession, particularly regarding the passenger, as the narcotics were concealed in an opaque container, and no evidence established the appellants' knowledge of the contraband. Additionally, the court found the chain of custody fatally flawed due to the failure to examine the malkhana in-charge and the lack of documentation regarding the transit of the narcotics. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that criminal cases must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the benefit of any doubt must accrue to the accused. The judgment reinforces the principle that conscious knowledge is a prerequisite for convicting vehicle occupants of narcotics possession.

  Questions settled

  • Is conscious knowledge of the presence of narcotics a prerequisite for convicting a passenger in a vehicle?
  • Does a failure to examine the malkhana in-charge regarding the transit of recovered narcotics break the chain of custody?
  • Can a conviction for narcotics possession be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the chain of custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad through attorney and others vs Allah Warayo and others2024 MLD 617 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-16Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmed vs The State2024 SHC 1230 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-31
  Section 342 statementfair trialremandprosecution lacunaeacquittalbenefit of doubtneutral umpire
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and life sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing that the trial court failed to put material incriminating evidence to him during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a conviction can be sustained when material evidence is not confronted to the accused during his statement, and whether the appellate court should remand the case to cure this defect. The Court held that evidence not put to an accused during their Section 342 examination cannot be used to sustain a conviction and must be excluded. Furthermore, the Court ruled that remanding the case to re-record the statement would improperly allow the prosecution to fill evidentiary lacunae, violating the accused's right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing that courts must act as neutral umpires and cannot assist the prosecution in improving its case at the expense of the accused's fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained if material evidence is not put to the accused during their examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should an appellate court remand a case to the trial court to re-record an accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to cure evidentiary defects?
  • Does remanding a criminal case to fill prosecution lacunae violate the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Noman Ahmed vs The State2024 SHC 950 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-18
  foreign exchange regulationhundi hawalaquashing of proceedingsacquittal under section 265-Kcognizance of offenceunauthorized foreign exchange dealersearch warrant
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed to assail an order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South, dismissing the applicant's acquittal application under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020 read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved whether the Federal Investigation Agency required a written complaint by an authorized person to initiate cognizance against an unauthorized foreign exchange dealer, and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the Section 265-K acquittal application prior to recording evidence. The Sindh High Court held that under the second proviso to Section 23(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 (as amended by the 2020 Act), the requirement of a written complaint by an authorized person is expressly exempted for persons not authorized to deal in foreign exchange. Furthermore, the court held that where there is a probability of conviction, an acquittal application under Section 265-K should not be entertained prematurely without recording evidence. The criminal miscellaneous application was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a written complaint by an authorized person is required under Section 23(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 for prosecuting a person not authorized to deal in foreign exchange?
  • Can an application for acquittal under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be allowed before recording evidence when there is a probability of conviction?
  • Does the failure to obtain a search warrant under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 vitiate trial proceedings prior to the recording of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed Ghori and others vs The State2024 SHC 656 · Sindh High Court
  qatl-i-amdeyewitness testimonyappreciation of evidencemedical evidencerecovery of weaponsminor discrepanciescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for the murder of the complainant's brother, arising from a dispute over a common street. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the impact of alleged medical evidence discrepancies, and the validity of recoveries of incriminating weapons. The appellants argued that the prosecution's case was inconsistent, that medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness accounts, and that the recovery of weapons was manipulated. The Court held that the eyewitness testimony, including that of an injured complainant, was consistent, confidence-inspiring, and withstood rigorous cross-examination. It further ruled that minor discrepancies in evidence, typical of the passage of time, do not undermine the prosecution's case. The Court dismissed the argument that the medical officer's belated, unsubstantiated opinion regarding 'self-suffered' injuries or the type of weapon used could impeach the otherwise credible eyewitness account. The principle laid down is that recovery of weapons serves as supporting evidence and cannot override credible eyewitness testimony, and minor inconsistencies in evidence do not warrant acquittal when the core prosecution narrative remains intact.

  Questions settled

  • Can minor discrepancies in witness testimony undermine the prosecution's case if the core narrative remains consistent?
  • Does the recovery of incriminating weapons serve as primary or supporting evidence in a murder trial?
  • Can a medical officer's unsubstantiated opinion in cross-examination, contradicting the initial medical report, impeach the credibility of an injured witness?
  • Is it permissible to convert a conviction under Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on alleged minor discrepancies in evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nina Industries Limited vs Bhanero Textile Mills2024 SHC 42, 2024 PLJ Karachi 50 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-24Read full judgment →
• Nihal Khan and others vs Province of Sindh and others2024 SHC 1380 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-20Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed S/O Sher Jang & Ors vs Muhammad Aijaz & Ors2024 SHC 160 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-23
  Illegal Dispossession Actrestoration of possessioncivil litigationland grabbersregistered gift deedcriminal revisionquashing of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This common order disposes of two criminal revision applications challenging orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) in an illegal dispossession complaint. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against family members and co-heirs, the effect of pending civil litigation on such criminal proceedings, and the legality of interim orders restoring possession under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. The Sindh High Court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act applies to anyone who illegally dispossesses a lawful owner or occupier, regardless of whether the offender belongs to a professional land-grabbing group or is a family member. The court further held that the pendency of civil litigation does not bar criminal proceedings under the Act. The revision applications were accordingly dismissed, upholding the trial court's orders for the restoration of possession and the dismissal of the acquittal application.

  Questions settled

  • Can proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be initiated against family members or co-heirs, or are they restricted to professional land grabbers?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation between the parties bar criminal proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Whether a trial court can order the interim restoration of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 pending trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. merely on the assertion that the disputed property is inherited?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed Mirani vs The State2024 YLR 726 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-16Read full judgment →
• New Metallurgy Hi-Tech Group Co. Ltd. vs Siddiqsons Tin Plate Limited2024 SHC 44, 2024 PLJ Karachi 59 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-26Read full judgment →
• Nek Muhammad Brohi vs Election Commission of Pakistan & another2024 SHC 136 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-25Read full judgment →
• Nazeer alias Leemon and others vs The State2024 YLR 2675 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-12
  criminal appealpolice encounterbenefit of the doubtjoint recovery memodelayed FSL reportacquittalfirearm injury
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat, convicting the appellants under Sections 401, 324, 353, and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellants engaged in a police encounter, resulting in firearm injuries to a police constable and one of the accused. The core legal questions involve the credibility of a joint recovery memo, the failure of the injured witness to specifically implicate the appellants, the inordinate delay in sending FSL empties, and the benefit of the doubt. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal for two appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt due to general allegations, lack of specific attribution of injuries by the injured witness, defective joint recovery, delayed FSL dispatch, and non-production of the recovered motorcycle. The court established that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right, and joint recovery memos without distinct attribution carry weak evidentiary value.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a joint recovery memo of arrest and weapons has evidentiary value without distinct attribution to individual accused?
  • Does an inordinate delay in dispatching weapon empties to the forensic laboratory vitiate a positive FSL report?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right based on a single reasonable circumstance?
  • Does the failure of an injured prosecution witness to specifically name the assailant warrant an acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1204 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-31Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed alias Nazro and another vs The State2024 YLR 189 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27
  abduction for ransombenefit of doubtmaterial contradictionsdelayed FIRAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellants under Section 365-A read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the credibility of evidence regarding alleged abduction for ransom, significant delays in lodging the FIR, material contradictions among prosecution witnesses, and non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the abductee and complainant admitted the abductee boarded the vehicle voluntarily, there were major discrepancies regarding the payment of ransom and identification of witnesses, and no recovery was effected from the appellants. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants by extending them the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions, delayed FIRs, and unimpeachable gaps in proof entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a voluntary boarding of a vehicle by an alleged abductee negate the charge of abduction under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR in kidnapping and ransom cases?
  • Whether material contradictions between the testimony of the complainant and prosecution witnesses are fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the prosecution fails to provide unimpeachable evidence of guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed & Gul Sher vs Province of Sindh2024 SHC 324, 2024 CLC 2044 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
• Nazar Mohammad Bozdar and others vs Muhammad Ishrat & others2024 SHC 1282 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-22Read full judgment →
• Nazar Bhayo vs The State2024 SHC 516 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-21
  pre-arrest bailmurderabsconderdirect complaintcriminal investigationfirearm injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Nazar, who is charged with the murder of Mst. Azeema. The complainant alleged that the deceased was murdered by the applicant and co-accused due to her second marriage. The defense argued for bail, citing a direct complaint filed by the deceased's mother against the complainant as evidence of a two-version case requiring further inquiry. The Court examined the material, noting that the FIR assigned a direct role of firing to the applicant, which was corroborated by the postmortem report showing two firearm injuries and statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not meant for every case and that the direct complaint appeared to be a pressure tactic. Finding the applicant's involvement prima facie supported by evidence and noting his status as an absconder in the challan, the Court dismissed the bail application and ordered the applicant to be taken into custody to face trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a direct complaint filed after a significant delay against a complainant sufficient grounds to grant pre-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Can an accused who is shown as an absconder in the challan be taken into custody upon the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Does the existence of a two-version case automatically entitle an accused to the concession of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Ali vs State2024 SHC 1278 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-19Read full judgment →
• Nawab alias Tharo Gadani and another vs The State2024 MLD 110 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-16
  qatl-i-amddeath sentence conversionunproven motivemitigating circumstancemurder convictionocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction of the appellants under Section 302(b) read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of two deceased persons, resulting in a death sentence on two counts by the trial court. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution successfully proved its case and whether the death sentence was warranted given that the alleged motive remained unproven. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants through reliable broad-daylight ocular testimony, medical evidence, and explanation of delay, which went largely unchallenged on merits as counsel did not press the appeal on merits. However, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the motive alleged in the FIR against the appellants. The ratio laid down is that while ocular and medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction, the failure of the prosecution to prove the asserted motive acts as a mitigating circumstance, justifying the conversion of a death sentence into imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove an asserted motive act as a mitigating circumstance to reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) read with Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be maintained on the basis of broad-daylight ocular testimony supported by medical evidence?
  • Whether unproven motive can react against the imposition of the death penalty in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Ali Siyal vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 376 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-02Read full judgment →
• National Tiles Ceramics Limited vs Sui Southern Gas Company Limited2023 SHC 1024, 2024 MLD 1386 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-25Read full judgment →
• Nek Rehman alias Zeeshan vs The State2024 YLR 2783 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-17
  narcoticssafe custodyburden of proofpolice witnessesjail appeallife imprisonmentCharas
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Court-II (C.N.S.) Karachi, which convicted the appellant under Section 6/9(c) read with Sections 14 and 15 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case was that the appellant was apprehended while driving a vehicle from which 22 kilograms of Charas were recovered. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated, that there were material contradictions in the evidence, and that the prosecution failed to prove safe custody of the contraband. The High Court, upon reassessing the evidence, dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established safe custody and transmission of the narcotics through consistent testimonies of police witnesses. It was laid down that under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, once recovery from a vehicle under the control of the accused is proven, the burden shifts to the accused to show lack of knowledge or possession, which the appellant failed to discharge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of police witnesses can be relied upon to sustain a conviction in a narcotics case in the absence of independent private witnesses?
  • How does the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 affect the burden of proof once recovery of contraband is established?
  • Does the exclusion of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 validate search and recovery operations conducted solely by police officials?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Limited vs M/s. Saudi Pak Industrial and2024 SHC 1168, 2025 CLD 270 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-29Read full judgment →
• National Accountability Bureau vs Federation of Pakistan & Others2024 SHC 1362 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-18
  plea bargainNational Accountability Ordinancerecovered fundsstatutory interpretationconstitutional petitionpublic accountsembezzlement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an Accountability Court order that rejected the National Accountability Bureau's (NAB) claim to retain 25% of funds recovered through a plea bargain in the M-6 Motorway Project embezzlement case. The core legal question was whether NAB possesses the statutory authority to deduct a percentage of recovered funds as its share based on internal SOPs or executive notifications. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that NAB lacks the legal authority to retain any portion of recovered funds. It affirmed that under Section 25(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the entirety of funds recovered through plea bargains must be transferred to the Federal or Provincial government or the concerned department. The Court emphasized that NAB is not a revenue-generating entity and that internal SOPs or administrative letters cannot override statutory mandates or constitutional provisions regarding public accounts and taxation. Consequently, the Court ruled that the deduction of 25% was illegal, upholding the trial court's order requiring the full remittance of recovered funds to the National Highway Authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Accountability Bureau have the legal authority to retain a percentage of funds recovered through plea bargains?
  • Is the National Accountability Bureau a revenue-generating entity entitled to deduct shares from recovered embezzled money?
  • Do internal SOPs or executive notifications authorizing the retention of recovered funds override the statutory provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Does the Accountability Court have the jurisdiction to order the transfer of the full amount recovered via plea bargain to the concerned government authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasreen Qadri and another vs Mian Bux and others2024 YLR 1079 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-13
  anti-encroachmentexecution proceedingsCode of Civil Procedurerejection of plaintsubsequent suitspecial tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment resolves a criminal miscellaneous application and a second appeal arising from a dispute over the alleged encroachment of a street or common passage. The core legal questions involve the propriety of an anti-encroachment tribunal invoking Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during execution proceedings to revisit a settled controversy, and the maintainability of a subsequent suit seeking survey and demarcation. The Sindh High Court held that the tribunal erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to re-examine a matter already finalized up to the Supreme Court, and that the subsequent suit was rightly rejected as an attempt to circumvent the tribunal's execution proceedings. The court laid down the principle that special tribunals established under specific statutes cannot revisit settled matters or invoke extraneous procedural powers beyond their statutory mandate to obstruct execution of final orders, and that subsequent redundant suits aimed at circumventing lawful execution must be dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an anti-encroachment tribunal invoke Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to revisit a controversy already decided and upheld up to the Supreme Court?
  • Whether a subsequent civil suit seeking survey and demarcation is maintainable when its object is to circumvent execution proceedings before a special tribunal?
  • Does a special tribunal established under the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 2010 possess the power to re-examine settled title disputes during the execution of its removal orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Hussain vs Mst. Shahnawaz Begum & others2024 SHC 428, 2024 CLC 2134 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• Naseer Khan vs Nisar Khan and others2024 SHC 1402, 2025 CLC 801 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-31Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed Muchi vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 488 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Naseem-Us-Sami and 49 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division and 4 others2024 PLC (C.S) 41 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-09
  constitutional petitionspecial allowancehouse rent ceilingstatutory authorityBoard of Governors powersFederal Government controlservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, permanent employees of the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA), filed a constitutional petition seeking the restoration of a 20% special allowance and a 65% house rent ceiling approved by the Board of Governors (BoG) of the PSQCA. The core legal question was whether the PSQCA Board of Governors could independently grant special allowances and increased house rent ceilings to its employees without the sanction and concurrence of the Federal Government and the Ministry of Finance. The court held that under the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act, 1996, decisions of the BoG are subject to the directions and final approval of the Federal Government, and that any allowance over and above normal allowances requires the approval of the Prime Minister in relaxation of government policy. Since the requisite Federal Government approval and Finance Division concurrence were lacking, the allowances were illegal from the outset. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Board of Governors of the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority is competent to grant special allowances to its employees without the approval of the Federal Government?
  • Does a statutory authority have the power to disburse allowances over and above normal basic pay scales without concurrence from the Finance Division?
  • Whether the High Court can grant discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution to enforce an allowance that is contrary to government policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Naqeebullah S/O Gul Raiz vs The State2024 SHC 804 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-12
  post-arrest bailrobberyidentification paradefurther inquirynon-prohibitory clausecomplainant statementstolen property
  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. 84/2024 registered under Section 392/397/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Docks Karachi. The core legal question involved whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail where the complainant appeared in court, conceded to the bail, and stated he did not identify the applicant, and where no identification parade was held. The Sindh High Court accepted the bail application, holding that the complainant's statement calling for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, coupled with the fact that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause and the lack of a test identification parade, warranted the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that the complainant's version at the bail stage is a paramount consideration, and where a case falls within the non-prohibitory clause and lacks exceptional circumstances, bail must be granted favorably.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the complainant appears in court and states that they do not identify the accused?
  • Is a test identification parade necessary when an accused is not arrested on the spot but after a delay?
  • Does an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle the accused to bail as a rule in the absence of exceptional circumstances?
  • What are the essential elements required to constitute an offense under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Naimatullah vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Science and Technology and 2 others2024 PLC (C.S.) 875 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-13
  constitutional petitionjudicial reviewservice rulespromotionvested rightselection board
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, serving as a Principal Coastal Engineer (BS-19) in the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), challenged the decision of the respondent ministry to reconvene a meeting of the Selection Board to reconsider promotions to the post of Chief Scientific Officer (BS-20), alleging that his prior recommendation for promotion had already been approved and that he could not be demoted or subjected to a revised selection process without lawful authority or hearing. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was rightly considered for promotion under the National Institute of Oceanography Employees Service Rules, 2012, whether the department could reconvene the Selection Board, and whether the service rules conferred a vested right to promotion. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner was considered for promotion in violation of the applicable service rules since he lacked the prerequisite designation and criteria, and that executive authorities possess the prerogative to correct anomalies and reconsider matters where initial decisions breach prescribed rules. The court dismissed the petition, laying down that constitutional courts will exercise judicial review over promotion decisions only in cases of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, breach of rules, or proven malice, and reiterating that no employee possesses a vested right to promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioner was rightly considered for promotion to the post of Scientific Officer BS-20 under the Recruitment Rules notified on 23.02.2012?
  • Whether the respondent department can re-convene the meeting of the Selection Board for reconsideration of the proposal of the Selection Board earlier meeting?
  • Whether the National Institute of Oceanography Employees Service Rules, 2012 conferred a vested right to the petitioner to claim promotion to the post of Chief Scientific Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem ur Rehman Khan, Shah Muhammad Zaman Advocate, Muhammad2024 SHC 1424 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Naeem Qudrat & 6 others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 346 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-25Read full judgment →
• Naeem Ahmed Khan vs Darya Khan2024 MLD 689 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-25Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khoso Legal Heirs of deceased, Shbbir Ahmed, Moula Bux vs State2023 SHC 752, 2024 YLR 1565 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-05
  rule of consistencybenefit of doubtacquittal appealmurder convictiondelay in FIRadverse inferenceQanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction of the appellant for murder, alongside acquittal appeals regarding co-accused and a revision application for sentence enhancement. The core legal questions involved the impact of a significant delay in lodging the FIR, the effect of the prosecution's failure to produce a material eye-witness, and the applicability of the rule of consistency where co-accused had previously been acquitted on the same evidence. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the unexplained delay in the FIR, the non-production of a key witness, and the lack of corroborative evidence. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court set aside the appellant's conviction, noting that the evidence against him was identical to that of the acquitted co-accused. The Court affirmed that acquittal judgments carry a double presumption of innocence and should not be disturbed unless perverse. The key principles laid down include that the rule of consistency is a mandatory consideration in criminal trials and that the prosecution's failure to produce essential witnesses warrants an adverse inference under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency require the acquittal of an accused when co-accused charged with the same offence on identical evidence have already been acquitted?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution under Article 129(g) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, for failing to produce a material eye-witness?
  • Is the recovery of a crime weapon a substantive piece of evidence or merely corroboratory in a criminal trial?
  • What is the scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against an acquittal judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem-ur-Rehman Baig vs The Learned Full Bench NIRC and Others2024 SHC 980 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-24
  workman definitionindustrial relationsburden of proofnature of dutieswrongful terminationNIRCcross-examinationemployment status
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition challenged an order passed by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which had overturned a Single Bench decision reinstating the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite his designation as a 'Senior Engineer,' fell within the definition of a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The High Court held that the petitioner was a workman, finding that the respondent failed to produce evidence of managerial or administrative authority. The Court emphasized that the nomenclature of a job title is not the deciding factor in determining employment status; rather, the 'litmus test' is the nature of the duties actually performed. Since the petitioner’s duties were manual and technical, and the respondent failed to challenge these assertions during cross-examination, the Court ruled that the facts were deemed admitted. Consequently, the Court set aside the Full Bench’s order and restored the Single Bench’s decision, affirming that the petitioner was entitled to the protections afforded to a workman.

  Questions settled

  • Is the nomenclature of a job title determinative of whether an employee is a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does the failure to challenge specific testimony during cross-examination constitute an admission of those facts?
  • What is the 'litmus test' for determining whether an employee falls within the definition of a workman in an industrial establishment?
  • Does the burden of proof lie with the employee to establish their status as a workman through evidence of their actual duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem- vs Mst. Reema2024 YLR 530 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-06Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Solangi vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 442 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-14Read full judgment →
• Nadeem alias Nadoo vs The State2024 SHC 1360 · Sindh High Court
  murderbenefit of the doubtcommon intentionabscondingnight-time identificationcriminal appealsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for murder under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency and reliability of ocular and medical evidence, identification at night, and the legal effect of absconding and common intention where the appellant was only assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased from behind. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to contradictions, lack of a disclosed source of identification during a night incident, unnatural conduct of prosecution witnesses, and statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 placing the appellant elsewhere. The court laid down the principles that mere absconding in isolation without corroborative incriminating evidence cannot sustain a conviction, that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, and that widening the net to falsely implicate suspects invalidates the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere absconding by an accused, in the absence of other incriminating evidence, is sufficient to maintain a conviction?
  • Can an accused be convicted solely on the basis of being assigned a role of holding the deceased from behind when the main assailant's sentence has been modified and co-accused on the same set of evidence have been acquitted?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Does the inclusion of suspects in column No. 2 of the police report based on statements of local witnesses reflecting non-presence weaken the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Abbas Mallah vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 328, 2025 PLC (C.S.) 520 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-25
  deceased quotacivil servantconstitutional petitionservice matterappointmentadministrative delaySindh Civil Servants Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the son of a deceased civil servant seeking a direction to the School Education Department, Government of Sindh, to appoint him against the quota reserved for deceased employees. The petitioner, whose father passed away during service in 2003, alleged that despite fulfilling codal formalities and applying within the prescribed timeframe, the department failed to process his appointment, causing undue delay since 2008. The respondents argued that the matter was policy-based and that the application was belated. The Court held that the department’s failure to act was unjustified and violated the law. Relying on Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974, the Court allowed the petition, directing the authorities to consider the petitioner's eligibility for a suitable ministerial post in accordance with the relevant rules and Supreme Court precedents. The judgment emphasizes that statutory rights regarding deceased quotas must be honored, and administrative apathy cannot be used to deny legitimate entitlements to legal heirs of deceased civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Is a government department obligated to process an application for appointment under the deceased quota if the applicant has fulfilled all codal formalities?
  • Can a government department deny an appointment under the deceased quota solely on the grounds of administrative delay when the application was filed within the policy terms?
  • Does Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974, mandate the consideration of legal heirs of deceased civil servants for suitable ministerial posts?
  Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bux & others vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 1096 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-23Read full judgment →
• N.P. Spinning Mills Limited vs Muhammad Siddique and another2024 SHC 912 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-06Read full judgment →
• M/s. Young's (Private) Limited and others vs Federation of Pakistan and2024 SHC 890, 2024 PTD 1547 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-27Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sadiq & Suharwardy vs Ismail Industries Ltd. and Eight Other2024 SHC 10 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Saba International vs The Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 1384 · Sindh High Court · 2024-12-21Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pako Computers, Karachi and others vs Custom Appellate Tribunal,2024 SHC 502 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. vs M/s. Ahmed Brothers & another2024 SHC 158 · Sindh High Court · 2024-02-20Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. and others vs The Pakistan Civil Aviation2024 SHC 1008 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan National Building Material Display Center Foundation2024 SHC 182 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-05Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pak Terry Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan & others2024 SHC 684 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-21Read full judgment →
• M/s. Liven Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Limited and another vs Securities and2024 SHC 896 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Khawaja Shahid Rashid vs Custom Appellate Tribunal Bench-II &2024 SHC 884 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-27Read full judgment →
• M/s. Insaf & Brothers vs Province of Sindh & others2024 SHC 414 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Province of Sindh & another2024 SHC 206 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-07Read full judgment →
• M/s. Elahee Buksh & Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Additional Commissioner2024 SHC 902 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Delawala Enterprises vs Salman Saeed Mahmood2024 SHC 416 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Asg Metal Limited vs The Commissioner-Ir, Zone-IV & Others2024 SHC 688, 2025 PTD 459 · Sindh High Court · 2024-06-27Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ary Communications Limited vs Abdul Qadir Shaikh, Commissioner2024 SHC 1418 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Adam Sugar Mills Limited, Karachi vs The Appellate Tribunal I.R. of Pak.2024 SHC 1002 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Zahra Communications (Pvt) Ltd vs M/s National Telecommunication2024 SHC 914 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s United Energy Pakistan Beta GmbH vs Ghulam Muhammad2024 SHC 240 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-13Read full judgment →
• M/s Sadat Business Group Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan2024 SHC 1032 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-13Read full judgment →
• M/s S.M. Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. & others vs Deceased Muhammad Mohsin2024 SHC 294, 2024 CLD 1407 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-08Read full judgment →
• Nadir Hussain S/o Abdul Latif Bhangar vs The State2024 SHC 752, 2025 YLR 487 · Sindh High Court · 2024-07-10
  narcotic substanceschain of custodychemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittalsafe transmission
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the possession of 21,000 grams of Bhang (Hemp) under Section 9(d) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody for the recovered narcotic samples and whether the conviction could be sustained despite material contradictions in witness testimony. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody and secure transmission of the narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner, noting an unexplained four-day delay in the malkhana and the failure to examine the official responsible for the delivery. Furthermore, the court identified material contradictions regarding the incident's details between the complainant and the mashir. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any break or gap in the chain of custody renders the Chemical Examiner's report unreliable, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case must be extended to the accused as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in the transmission of narcotic samples to the Chemical Examiner render the prosecution's case unreliable?
  • Is the failure to examine the official responsible for transporting narcotic samples a fatal defect in the chain of custody?
  • Can material contradictions between the complainant and the recovery witness regarding the incident's details justify the acquittal of an accused?
  • Must the prosecution prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples to rely on a Chemical Examiner's report for conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Popular Sugar Mills Ltd vs Fed. of Pakistan and Others2024 SHC 870 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-15Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan Chemical & Energy Sector vs Rab Nawaz and others2024 SHC 374, 2025 PLC 14 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-02
  labor appellate tribunaltermination of servicecommercial establishmentback benefitspermanent employmentconstitutional petitiongrievance application
  Summary & questions settled

  In this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner-employer challenged the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal's judgment which had set aside the Labour Court's decision and reinstated the respondent employees with back benefits. The core legal questions involved whether the termination of permanent employees through a notice abolishing yearly permanent employment policies complied with labor laws, and whether the educational establishment operated on a commercial basis under the relevant provincial legislation. The Sindh High Court held that the termination was illegal and violated Standing Order 16(3) of the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act 2015 because it failed to explicitly state valid reasons in writing, and that the petitioner's Technical Training College constituted a commercial establishment due to fee collection. The ratio is that termination of permanent workers without a reasoned written order complying with statutory safeguards is void, and educational institutions operating with revenue streams fall within commercial establishments. The key principles laid down include the absolute prohibition of arbitrary or verbal terminations in labor law, the necessity of procedural fairness, and the binding nature of statutory written termination requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the termination of a permanent employee without an explicit written order detailing reasons violates the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act 2015?
  • Does an educational institution charging fees qualify as a commercial establishment under labor laws?
  • Can an employer unilaterally abolish a policy of permanent employment to force yearly contracts upon confirmed workers?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan Beverages Limited vs Muhammad Afzal and others2024 SHC 264, 2025 PLC 73 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-25
  certiorariindustrial relationspermanent workmandaily wage workerstermination of servicestanding orders ordinanceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by M/s Pakistan Beverages Limited against the orders of the Full Bench and Single Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which had ordered the reinstatement of private respondents with back benefits. The core legal question revolved around whether casual or daily-wage workers, whose services were terminated within a few months, could be classified as permanent workmen entitled to reinstatement and statutory protections under labor laws. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of the NIRC forums were based on guesswork, misreading of evidence, and perversity, as the record showed the respondents were casual workers employed for less than the statutory nine-month threshold required under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Court laid down the principle that temporary or casual workers engaged for a period under nine months do not attain the status of permanent workmen, and employers are entitled to terminate their services without notice under Section 12 of the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether casual or daily-wage workers employed for less than nine months can be classified as permanent workmen under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can an employer terminate the services of a temporary or casual worker without notice under Section 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has the jurisdiction to grant reinstatement to casual workers who fail to prove continuous service exceeding the statutory period?
  Read full judgment →