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.

• Sakhi Muhammad S/O Nawab Khan vs The State2023 SHC 548 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-11Read full judgment →
• Sajjan vs The State2023 YLR 461 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-08
  death sentence reductionmitigating circumstancesfailure to prove motivecriminal appealjudicial cautionmurder convictionconfessional statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellant for the murder of his wife and the attempted murder of a relative. The core legal question concerned the sustainability of the capital sentence given the prosecution's failure to establish the alleged motive of illicit relations and the mysterious circumstances surrounding the incident. The Sindh High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular and medical evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court reduced the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The ratio of the decision is that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive and the true cause of the occurrence remains shrouded in mystery, judicial caution must be exercised. The court laid down the principle that while death is a penalty for murder, it is not the mandatory normal penalty; where mitigating circumstances exist—such as the failure to prove motive—the court should opt for the alternative sentence of life imprisonment to ensure justice with mercy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive in a murder case constitute a mitigating circumstance for sentencing?
  • Is the death penalty the mandatory normal penalty for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a retracted confession be taken into consideration against the maker if it is found to be true and voluntary?
  • When should a court exercise judicial caution to award life imprisonment instead of the death penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad alias Sijoo Gopang vs The State2023 SHC 142 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-12
  narcotic substancesplea of guiltcriminal appealchemical examiner reportsentence completionpossession of charas
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant by the trial court for the offence of possessing 500 grams of charas, punishable under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant, having already served the full sentence and been released from prison, informed the Court that he did not wish to pursue the appeal on its merits. The core legal question was whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were sustainable based on the evidence presented. Upon review, the Court found that the prosecution had successfully established its case through credible evidence, including the recovery of narcotics and a positive chemical examiner's report, which remained unchallenged. Furthermore, the appellant had previously pleaded guilty before the trial court. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a conviction based on consistent prosecution evidence and a voluntary plea of guilt, corroborated by forensic analysis, warrants no appellate interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal on merits when the appellant declares they do not wish to press the appeal after serving the sentence?
  • Does a positive chemical examiner's report regarding the intact condition of a sample rule out the possibility of tampering?
  • Is a trial court required to issue a show-cause notice under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused pleads guilty?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali and others vs Abdul Rauf and others2023 PCRLJ 553 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-28
  anti-terrorism jurisdictionpersonal enmityprivate vendettatransfer of casecoram non-judiceterrorism definition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order passed by an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) which dismissed an application seeking the transfer of a case to an ordinary court. The core legal question was whether the alleged offence, involving physical assault and extortion claims, constituted 'terrorism' under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or if it was a matter of personal enmity triable by an ordinary court. The Court held that the incident, stemming from private vendetta and personal enmity, lacked the essential design or objective required to qualify as terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that even grave or brutal offences do not constitute terrorism if they are committed due to personal enmity rather than to create terror or achieve objectives specified in the Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, declared the proceedings before the ATC as coram non-judice, and ordered the case to be transferred to the Sessions Court for trial under ordinary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence committed due to personal enmity or private vendetta fall within the definition of terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • What is the test to determine whether an act constitutes terrorism under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Can a case involving personal enmity be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court if the motive is not to create terror or achieve objectives specified in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali and others vs Abdul Hameed and others2023 CLC 812 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-15Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and 3 others2023 CLC 1795 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sajid Hussain Mangran vs The State & another2023 SHC 182 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-15
  Anti-Terrorism Court jurisdictionscheduled offencestransfer of caseuse of firearms in mosqueexclusive jurisdictionSection 23 ATAThird Schedule ATA
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants challenged an order of the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) dismissing their application under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which sought the transfer of their case to an ordinary court. The applicants argued that the incident, involving a land dispute, did not constitute terrorism and that they were elsewhere at the time of the incident. The core legal question was whether an offence involving the use of firearms in a mosque is triable exclusively by the ATC, regardless of whether it meets the definition of 'terrorism' under Section 6 of the Act. The Court held that the ATC correctly retained jurisdiction. It clarified that Clause 4 of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the ATC to try specific offences, such as the use of firearms in a place of worship, irrespective of whether those acts satisfy the definition of 'terrorism' under Section 6. The Court affirmed that such offences are triable by the ATC, though the determination of whether the act also constitutes 'terrorism' remains a matter for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of firearms in a mosque fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court regardless of whether it constitutes 'terrorism' under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Is the question of whether an offence constitutes 'terrorism' a relevant factor for an Anti-Terrorism Court when determining its jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
  • Does Clause 4 of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, automatically classify an offence as 'terrorism' under Section 6 of the Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali and another vs The State2023 YLR 1675 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-23
  jail appealmurderdelay in FIRbenefit of doubtcorroborationwitness contradictionsacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal issue was whether the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt in light of an unexplained fourteen-hour delay in lodging the FIR, significant contradictions in witness testimonies, unproven motive, and absence of corroborative physical evidence. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR creates suspicion of consultation and false implication, casting severe doubt on the prosecution's narrative. Furthermore, where the appellant was merely assigned presence without any recovery or direct act of killing attributed to him, and prosecution witnesses directly contradicted each other on material facts such as the scene of crime, the charge remains unproven. The court reiterated that reasonable doubt arising from any single circumstance entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on presence at the scene without recovery or independent corroborative evidence?
  • Whether material contradictions among prosecution witnesses regarding the place of occurrence entitle the accused to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah son Mansoor Khan vs The State2023 SHC 188 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-02
  narcoticschain of custodybenefit of doubtcriminal appealsafe transmissionacquittalmashirnama
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the possession of 120 grams of charas. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of custody and safe transmission of the recovered narcotics to the chemical examiner, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the safe custody and transmission of the contraband, noting material contradictions in the evidence regarding the preparation of the mashirnama and the failure to associate independent witnesses from a populated area. Emphasizing that any missing link in the chain of custody in narcotics cases is fatal to the prosecution's case, the Court ruled that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a single reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotics to the chemical examiner fatal to the conviction?
  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses in a populated area during a narcotics recovery create a reasonable doubt?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to have multiple infirmities in its case for the accused to be entitled to the benefit of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif-Ul-Mulk vs The State2023 PTD 143 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-08
  post-arrest bailcash securitymodification of bail ordersales tax evasionsurety bondabsconder
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from an application filed to modify a bail order dated 23.09.2019, wherein the applicant was granted bail subject to depositing 25% of the alleged evaded amount of Sales Tax in cash with the Nazir of the Court and furnishing solvent surety. The applicant sought a modification to furnish property documents instead of cash, citing financial inability and health issues, while the prosecution opposed modification. The core legal question was whether a criminal court can compel an accused to deposit security in cash as a condition for bail. The Court held that demanding cash security is alien to criminal jurisprudence and cannot be forced upon an accused, permitting instead the furnishing of urban property documents equivalent to the required amount. The key principle laid down is that while courts may require security or surety for bail, forcing a cash deposit is unjustified under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and property documents may substitute cash security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal court can legally force an accused person to deposit security in the shape of cash as a condition for bail?
  • Can a bail order passed by consent of the parties be subsequently modified regarding the mode of furnishing security?
  • What are the consequences under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if an accused becomes an absconder after being released on bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Sahib and another vs The State2023 MLD 357 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-29
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtpolice encounteracquittalappreciation of evidencematerial contradictionsreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Sections 398 and 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an alleged police encounter. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, including ineffective firing despite a ten-minute encounter, the absence of ballistic reports for recovered weapons, and conflicting witness testimonies regarding the recovery proceedings. Furthermore, the appellants had been acquitted in related off-shoot cases. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the surviving appellant. The judgment reaffirms the axiomatic principle that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a matter of grace; if any circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Is the benefit of doubt in a criminal case a matter of grace or a right of the accused?
  • Does the failure to produce ballistic reports for recovered weapons undermine the prosecution's case in an encounter charge?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Shah vs The State2023 SHC 606 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-26Read full judgment →
• Saeed Rabi Arain vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 1188 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-18Read full judgment →
• Saeed Gul and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 823 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-18
  pre-arrest bailfurther statementSection 161 Cr.P.C.false implicationtentative assessmentfurther inquirycriminal justice system
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought confirmation of their pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to confirmation of bail given that they were not named in the FIR and were only implicated through a belated further statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicants' implication in a supplementary statement recorded ten days after the incident, without assigning any specific active role, raised reasonable grounds to believe the implication was a result of deliberation and consultation. Relying on established precedents, the Court found the prosecution's case against the applicants to be one of further inquiry. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the object of bail is to secure attendance at trial, not to be punitive, and that the liberty of a citizen is a guaranteed right. The key principle laid down is that a supplementary statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with an FIR and, when used to implicate additional accused belatedly, may indicate false involvement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to implicate additional accused persons not named in the FIR?
  • Is the object of bail in the criminal justice system punitive or preventive?
  • Does the belated implication of an accused in a further statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs Province Of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 930 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-23Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed S/O Habib Ahmed vs The State2023 SHC 582 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-19Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Bhayo and others vs Ali Sher2023 SHC 281 · Sindh High Court · 2023-04-20
  first information reportex-officio justice of peacecustodial deathcognizable offencequashing of orderpolice torturestatutory dutyinquiry report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, directing the recording of the respondent's statement and incorporation of a First Information Report if a cognizable offence was disclosed. The core legal question concerned whether the Justice of Peace acted lawfully in directing the registration of a case despite a magistrate's inquiry report suggesting the deceased died by suicide in police custody. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that upon disclosure of a cognizable offence, the police are under a statutory obligation under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register an FIR without conducting a mini-trial or hearing the accused. The court established that the Justice of Peace possesses the administrative jurisdiction to direct the registration of a criminal case when local police fail to perform their statutory duty, and that inquiry reports by magistrates do not bar the registration of an FIR where serious allegations of custodial violence and torture are leveled against law enforcement officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the police are under a statutory obligation to register an FIR upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence?
  • Can an Ex-Officio Justice of Peace direct the registration of a criminal case when the police refuse to record a complaint?
  • Does a magistrate's inquiry report into a custodial death bar the registration of an FIR based on allegations of police torture?
  • Is a proposed accused entitled to a hearing at the stage of recording the first information report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadoro Maitlo vs The State2023 SHC 1136 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-04
  vicarious liabilitymurderfirearm injurybenefit of doubtcriminal appealmedical evidenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pano Akil, convicting the appellant Sadoro Maitlo under sections 302(b), 324, and 337F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant's conviction for murder under the theory of vicarious liability and his conviction for causing firearm injuries were sustainable given contradictions between ocular and medical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's common object or vicarious liability for the murder, as he was not alleged to have fired at the deceased, and medical evidence cast doubt on the specific attribution of the single firearm injury sustained by the injured witness. Consequently, the court set aside the murder conviction under section 302(b), maintained the convictions under sections 324 and 337F(v), and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. The key principle laid down is that vicarious liability cannot be sustained without convincing evidence connecting the accused to the fatal act, and vague attributions regarding firearm injuries amidst multiple alleged assailants create a benefit of doubt requiring reversal of capital convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether vicarious liability for murder can be sustained against an accused when ocular testimony fails to attribute any overt act or firearm shot towards the deceased?
  • Can a conviction for a firearm injury be safely maintained under section 324 PPC when multiple accused are alleged to have fired but the injured witness sustains only a single entry-exit wound without clear attribution?
  • Whether contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number and nature of injuries warrant the setting aside of a murder conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadique Sabzoi vs The State2023 YLR 987 · Sindh High Court · 2021-02-18
  murderbenefit of the doubtcontradictions in evidencedelayed FIRautopsy delaytracker dogsweapon recovery acquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including Section 302(b) for Qat-l-e-Amd, and sentencing him to death and imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt through trustworthy ocular and corroboratory evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt due to unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and conducting the autopsy, material contradictions among eye-witnesses, doubtful foot-tracking evidence, and the appellant's prior acquittal in a connected weapon recovery case. The court laid down the principle that multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, coupled with post-incident deliberations and suspicious circumstances regarding the identification of the accused, create a strong reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting post-mortem examinations creates a dent in the prosecution's case regarding the presence of eye-witnesses?
  • Can the prosecution rely on foot-tracking evidence by tracker dogs when the eye-witnesses already claimed to have recognized the accused at the scene of the crime?
  • What is the legal effect of an accused's final acquittal in a connected weapon recovery case upon the main criminal trial?
  • Does a previous direct complaint filed against other persons and subsequently compromised cast serious doubt on the veracity of the FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadia Siddiqui and others vs Adnan Andalaib Siddiqui and others2023 CLC 887 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-24Read full judgment →
• Sadar alias Sadaruddin and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 874 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27
  criminal jail appealmurderocular testimonymedical corroborationrelated witnessesminor contradictionsdefence evidenceimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased and sentencing them to imprisonment for life along with compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case was that the appellants, duly armed, along with co-accused came to the land of the complainant party and, upon instigation, fired at the deceased, causing fatal injuries, before fleeing the scene. The core legal questions involved the credibility of related eye-witnesses, the effect of minor contradictions in ocular testimony, the corroboration of ocular evidence with medical evidence, and the reliability of defence evidence. The High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through trustworthy ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence, and that minor discrepancies and the close relationship of witnesses do not discredit their testimony. The court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal, laying down that criminal cases must be decided on the totality of circumstances rather than isolated contradictions, and that the relationship of witnesses to a victim does not render them interested witnesses in the absence of pre-existing enmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related eye-witnesses can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship with the deceased in the absence of proved enmity?
  • Does a minor contradiction in the prosecution's evidence render the entire case doubtful?
  • Whether contradictory defence evidence failing to establish a plea of alibi during investigation can be relied upon?
  • Is a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when supported by consistent ocular testimony and corroborating medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sache Dino through L.Rs vs Province Of Sindh through Secretary Land2023 YLR 1333 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-05Read full judgment →
• Sabir vs The State2023 YLR 1862 · Sindh High Court · 2021-09-14
  pre-arrest bailnon-prohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal intimidationhouse trespassbail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Sabir, in relation to FIR No. 322/2021, involving allegations of house trespass, assault, and intimidation. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant, the non-prohibitory nature of the offenses charged, and the existence of a prior civil dispute regarding property ownership. The Court held that the case required further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body, no weapons were used by the applicant, and the offenses charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail. The key principle laid down is that where the alleged offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause and the case requires further inquiry, the grant of bail is appropriate, provided the applicant does not misuse the concession or tamper with evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a case requires further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the alleged injuries are on non-vital parts of the body and no weapon was used?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the offenses charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court take action against an accused or their surety under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the concession of bail is misused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabahat Ahmed S/O Basharat Ahmed vs The State Through PG Sindh2023 SHC 138 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-18
  pre-arrest bailprotective bailconcurrent jurisdictionalternate remedybypassing lower courtinherent jurisdictionAhmadi sect
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought pre-arrest bail directly from the High Court in a criminal case registered under Sections 298-B, 298-C, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, bypassing the Court of Sessions due to alleged apprehensions regarding his safety as he belongs to the Ahmadi sect. The State and the complainant opposed the application, arguing that the alternate remedy before the lower court should have been exhausted first and that the applicant had already been regularly appearing before the trial court without incident. The Sindh High Court held that where two courts possess concurrent jurisdiction, a litigant must first approach the court of lower grade as a matter of legal propriety, and extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass ordinary remedies without valid grounds of gross miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the High Court declined to grant direct pre-arrest bail but converted the application into a protective pre-arrest bail for twenty days to enable the applicant to surrender before the competent trial court, while directing local police to provide security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner can directly approach the High Court for pre-arrest bail by bypassing the Court of Sessions when both courts have concurrent jurisdiction?
  • Can the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked as an alternative or additional remedy to bypass ordinary criminal procedure?
  • Whether apprehension of danger to life justifies bypassing the ordinary forum of first instance when the accused has been regularly appearing before the trial court without fear?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadat Ahmed S/O Hameed Ahmed, Syed Suleman Ali S/O Syed Asghar2023 SHC 574 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-18Read full judgment →
• S.M. Khalid vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Pvt.) Limited through Chairman and another2023 PLC (C.S.) 1168 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-24
  service benefitswithholding of pensionretirement duesaudit objectionspending inquiryright to human dignitycivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a retired employee of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited, filed a civil suit seeking declarations and recovery of post-retirement service dues amounting to Rs.6,553,242/-, after his pensionary benefits were withheld due to pending audit investigations and Public Accounts Committee proceedings. The core legal question was whether an employer could indefinitely withhold a retired employee's legitimate service benefits on the ground of an ongoing inquiry without establishing culpability or finalizing adverse findings. The Sindh High Court held that service benefits are the legal entitlement of a retiring employee and cannot be withheld indefinitely or used as a punitive measure under the guise of a pending inquiry, especially when internal committee findings largely exonerated the plaintiff and the department admitted part liability. The court laid down the principle that the right to receive pensionary benefits is a facet of the right to life with human dignity, obligating employers to ensure prompt settlement of post-retirement dues and prohibiting the indefinite withholding of admitted financial entitlements based on unfinalized audit objections or inquiries.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer indefinitely withhold a retired employee's service benefits on the ground of a pending inquiry or audit objection?
  • Whether service benefits can be denied or delayed in the absence of a proved liability or adverse finding against an employee?
  • Is the absence of a 'no demand certificate' a sufficient legal justification for an employer to withhold all post-retirement dues?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustam Baig Fareed and others vs Xii Adj (South) and others2023 PLJ Karachi 113 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-26Read full judgment →
• Roshan, Ahsan, Manthar and Ghulam Qadir, Sarfraz Ahmed vs The State2023 SHC 840, 2024 YLR 1243 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-02
  Illegal Dispossession Actlawful ownerlawful occupierbenefit of the doubtgovernment landcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 for allegedly forcibly occupying and dispossessing the complainant from the disputed land. The core legal question was whether the complainant was the lawful owner or occupier of the property in dispute so as to invoke the protection of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the complainant party held any valid title, lease, or lawful possession of the property, which actually belonged to the government and was claimed by multiple state departments. Re-evaluating the evidence, the Court ruled that the foundational requirements of a lawful owner or occupier under the Act were absent, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a complainant who fails to establish lawful ownership or possession of disputed government land can maintain a charge under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 protect persons who are not lawful owners or lawful occupiers of the immovable property in question?
  • Whether a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles an accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali vs The State2023 YLR 524 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27
  post-arrest baildishonouring of chequemultiple FIRsfurther inquirypersonal libertybenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court arose from a bail order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (Malir) in a case registered under section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the dishonouring of a cheque. The core legal questions involved whether the registration of multiple FIRs for similar allegations and a delay in lodging the FIR created a case for further inquiry, and whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail. The court held that the registration of multiple FIRs for similar allegations by the same complainant made the prosecution's case doubtful, bringing the matter within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the key principles that personal liberty is a precious right which should not be arbitrarily snatched away, that bail is not punitive or preventive in nature, and that any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused or the probability of the prosecution story entitles the accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of multiple FIRs against an accused by the same complainant for similar allegations create a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution story appears doubtful and lacks plausible explanation for delay?
  • Is the object of pre-trial bail punitive or preventive in the criminal justice system of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali vs Jojo, Muhammad Raheem and Ahmed Junejo, The State2023 SHC 357 · Sindh High Court
  murderspur of the momentconviction conversionSection 302(c) PPCacquittal appealsentence reductionpremeditationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against a conviction for murder, an acquittal appeal, and a revision application for sentence enhancement. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was sustainable given the absence of motive, premeditation, and the single-injury nature of the assault, and whether the acquittal of co-accused was justified. The Court upheld the acquittal of the co-accused, finding that medical evidence contradicted the eyewitness account regarding the nature of the injuries. Regarding the appellant, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish premeditation or enmity. Relying on established precedent, the Court ruled that where a murder occurs on the spur of the moment without preparation, and the accused does not repeat the act, the offence falls under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than Section 302(b). Consequently, the Court converted the conviction from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, while maintaining the compensation order under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 302(c) when the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without premeditation?
  • Does the lack of motive and the infliction of a single injury by an accused justify a conviction under Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an acquittal of co-accused justified when medical evidence contradicts the eyewitness account regarding the nature of injuries sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali son of Piyaro Khan Khoso vs The State2023 SHC 465 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-01
  anti-terrorism jurisdictionterrorism definitionextortionmens reacriminal miscellaneous applicationchallanpersonal enmity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application challenged an order by the Anti-Terrorism Court-I, Hyderabad, which returned a challan to the investigation officer for presentation before a court of ordinary jurisdiction. The applicant alleged that private respondents extorted money from his crushing plant under threat of weapons and sought the inclusion of Section 386 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing the case should be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court. The core legal question was whether the alleged acts constituted 'terrorism' under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, thereby warranting trial by a special court. The Court held that the application was meritless and upheld the impugned order. It reasoned that the FIR lacked essential elements of terrorism, such as specific intent to intimidate, coerce, or create a sense of insecurity, and failed to mention the alleged extortion or weapons. The Court affirmed the principle that not every grave or shocking offence qualifies as terrorism; for an act to fall under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, it must satisfy the specific design and motive requirements under Section 6, and acts stemming from personal enmity or private vendetta do not constitute terrorism.

  Questions settled

  • Does an act of extortion automatically fall within the jurisdiction of an Anti-Terrorism Court?
  • Can an Anti-Terrorism Court determine its jurisdiction based on the challan before framing a charge?
  • Does an offence committed out of personal enmity or private vendetta qualify as terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  • What are the essential elements required to establish 'terrorism' under Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ali Shaikh and others vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law2023 YLR 943 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-09Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Riaz and another vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1704 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-09
  post-arrest bailmoney launderingAnti-Money Laundering Actcheatingcriminal breach of trusttentative assessmentcomplainant no objection
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the applicants, Rizwan Riaz and Imran Khan, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 at Police Station FIA CCC, Karachi, alleging that they collected heavy amounts under the guise of stock investments through a private company and subsequently laundered the proceeds. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the accusations, the documentary evidence collected during investigation, and the complainant's purported 'no objection'. The court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicants were specifically nominated in the FIR with active roles, sufficient prima facie material connected them to the heinous offense of money laundering—which severely impacts the national economy—and an affidavit of no objection from a complainant cannot override statutory gravity or be equated with evidence at the bail stage. The key principles laid down are that money laundering must be curbed strictly, courts must make only a tentative assessment of evidence without conducting a mini-trial at the bail stage, and bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely due to a complainant's somersault or consent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an affidavit of 'no objection' or consent given by a complainant can serve as a sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail in a non-compoundable offense?
  • To what extent should a High Court conduct an appraisal of evidence at the pre-trial bail stage in financial crimes involving money laundering?
  • Does the absence of a conviction for a predicate offense bar the prosecution of an accused under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010?
  • Are accused persons entitled to bail as a matter of right merely because the offenses alleged fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed Jokhio vs Auditor General of Pakistan and Others2023 SHC 176 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-10Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed Banbhan & 02 others, The State vs The State, Riaz Ahmed and others2023 SHC 990 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Reliance Petrochem Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized2023 PTD 186 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-30Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah s/o Muhammad Sallah Khan and 9 others vs Inayatullah s/o2023 SHC 317, 2024 CLC 311 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-11Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah son of Ajab Khan vs The State2023 SHC 1100 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-14
  criminal appealmurderanti-terrorismidentification paradebenefit of the doubtocular accountweapon recoveryacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant, Rehmatullah, under Section 7(h) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside related arms offenses, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment and other penalties. The core legal questions involve the reliability of identification evidence in the absence of physical descriptions in the FIR, the credibility of the sole complainant's testimony given the dark conditions of the crime scene, and the validity of weapon recoveries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to glaring discrepancies, delayed and uncorroborated identification, failure to prove the source of light, and withholding of independent witnesses. Consequently, the court laid down that a single reasonable doubt arising from contradictions in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to an acquittal as a matter of right, thereby setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can an identification parade form the sole basis of conviction when the eyewitness failed to provide any physical descriptions or features of the accused in the FIR or police statements?
  • Does the absence of evidence regarding a source of light during a nighttime incident render the identification of the accused unreliable?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution withholding independent material witnesses available at the scene of the crime?
  • Does a contradiction in the testimonies of recovery witnesses regarding the place and manner of recovery vitiate the weapon's evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah Brohi vs Ghulam Sarwar Sadhayo2023 SHC 325, 2024 CLC 1158 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-18Read full judgment →
• Razaque Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. and another: In the matter of vs Not2023 CLD 616 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Ahmed vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited2023 PLC (C.S.) 605 · Sindh High Court · 2022-07-20
  master and servantwrongful dismissaldamagesmisconductdisciplinary inquirycivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This lawsuit sought a declaration, permanent injunction, and damages following the removal of the plaintiff, an Assistant Divisional Engineer in Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited, from service on allegations of misconduct and corruption. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the civil suit under the master-and-servant principle, the validity of the disciplinary proceedings, and the plaintiff's entitlement to damages for wrongful dismissal after relinquishing the prayer for reinstatement. The court held that while the employment was governed by the master-and-servant rule without statutory rules, the termination was unlawful and without jurisdiction as it violated procedural safeguards and lacked signatures from a competent authority. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, awarding general and economic loss damages amounting to Rs. 25,105,197 with a 6% markup. The key legal principles laid down include that a civil suit for damages for wrongful dismissal is maintainable where service rules are non-statutory, and that courts possess the discretion to award general damages for mental agony, stress, and loss of future economic prospects resulting from an unlawful termination.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil suit for damages maintainable for the wrongful dismissal of an employee of a company lacking statutory service rules?
  • Whether an employee is entitled to claim damages for mental agony, stress, and future economic loss upon being unlawfully removed from service?
  • Can a disciplinary inquiry and subsequent termination conducted without the authority of a competent person be sustained in law?
  • Does the re-opening of a charge sheet after an employee has been exonerated by an inquiry committee attract the principle of double jeopardy?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Rafique Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 SHC 810, 2024 PLJ Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-19Read full judgment →
• Raj Ram and another vs Shirmati Reeta and 4 others2023 PLD Sindh 214 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-01Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bux & another Raza Hussain & others Raheem Bux vs The State,Asif2023 SHC 956 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-23
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationtwo versionsfurther inquirymala fideFIRcognizance of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter involves applications for pre-arrest bail, cancellation of bail, and a challenge to a Magistrate's order taking cognizance of an offence. The core legal question is whether the accused are entitled to bail where multiple police investigations exonerated them and the complainant himself faces a direct complaint for the same murder. The Court held that the accused were entitled to bail. The ratio establishes that an FIR is not gospel truth and requires investigation to confirm its authenticity. Where investigations consistently contradict the FIR, and the complainant is implicated in the same murder in a separate proceeding, the case constitutes two versions requiring further inquiry. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail of the applicants and dismissed the application for cancellation of bail for the other respondents. The key principle laid down is that when investigative reports prima facie lack incriminating material against the accused and suggest mala fide on the part of the complainant, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an FIR constitute absolute proof of the facts alleged therein?
  • When does a criminal case qualify as a case of two versions requiring further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when multiple police investigations have exonerated them?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Badshah S/O Zainul Abideen vs The State2023 SHC 566 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-17Read full judgment →
• Raheel Agha S/O Javed Agha vs Zawar S/O Sayar Khan & others2023 SHC 600 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-24Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs The State2023 SHC 481 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-25
  narcoticssafe custody of samplechemical examiner reportbenefit of doubtchain of custodyCNS Actcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the alleged possession of 2000 grams of charas. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the police-only recovery, the failure to prove the chain of safe custody and safe transmission of the narcotics to the chemical examiner, and the presence of material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the unbroken chain of safe custody of the sample parcel, omitted to examine vital witnesses such as the malkhana incharge, failed to produce arrival and departure entries, and did not associate independent private witnesses despite availability at a public place. The court laid down the principle that in stringent narcotics cases carrying heavy penalties, the chain of custody from recovery to the chemical examiner must be strictly proven beyond reasonable doubt, and any missing link entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of safe custody and safe transmission of contraband to the chemical laboratory is fatal to the case?
  • Does the non-production of the malkhana incharge to prove safe custody of the recovered narcotics entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Whether the omission to associate independent private witnesses during recovery at a public place casts serious doubt on a police-led raid?
  • What is the standard of proof required in cases under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 given its stringent punishments?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Sattar Ahmed alias Abdul Sattar vs Managing Director (Power), Wapda House, Lahore and 4 others2023 PLC (C.S.) 418 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-13
  move-overconstitutional petitionservice lawpension benefitsselection graderetirement benefitsWAPDAHESCO
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the failure of the respondents to grant him a move-over from BPS-17 to BPS-18 was illegal, and further seeking the release of full pension and retirement benefits. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner had completed the requisite five-year length of service in BPS-17 to become eligible for a move-over prior to its discontinuation, and how the cut-off date under the office memorandum applied to his case. The court held that the petitioner, having been promoted to BPS-17 and fulfilling the eligibility criteria under the applicable guidelines, was entitled to be considered for the move-over despite the subsequent discontinuation of the policy, as the policy preserved rights for those already eligible. The court laid down the principle that administrative discontinuance of a benefit like a move-over does not defeat the accrued or eligible claims of employees whose timelines mature under the saved provisions of governing memoranda.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee becomes eligible for a move-over from BPS-17 to BPS-18 upon completing five years of service in BPS-17?
  • Does the discontinuation of the move-over facility bar the consideration of employees who were already eligible prior to the cut-off date?
  • Can authorities deny a move-over to an eligible employee based on an office memorandum that explicitly preserves cases eligible before its enforcement date?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Ayoub vs Muhammad Ali Qazi2023 SHC 381 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-02
  illegal dispossessioninterim possessionpremature acquittalcriminal revisionproperty disputeCantonment Boardland grabbing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby an application under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was allowed, directing the restoration of possession of the disputed property to the complainant, and an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for premature acquittal was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in granting interim relief of possession under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and refusing premature acquittal where prima facie evidence of illegal dispossession existed. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent reports of the police inquiry committee and the Cantonment Board prima facie established the complainant's lawful possession and subsequent illegal dispossession by the applicant, justifying interim restoration of possession. The court laid down the principle that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is designed to protect owners and lawful occupants from land grabbers and that interim relief under section 7 is properly granted when prima facie material demonstrates unauthorized dispossession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interim relief of possession under section 7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 can be granted when prima facie evidence of illegal dispossession is established?
  • Is a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 maintainable when a civil dispute is also pending between the parties?
  • Does the dismissal of an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 require interference when a prima facie case is made out against the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Khalid Ali vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 SHC 30, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 178 · Sindh High Court · 2023-01-23
  pensionary benefitsqualifying serviceFederal Service TribunalChairman FSTtenure-based appointmentpro-rata pensionper incuriam
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Chairman of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) and a former judge of the Sindh High Court whose appointment was subsequently invalidated, filed a constitutional petition challenging the Ministry of Law and Justice's refusal to grant him pensionary benefits pari passu with a High Court judge. The petitioner contended that his term-based tenure as Chairman FST, combined with his prior service in various official capacities totaling 20 years, entitled him to pensionary benefits under the High Court Judges (Leave, Pension & Privileges) Order 1997. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the office of Chairman FST under the Federal Service Tribunals Act 1973 is a tenurial, non-permanent position. Furthermore, the court held that entitlement to pension for High Court judges requires a mandatory minimum qualifying service of five years, reiterating binding Supreme Court precedent that declared non-qualifying pro-rata pension decisions per incuriam. Tenure-based or contractual service across distinct offices cannot be aggregated to claim pensionary rights without express statutory authority.

  Questions settled

  • Is a term-based Chairman of the Federal Service Tribunal entitled to pensionary benefits equivalent to a High Court judge without meeting minimum statutory qualifying service?
  • Can distinct contractual and tenurial positions held across different public offices be aggregated to claim pensionary benefits under civil service laws?
  • Is five years of actual service a mandatory statutory prerequisite for a High Court judge to earn a right to pension?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux Buledi vs The State2023 MLD 1845 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-19
  murderbenefit of doubtpolice witnesseshostile witnessburden of proofsafe custody of weaponcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder, arising from a trial where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of police witness testimony, the evidentiary value of an injured witness declared hostile, the legal effect of an unnatural death occurring inside an accused's house, and the standard of proof required for capital punishment. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable police testimony, lack of independent corroboration, and failure to prove safe custody and transmission of the recovered weapon. The court ruled that the initial onus of proof always lies upon the prosecution, and an accused cannot be convicted merely on the basis of a shifted onus or failure to explain circumstances when the prosecution's own evidence is untrustworthy. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted on the principle of benefit of doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be convicted solely on the basis of shifted onus when the entire prosecution case is unreliable?
  • Does the failure to prove the safe custody and safe transmission of a recovered weapon vitiate the evidentiary value of such recovery?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt sufficient to entitle an accused to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  • Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of police officials alone when independent witnesses are not associated despite availability?
  Read full judgment →
• PSRM Steels Private Limited vs Askari Bank Limited and others2023 SHC 1194, 2024 CLD 488 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-29Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh (through its Secretary, Transport Department) vs Rahim2023 SHC 132, 2024 MLD 968 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
• Province Of Sindh & Others vs Ali Muhammad & Others2023 SHC 311 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-09Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh & another vs Sindh Valley Safari & others2023 SHC 94 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-19Read full judgment →
• Project Implementation Managers (Private) Limited and others, Tehreem2023 SHC 238 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-30Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Muhammad Arshad Aazmi vs Province of Sindh through Chief2023 PLC (C.S.) 341 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-31
  constitutional petitionpublic appointmentintelligence reportsnatural justiceaudi alteram partemright to fair trialwithholding appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking directions for respondents to issue a notification appointing the petitioner as Chairman of the Sindh Board of Technical Education, Karachi, pursuant to an offer letter and recommendation by the Search Committee. The core legal question was whether an appointment order could be withheld based on unverified, undisclosed adverse intelligence reports without affording the candidate an opportunity of defense. The Sindh High Court held that relying on unsigned or undisclosed adverse intelligence reports without confronting the aggrieved person violates the principles of natural justice and Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution. The court laid down the principle that the right to a fair trial and the audi alteram partem rule are inherently embedded in statutory and constitutional governance, mandating that any adverse material must be disclosed to the affected individual to provide an opportunity for rebuttal before withholding a vested right or public appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointment order to a public post be withheld on the basis of unsigned and undisclosed adverse intelligence reports?
  • Whether the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem apply when considering character and antecedent verification reports for public employment?
  • Does a High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to direct public functionaries to issue appointment orders where a candidate has been duly recommended and offered the position?
  • Must a candidate be confronted with adverse material contained in intelligence reports before such material is used to deny them an appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Gul Afshan vs Vice Chancellor, Salu, Khairpur & others2023 SHC 786 · Sindh High Court · 2023-09-28Read full judgment →
• Peer Syed Fayaz Shah vs The State2023 SHC 992 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-22
  post-arrest baildomestic helpsexual abuseheinous crimeevidence tamperingcustodial deathcriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was implicated in the death of a nine-year-old domestic help. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who had custody of the minor before she was transferred to his daughter's house where she died, was entitled to bail despite allegations of torture, sexual abuse, and evidence tampering. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail at this stage. The holding was based on the prima facie evidence of the minor's sexual abuse while in the applicant's custody, the applicant's attempts to conceal the death, and the severity of the offense, which carries capital punishment. The Court emphasized that in cases involving heinous crimes and influential accused, bail should not be granted when there is sufficient material suggesting active participation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the examination of material witnesses within three months, after which the applicant may file a fresh application.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to bail when there is prima facie evidence of sexual abuse and torture leading to a minor's death?
  • Can a bail application be dismissed based on the influence of the accused and the severity of the offense?
  • Should a trial court expedite the examination of material witnesses in cases involving heinous crimes?
  Read full judgment →
• Peer Bux alias Peeral through Legal Heirs and others vs Mushtaque Ahmad2023 CLC 1933 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-18Read full judgment →
• Pauper appellant Ayyaz vs State2023 SHC 262 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-29
  criminal appealqatl-e-amdsolitary eye-witnessinjured witnessmitigating circumstancesreduction of sentencecircumstantial evidenceunproven motive
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant for the qatl-e-amd of his wife under Section 302(b), along with offenses under Sections 324 and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution case rested primarily on the testimony of an injured eye-witness, medical evidence, and circumstantial evidence, as the motive could not be established and certain investigative discrepancies existed. The core legal question concerned whether a conviction could be sustained upon solitary ocular testimony corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence despite unproven motive and investigative flaws, and whether such flaws constituted mitigating circumstances for sentence reduction. The Sindh High Court held that the solitary ocular testimony of the injured witness was trustworthy, unimpeachable, and sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, considering unproven motive, defense contradictions, and investigative lapses as mitigating circumstances, the court dismissed the appeal as to conviction but modified the sentence for qatl-e-amd from life imprisonment to fourteen years rigorous imprisonment under Section 302(c), while maintaining the remaining sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of a solitary injured eye-witness if found trustworthy and consistent?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove motive vitiate an otherwise well-supported conviction based on ocular and medical evidence?
  • Whether investigative lapses and unproven motive can be considered as mitigating circumstances for the reduction of a sentence from life imprisonment to fourteen years?
  • Does a contradiction in the recovery of a crime weapon affect the core prosecution case when supported by strong independent evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited vs Province Of Sindh And Others2023 SHC 874 · Sindh High Court · 2023-10-05Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf and others vs Province of Sindh through Chief2023 PLD Sindh 110 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-18Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Sugar Mills Association through Authorized Representative and 52023 CLD 265 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited vs Abdul Ali and 3 others2023 PLD Sindh 174 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-11Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Petroleum Ltd vs State Bank of Pakistan and others2023 PLJ Karachi 109 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Container Terminal Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2023 SHC 100 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Container Terminal Limited through authorized2023 CLC 2119 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation & another vs Nadeem Lodhi2023 SHC 642 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-18Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Karachi Development Authority through Director General and another2023 PLD Sindh 202 · Sindh High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority vs Mst. Gul Rukh Samina Butt2023 CLC 1495, 2023 CLD 1136 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-28Read full judgment →
• Pak Maniar Investment Ltd vs Salehbhoy (late) s_o Tayyab Ali Since dead through his legal heirs Mrs. Batool Salehbhoy & others2023 SHC 164 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ovais Akhtar & 5 Others, Ovais Akhtar & 4 Others vs Abdullah and another, Zohra Khanum and others2023 SHC 78 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Omer Bin Mehmood S/o Mehmood Bin Kafil vs Imran Qureshi, Mst. Alaya2023 SHC 1018, 2024 CLC 1033 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-30Read full judgment →
• Obs Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 othersPTCL 2022 CL. 466 · Sindh High Court · 2021-11-17Read full judgment →
• NP Waterproof Industries (Private) Ltd. and 4 others vs NP Spinning Mills2023 CLD 33 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-06Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Ist A.D.J Badin & Others2023 SHC 349 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-24Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed, Khuda Bux son of Mohammad Bux Panhwar vs Umed Ali, Abdul Lateef, Abdul Fatah, Mehboob Ali and Nabidad and others, The State2023 SHC 335 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-19
  custodial deathpolice torturecircumstantial evidencereferee judgecriminal appealacquittal appealasphyxiacommon object
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and acquittal appeal arose from a reference to a Referee Judge following a difference of opinion between a Division Bench regarding the conviction of a police official and the acquittal of others for a custodial death. The core legal question concerned the assessment of circumstantial evidence in a case of death by torture in police custody and the scope of a Referee Judge under section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence unbrokenly connected the accused policemen who held the deceased in custody behind closed doors to his death by asphyxia. The acquittal of four policemen was set aside, and their convictions were recorded under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while maintaining the 10-year sentence originally handed down to the primary convict. The key principle laid down is that where custodial death by torture is established through consistent ocular and medical circumstantial evidence, the responsible law enforcement personnel cannot escape liability merely due to the absence of direct eyewitnesses to the physical blows.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope and legal effect of a reference to a Referee Judge in criminal appeals under section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a Division Bench is equally divided?
  • Can a conviction for qatl-i-amd based on custodial torture be sustained on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct eyewitness accounts of the infliction of blows?
  • When does an act of homicide committed during police interrogation attract the lesser discretionary punishment under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than section 302(b)?
  • Does the vicarious liability rule under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply automatically to a group of police officials interrogating a detainee behind closed doors when death ensues?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed Khan vs N.H.A. and others2023 SHC 1006 · Sindh High Court · 2023-08-03Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain vs The State and 4 others2023 MLD 128 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-22
  criminal acquittal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidence contradictiondelay in FIRpresumption of innocenceappellate interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the trial court which acquitted the respondents of charges under sections 324, 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a possible view of the evidence or if it warranted interference by the appellate court. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court identified fatal inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, including an 11-day delay in lodging the FIR, contradictory statements by prosecution witnesses regarding the timing of events, and a direct conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence. The court held that an acquittal order should not be lightly interfered with, as the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal. Appellate courts should only intervene if the trial court's view is impossible or results in a miscarriage of justice, which was not the case here.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order merely because a contra view is possible?
  • Does an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR create a presumption of false implication?
  • What is the effect of a direct conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain Soomro vs The State2023 YLR 2292 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-11
  murdercriminal appealocular testimonymedical corroborationdelay in FIRinterested witnessabscondencecompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shandadkot at Kamber, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for the murder of the deceased through firearm injuries. The core legal questions involved whether the delay in lodging the FIR was fatal, whether ocular testimony sufficiently corroborated medical evidence, and whether the acquittal of a co-accused on different facts vitiated the appellant's conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent ocular accounts and medical corroboration, and that any delay in the FIR was fully explained by the circumstances of rushing the injured to hospital. The court laid down that a related or natural witness's testimony is credible unless proven to have a motive for false implication, and that the prosecution must stand on its own legs regardless of whether an accused testifies on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR always prove fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Can the testimony of a related eye-witness be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship to the deceased?
  • Whether an accused's failure to examine himself on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be used to draw an adverse inference of guilt?
  • Is the acquittal of one co-accused on distinct roles and facts grounds for setting aside the conviction of another co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• New Dadu Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs Sindh Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Another2023 SHC 1048, 2024 CLD 525 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-15Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan Ltd. through Plant Manager vs Full Bench of National2023 PLC 95 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-11
  writ petitionNational Industrial Relations Commissiongrievance petitionreinstatementdomestic inquirymisconductuncontroverted evidencelimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an employer challenging the judgment of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which had reversed the Single Bench's decision dismissing an employee's grievance petition against his termination. The employee was dismissed following a domestic inquiry into charges of submitting falsified medical claims and fake receipts. The primary legal questions were whether the Full Bench erred in disregarding uncontroverted inquiry evidence on the ground that hospital administrators/doctors were not examined, and whether the disciplinary proceedings were time-barred under labor laws. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Full Bench's order and restoring the Single Bench's judgment. The Court held that an appellate forum cannot disregard unimpeached and uncontroverted evidence in favor of a mere presumption. It laid down that where an employee participates in an inquiry without objection, signs the proceedings, and fails to rebut evidence, the inquiry findings stand valid. Furthermore, the one-month period to issue a show-cause notice under Section 15(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 runs from the date the misconduct comes to the employer's knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate forum can disregard uncontroverted inquiry evidence merely because external witnesses were not examined?
  • From what date does the one-month period for informing a workman of alleged misconduct begin under Section 15(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Whether an employee who participates in a domestic inquiry and signs the report without demur can subsequently challenge its procedural validity?
  Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan Ltd. Karachi through Plant Manager vs Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission and 2 others2023 PLJ Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court
  industrial relationsdismissal from servicefalsification of documentswrit jurisdictiondisciplinary inquiryback benefitsuncontroverted evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment by the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which had reinstated an employee dismissed for falsifying medical claims. The core legal question was whether the Full Bench of the NIRC erred in setting aside the dismissal order when the employee had failed to challenge the evidence or the inquiry proceedings before the Single Bench. The High Court held that the Full Bench of the NIRC acted on an erroneous assumption of facts and misapplied the law by disregarding uncontroverted evidence. The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings were procedurally sound, the employee had admitted the factual narration, and the initiation of proceedings was within the statutory time limit. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Full Bench's judgment and restored the dismissal. The key principle laid down is that an appellate forum cannot disregard uncontroverted evidence in favor of presumptions, and that where due process is manifest from an employee's participation and signatures in inquiry proceedings, they cannot subsequently resile from those proceedings without demonstrating procedural impropriety.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate forum disregard uncontroverted evidence in favor of a presumption?
  • Does an employee's signature on inquiry proceedings preclude them from later claiming procedural impropriety?
  • Is a disciplinary proceeding time-barred if the employer initiates it within one month of the date the misconduct came to their notice?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with an NIRC judgment that is predicated upon an erroneous assumption of facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Nestle Pakistan Limited through Authorized Officer and others vs The Federal Board of Revenue through Chairman and others2023 PTD 527 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-29
  Customs Act 1969Income Tax Ordinance 2001Sales Tax Act 1990Post-clearance auditJurisdiction of CustomsShort levyFiscal statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged notices issued by the Collectorate of Customs (Adjudication) seeking to assess and recover alleged short levies of income tax and sales tax on imported goods after their clearance. The core legal question was whether the Customs department retains jurisdiction to adjudicate or recover such taxes post-clearance. The Court held that the Customs department lacks such jurisdiction. It determined that while Customs acts as a collecting agent for advance tax at the import stage, this role is limited to the time of import. Once consignments are assessed and released under the Customs Act, 1969, the authority to assess or recover income tax and sales tax vests exclusively with the Inland Revenue department. The Court emphasized that charge, assessment, and recovery are distinct facets of a levy, and specific parent statutes govern these taxes. The insertion of the word "taxes" in the Customs Act did not confer blanket concurrent jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned notices were declared illegal and set aside, affirming that Customs' authority is circumscribed to the import stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Customs department have jurisdiction to assess or recover income tax and sales tax after the clearance of imported goods?
  • Does the insertion of the word 'taxes' in sections 32 and 179 of the Customs Act, 1969 confer concurrent jurisdiction upon the Customs department to recover income tax and sales tax post-clearance?
  • Is the Customs department's authority to collect advance tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 limited to the time of import?
  • Does the Inland Revenue department have the exclusive authority to recover short-levied income tax and sales tax after the release of consignments?
  Read full judgment →
• NBP Officers Welfare Association And others vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2023 SHC 40 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-07
  writ jurisdictionstatutory corporationmaster and servantannual incrementservice rulespolicy decisionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by officer-grade employees and an association against the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP), seeking directions for the payment of annual increments effective from 1st January of each year pursuant to bank policy, rather than from later months as implemented in 2020 and 2021. The core legal questions involved whether the NBP is a statutory entity amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, whether its service rules are statutory, and whether the bank's policy decision regarding the timing of annual increments is open to judicial review. The Sindh High Court held that the NBP is a statutory corporation established under the National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance 1949 and is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199(5) of the Constitution. However, dismissing the petition on merits, the court held that internal policy matters regarding the timing and award of performance-based annual increments do not violate fundamental rights and cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction unless a clear violation of fundamental rights is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Bank of Pakistan is a statutory corporation amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the High Court interfere with internal policy matters and performance-based increment timelines of a banking institution under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether annual increments in banking employment constitute an unconditional vested right claimable irrespective of performance evaluation?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazim Uddin S/o Allah Dino vs Election Commission of Pakistan and Others2023 SHC 377 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-02Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed Muhammadani vs The State2023 YLR 1392 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-25
  trial in absentiaAnti-Terrorism Actcriminal appealfundamental rightsconviction in absentianatural justiceabsconder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, rendered by the Anti-Terrorism Court in their absentia. The core legal question was whether such a conviction, imposed without framing a charge or providing an opportunity for a hearing, was legally sustainable. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court’s procedure was illegal and violative of the appellants' fundamental rights. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The Court established that trial in absentia, without adhering to mandatory legal procedures, contravenes Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and violates the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the Court clarified that a person convicted in absentia under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, is not barred from filing an appeal under Section 25 of the Act without first seeking relief through an application under Section 19(12) of the same Act before the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction in absentia under Section 21-L of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, valid if the trial court failed to frame a charge or record evidence?
  • Does a trial in absentia violate Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is it a mandatory condition for a person convicted in absentia to file an application under Section 19(12) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, before filing an appeal under Section 25 of the same Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawal & another, Ms. Hiba Rehan vs Federation of Pakistan & others2023 SHC 82, 2024 MLD 225 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-14Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Saeed Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Aisha and others2023 SHC 455 · Sindh High Court · 2023-07-19Read full judgment →
• Nawab Brothers Steel Mills vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2023 SHC 24, 2024 PTD 256 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-11Read full judgment →
• Naveed Ali alias Nadeem vs Syed Gulam Murtaza Shah and another2023 YLR 1036 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-22
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaydesperate criminalterrorismbail cancellationheinous offence
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, 404, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, arising from an election-day attack that resulted in multiple fatalities and injuries. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the statutory delay in the trial, despite being accused of a heinous act of terrorism. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail. It reasoned that the applicant’s conduct, including his status as a fugitive from justice and the nature of the offense—which involved indiscriminate firing on political rivals and police—categorized him as a 'desperate or dangerous criminal.' The Court established the principle that the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 acts as a controlling provision, allowing courts to deny bail for statutory delay if the accused is deemed a desperate or dangerous criminal, regardless of the absence of prior criminal convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of prior criminal convictions preclude an accused from being classified as a 'desperate or dangerous criminal' under the fourth proviso of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail on the ground of statutory delay be denied if the accused is found to be a desperate or dangerous criminal?
  • Is it necessary for a court to calculate the exact number of days of delay caused by an accused to deny bail under the fourth proviso of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Ahmed vs The State2023 YLR 1449 · Sindh High Court · 2021-08-16
  pre-arrest bailhabitual offenderinvestigationmisuse of bailcognizable offencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by an accused booked for offences under sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who had been granted interim pre-arrest bail, was entitled to confirmation of that bail despite allegations of non-cooperation with the investigation and habitual criminality. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail and consequently recalled the interim order. The Court reasoned that the applicant failed to join the investigation, misused the bail concession by allegedly harassing the complainant, and was a habitual offender. The key principles laid down are that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary judicial intervention intended to protect the innocent from abuse of process, not a substitute for post-arrest bail. It cannot be invoked in routine criminal cases where there is prima facie evidence of a non-bailable offence. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that bail decisions at this stage rely on a tentative assessment of the record, avoiding deeper appreciation of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is pre-arrest bail a substitute for post-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted where the accused has failed to join the investigation?
  • Does the court require a deeper appreciation of evidence when deciding a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• National Tiles and Ceramics Ltd. and Another, Mr Agha Tajammul Hussain2023 SHC 1156, 2024 CLD 264 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-14Read full judgment →
• Natasha Malik vs Naeem Malik & others2023 SHC 313 · Sindh High Court · 2023-05-10Read full judgment →
• Naseem vs The State2023 PCRLJ 1385 · Sindh High Court · 2023-06-12
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryaddition of offencespolice malicebenefit of doubttentative assessmentdacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose from FIR No. 48/2023, registered under Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subsequently added Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against the applicant. The primary legal questions were whether the addition of a non-bailable offense based solely on the Deputy Public Prosecutor's opinion required further inquiry, and whether male fide police involvement entitled the accused to bail. The High Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the investigating officer collected no independent material to justify adding Section 395, making its inclusion a matter requiring further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court further noted plausible allegations of police malice due to a prior court application filed by the applicant's brother against police harassment. Key principles affirmed include that the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused even at the bail stage where the material suggests malicious prosecution or lack of tangible evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the addition of a penal section based solely on the opinion of a prosecutor without investigative evidence creates a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
  • Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused at the stage of deciding a post-arrest bail application?
  • Whether plausible allegations of police malice and false implication justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Nargis Sultana vs Province of Sindh & Others2023 SHC 1110 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
• Najmul Kareem and 03 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 03 others2023 SHC 200 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-13
  pensionary benefitsEOBIinsurable employmentconstitutional petitionsocial securityremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by petitioners seeking directions to the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) to release their pensionary benefits. The petitioners alleged that despite their contributions being deposited with the EOBI, their benefits were withheld, partly due to an employer's refusal to acknowledge the employment of one petitioner. The EOBI contended that the petitioner in question lacked the requisite 15 years of insurable employment for a pension and had already received a one-time grant, while the other petitioners had not formally approached the institution. The Court held that the petitioners could not be non-suited based solely on an employer's denial of employment, particularly where the EOBI had already received contributions and issued Social Security Registered Cards. The Court emphasized the EOBI's duty to ensure pensionary benefits for those who have acquired the right through insurable service. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Chairman of the EOBI for adjudication, with a directive to process the claims within 15 days, explicitly prohibiting the denial of benefits based on the employer's plea.

  Questions settled

  • Can the EOBI deny pensionary benefits to an employee based solely on an employer's refusal to acknowledge the employment?
  • Does the issuance of Social Security Registered Cards and receipt of contributions create an obligation for the EOBI to process pensionary claims?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to pensionary benefits if they lack the statutory minimum of 15 years of insurable employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Najeebullah Brohi, Abbas Ali Baloch vs The State2023 SHC 1182 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-21
  narcoticscharasrepresentative samplesecret cavitysafe transmissioncriminal appealcomplainant as investigating officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the appellants' conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the recovery of 200 kilograms of charas from a secret cavity of a truck they were traveling in. The core legal questions involve the appreciation of evidence regarding recovery, the legality of the complainant acting as the investigating officer, and whether the prosecution established safe transmission and representative sampling of the narcotics. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant acting as the investigating officer is not barred by law, and that drawing a 100-gram sample from each of the 200 packets fulfilled the requirement of representative sampling even in the absence of individual alphanumeric cross-marking. The key principles laid down are that a complainant is not barred from acting as an investigating officer, and that an equal number of individually segregated samples corresponding to each recovered packet constitutes valid representative sampling to maintain the integrity of the prosecution case regarding bulk narcotic recoveries.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the complainant in a narcotics case is legally barred from also acting as the Investigating Officer?
  • Does the absence of individual alphanumeric cross-marking on samples invalidate representative sampling when an equal number of samples are drawn from every recovered packet?
  • Whether safe transmission of samples to the chemical laboratory within twenty-four hours dispels any doubt regarding tampering?
  • Does the failure of the defense to object to or weigh the remaining case property upon desealing in court preclude subsequent challenges to the integrity of the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Najeebullah and another vs The State2023 YLR 1299 · Sindh High Court · 2021-04-01
  explosive substancesillicit armspolice testimonyminor discrepanciesanti-terrorismrecovery of weaponscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the conviction of two appellants by an Anti-Terrorism Court for offenses involving the possession of explosives and illicit arms. The appellants were apprehended during a night patrol while in possession of hand grenades and pistols, leading to charges under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the Sindh Arms Act, 2013. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the recovery and guilt of the appellants despite alleged discrepancies in the evidence, specifically regarding the color of the recovered hand grenades and the absence of independent witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established the appellants' guilt through consistent and reliable police testimony, supported by forensic and Bomb Disposal Unit reports. The Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that minor discrepancies in evidence do not invalidate a case when the core testimony is credible. The key principle laid down is that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony is as valid as that of private individuals, and minor inconsistencies in evidence, which do not go to the root of the matter, should be overlooked in favor of the overall reliability of the prosecution's case.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of police officials be discarded solely because they are police officers?
  • Do minor discrepancies in prosecution evidence necessitate the acquittal of an accused?
  • Is the absence of independent witnesses at the time of recovery fatal to the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →