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. 232594 judgments in total.
- MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA Versus Syed AZFAR ALI2014 PLD 224 · Sindh High Court · 2013-09-17Read full judgment →
- DANISH Versus Mst. FOZIA DANISH2013 PLD 209 · Sindh High Court · 2012-12-11Read full judgment →
- ARY COMMUNICATION (PVT.) LTD. Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Information and Broadcasting, Islamabad2013 PLD 168 · Sindh High Court · 2012-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. ILYAS BEGUM Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY2011 PLD 281 · Sindh High Court · 2011-02-21Read full judgment →
- Syed IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN JAFRI Versus Mrs. SHAMSHAD BEGUM2011 PLD 232 · Sindh High Court · 2011-02-28Read full judgment →
- WAJID Versus State2011 PLD 199 · Sindh High Court · 2011-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application arises from a criminal case registered under sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of a murderous assault. The applicant, Wajid, sought post-arrest bail, contending that he was falsely implicated, no specific role was attributed to him in the FIR, and that prosecution witnesses failed to implicate him in their statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the applicant highlighted the existence of a counter-version case registered by him against the complainant's party regarding the same incident. The core legal question was whether the existence of counter-versions in a criminal case warrants the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting the lack of specific attribution and the existence of a counter-version. The Court affirmed the principle that where counter-versions of the same incident exist, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the determination of the truthful version is a matter for the trial court after evidence appraisal.
Questions settled- Does the existence of a counter-version of the same incident justify the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Is a case eligible for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there are conflicting versions of the same occurrence?
- Should bail be granted when prosecution witnesses fail to implicate an accused in their statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ABDUL ALEEM KHAN Versus TABINDA NASEER QAZI2011 PLD 196 · Sindh High Court · 2011-02-10Read full judgment →
- GHULAM RASOOL Versus State2010 PLD 384 · Sindh High Court · 2010-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application was filed by the applicant seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the determination of vicarious liability where the applicant was only assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased while a co-accused inflicted the fatal blow, and the proper procedure for determining the age of an accused under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The court held that where an accused is assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased without directly inflicting fatal injuries, and where the question of minority and age determination under the special law requires a proper medical board inquiry rather than a cursory assessment, the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant and directed the trial Court to constitute a proper medical board for age determination.
Questions settled- Whether an accused assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased without causing fatal injuries is entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Is it mandatory for a trial Court to conduct a proper inquiry including a medical report for age determination when the minority of an accused is raised under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
- Does the failure of an accused to formally apply for an ossification test relieve the trial Court from its responsibility to determine age under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000?
- INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ADVISORS ASSOCIATION through General Secretary Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Manpower, Islamabad2010 PLD 328 · Sindh High Court · 2010-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court examined the legal status and effect of the expiry of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, following the enactment of the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010. The core questions were whether the sunset clause in Section 87(3) of the Act of 2008 caused the statute to stand repealed on 30 April 2010; whether Article 270-AA(6) of the Constitution extended its life; whether Section 87(3) violated Article 17 of the Constitution; and which law, if any, revived upon its expiration. The High Court held that the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 was a temporary statute that expired of its own force on 30 April 2010. Article 270-AA(6) only protected laws from the defect arising from the omission of the Concurrent Legislative List and did not alter the text of the statute or override its sunset clause. Furthermore, because the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 was not 'still in force' on 19 April 2010 under substituted Article 270-AA(2), it was void ab initio, resulting in the revival of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Questions settled- Does Article 270-AA(6) of the Constitution extend the lifespan of a temporary statute containing an express sunset clause beyond its prescribed expiration date?
- Is a statutory sunset clause terminating an industrial relations enactment ultra vires the fundamental right to form associations under Article 17 of the Constitution?
- Do Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Article 264 of the Constitution apply to the expiration of a temporary statute by its own force?
- What earlier enactment revives when a temporary law expires if the intervening statute was not saved under Article 270-AA(2) of the Constitution?
- ZAHID SAEED Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through District Coordination Officer2010 PLD 218 · Sindh High Court · 2010-01-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMM4D AYUB KHAN Versus Mst. SHEHLA RASHEED2010 PLD 131 · Sindh High Court · 2009-11-26Read full judgment →
- SULTAN AHMED SIDDIQUI Versus State2010 PLD 110 · Sindh High Court · 2009-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a pre-arrest bail matter arising from an F.I.R. registered under sections 427, 447, 511 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning alleged demolition of walls and trespass on land disputed between the Pakistan Air Force and a housing society, where possession had earlier been delivered by the court Nazir pursuant to a civil court decree. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a direct pre-arrest bail petition before the High Court bypassing the Court of Session, and whether bail should be granted in bailable offences and offenses outside the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction to entertain pre-arrest bail applications directly in compelling circumstances, and that in bailable offences the grant of bail is a matter of right and not a concession. The court laid down that while normal practice requires approaching the Court of Session first, compelling circumstances such as apprehension of high-handedness justify a direct approach, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants.
Questions settled- Can an accused directly approach the High Court for pre-arrest bail by bypassing the Court of Session?
- Is the grant of bail in bailable offences considered a matter of right or a matter of discretion?
- Does a bail court undertake a deep appreciation of evidence at the pre-trial stage?
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mufti MUHAMMAD SHARIF SARKI Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Government of Sindh, Auqaf, Religious, Minorities Affairs, Zakat and Ushr Department2009 PLD 203 · Sindh High Court · 2008-11-03Read full judgment →
- Mian SHIRAZ ARSHAD Versus Mst. TAZEEN ARIF ALI KHAN2009 PLD 183 · Sindh High Court · 2008-10-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ Versus State2008 PLD 97 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court arises out of F.I.R. No. 3201 of 2006 registered under section 6/9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, concerning the alleged recovery of a large quantity of charas from a vehicle. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of several arguable points and lacunae in the prosecution's case, including delayed submission of the challan, discrepancies in vehicle registration numbers, failure to properly seal samples on the spot, and the fact that samples were not drawn from each individual rod of charas recovered, potentially bringing the case within a lesser penal category. The court held that these discrepancies and the failure to send the entire quantity or representative samples from each rod for chemical analysis created reasonable doubt regarding the applicant's guilt. Consequently, the court confirmed the bail granted to the applicant, reaffirming the principle that a single reasonable circumstance creating doubt entitles the accused to bail as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether failure to take samples from each individual rod of recovered charas creates a reasonable doubt entitling the accused to post-arrest bail?
- Does a discrepancy in the challan regarding vehicle registration numbers and delayed submission constitute grounds for further inquiry under bail adjudication?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
- MUHAMMAD NASIR KHAN Versus State2008 PLD 609 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent, who was accused of committing Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The complainant, the respondent's father-in-law, alleged that the respondent had divorced his daughter and subsequently resumed cohabitation without a valid revocation of divorce (Raju), thus constituting an offense. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to remain on bail given the disputed facts surrounding the timing and validity of the alleged revocation of divorce. The Court held that the application for cancellation of bail should be dismissed. It reasoned that because there was a significant controversy regarding the facts and the timing of the revocation of divorce, the case required further inquiry as contemplated under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the complainant’s selective prosecution of the respondent while excluding his daughter from the allegations indicated potential mala fides, justifying the continuation of bail pending trial.
Questions settled- Does a dispute regarding the validity and timing of the revocation of a divorce (Raju) constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the selective prosecution of only one spouse in a case involving alleged Zina a factor relevant to the determination of mala fides in bail proceedings?
- Should a court cancel pre-arrest bail when the underlying facts regarding the marital status of the accused are in dispute?
- GHULAM MUSTAFA WASSAN Versus ABDUL SALAM TAHEEM2008 PLD 60 · Sindh High Court · 2007-12-12Read full judgment →
- GUL HASSAN Versus State2008 PLD 567 · Sindh High Court · 2008-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of proceedings in a murder case pending before the trial court under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be quashed when the primary eyewitnesses, including the complainant, have turned hostile and there is no reasonable probability of the accused's conviction. The Sindh High Court held that where key eyewitnesses turn hostile and unseat the prosecution's case without any possibility of a conviction upon full trial, the continuation of proceedings constitutes an abuse of the court's process. The court laid down the principle that inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or acquittal powers under section 265-K can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings to prevent needless agony and harassment to an accused when the evidence on record completely exonerates them or offers no prospect of conviction.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when key eyewitnesses turn hostile?
- Is it mandatory for all prosecution witnesses to be examined before a trial court can consider an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the High Court can quash proceedings when there is no probability of the accused being convicted upon completion of the trial?
- What is the scope of inherent powers of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of the court in criminal matters?
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State2008 PLD 483 · Sindh High Court · 2008-07-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a bail application arising out of a criminal case involving a matrimonial dispute and a counter-FIR incident at the applicant's house, resulting in injuries and the subsequent death of a lady. The core legal question is whether the 70-year-old applicant, to whom no specific firearm injury or overt act of firing is attributed and who was named merely as the head of the family, is entitled to post-arrest bail when the incident occurred at his own house and counter-versions exist. The Sindh High Court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granted bail to the applicant, ruling that the liberty of an accused cannot be withheld merely to procure the arrest of absconding co-accused. The key principle laid down is that general allegations without specific overt acts in counter-version incidents involving elderly family members warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail.
Questions settled- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused when no specific overt act of firing or injury is attributed to him in a counter-case?
- Can the liberty of an accused be withheld solely to procure the surrender or arrest of absconding co-accused?
- Does a case involving counter-FIRs arising from a sudden matrimonial dispute at the accused's house make out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- ABRAR AHMED alias ABRAR Versus State2008 PLD 325 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi, convicting the appellant under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine for allegedly using a forged currency note. The core legal questions involved whether the recovery of the forged currency note was proven beyond doubt, whether the essential ingredients of mens rea and knowledge under Section 489-B were established, and whether the certificate from the State Bank of Pakistan could be admitted without examining its author under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the recovery due to contradictions in the mashir's testimony, failed to prove the appellant's knowledge or intention that the note was counterfeit, and noted that officers of the State Bank of Pakistan are not exempt from testifying under Section 510. The court laid down that mere possession of a forged currency note is not an offence without proof of guilty knowledge and intention, and that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Whether mere possession of a forged currency note constitutes an offence under Section 489-B or 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of knowledge or intention?
- Can a certificate issued by an officer of the State Bank of Pakistan be admitted into evidence without examining the maker under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure of a recovery mashir to support the prosecution case render the recovery of counterfeit currency doubtful?
- MUHAMMAD IRFAN Versus State2008 PLD 182 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi Central, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant forced the deceased to consume liquor mixed with an insecticide, leading to his death. Upon examining the record, the High Court noted glaring contradictions between the ocular testimony of interested prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence, including the medico-legal certificate and the Chemical Examiner's report which confirmed the presence of an insecticide but detected no alcohol. The Court held that expert medical and chemical testimony prevails over inconsistent oral evidence of related witnesses when irreconcilable discrepancies exist. Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the immediate acquittal of the appellant.
Questions settled- Whether expert medical and chemical evidence prevails over contradictory oral testimony of interested witnesses?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Can a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code be sustained when chemical reports contradict the prosecution's theory of the crime?
- MUSHTAQ ALI Versus State2008 PLD 173 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a watchman, challenged his conviction for accepting a bribe. The trial court had sentenced him based on the recovery of tainted money. The core legal question was whether the statutory presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 could sustain a conviction in the absence of direct evidence regarding the nature of the transaction. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the crime, as the only private witness denied the payment of the bribe, and the recovery witnesses did not observe the transaction. The court emphasized that while Section 4 creates a rebuttable presumption, this presumption is displaced when the accused offers a plausible alternative explanation for the possession of money, which the prosecution fails to refute. The court concluded that the appellant's explanation—that the money was for delivery to a third party—was plausible, thereby rebutting the presumption. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, establishing that the presumption of guilt is not absolute and can be displaced by circumstances or reasonable alternative explanations.
Questions settled- Can the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 be displaced by a plausible alternative explanation offered by the accused?
- Is the burden of proof on an accused to rebut the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 lighter than the prosecution's burden to prove guilt?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to examine the complainant and key witnesses in a bribery case affect the sustainability of a conviction?
- MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus State2008 PLD 157 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two applications for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Manzoor Hussain and Mazhar Hussain, in connection with a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants, who were named in the FIR and alleged to be armed accomplices facilitating the main accused in the commission of the murder, were entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The Court held that the applicants failed to establish mala fide intent or false implication, noting that their presence and active role as armed facilitators were corroborated by the statements of eye-witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail applications, recalling the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted in ordinary circumstances where the accused is alleged to have facilitated a heinous crime and where the prosecution's case is supported by prima facie evidence of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Is pre-arrest bail available to an accused who is alleged to have facilitated the commission of a murder while being armed?
- Does the presence of an accused's name in the FIR and corroborating statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can bail before arrest be granted where the applicant fails to establish mala fide intention or false implication by the complainant?
- FAISAL Versus State2007 PLD 544 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The convict filed an application under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, seeking review of a judgment dismissing his jail appeal on the ground that he was not represented by counsel during the hearing. The core legal questions involved whether an accused person unable to engage an advocate in a case involving imprisonment is entitled to be provided one at State expense, and whether failing to do so violates Article 9 of the Constitution. The Sindh High Court held that the right to a fair trial and access to justice is an inalienable fundamental right implicit in Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution, which mandates that indigent or pauper accused persons must be provided legal representation at State expense from the stage of arrest through final disposal. The Court issued prospective directions to the Provincial Government and trial courts to arrange counsel for unrepresented indigent accused, while clarifying that past and closed transactions remain unaffected and judgments already finalized cannot be reviewed.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person who is unable to engage an advocate in a case involving imprisonment is entitled to be provided an advocate at State expense?
- Does failing to provide an advocate at State expense to an indigent accused violate Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether a judgment of the High Court in a criminal appeal can be reviewed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure after it has been signed and announced?
- Does the right to a fair trial and due process under Article 9 encompass the right to legal representation for poor and indigent accused persons?
- MUHAMMAD NADIR KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through DCO Sanghar2007 PLD 197 · Sindh High Court · 2006-12-19Read full judgment →
- FAROOQUE AHMED Versus RAZA MUHAMMAD2007 PLD 182 · Sindh High Court · 2006-12-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State2007 PLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 2005-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, the admissibility and voluntariness of a judicial confession where the recording Magistrate had passed away, and the presumption of identity and regularity under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through prompt, credible eyewitness testimony, a voluntarily recorded and corroborated judicial confession—supported by statutory presumptions of genuineness and verified physical identification marks—and the recovery of a blood-stained weapon. The key principle laid down is that official acts and judicial confessions are presumed genuine and regular under Articles 91 and 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, and such rebuttable presumptions can support conviction when corroborated and left unrebutted by exceptionally strong counter-evidence.
Questions settled- Can a judicial confession be proved in evidence when the Magistrate who recorded it has passed away?
- Whether statutory presumptions regarding the genuineness of a judicial confession under Articles 91 and 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 extend to the identity of the confessor?
- What standard of evidence is required to rebut the legal presumptions attached to official and judicial acts under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Does a minor discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries vitiate a murder conviction?
- TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. Versus Messrs SYED CORPORATION2006 PLD 258 · Sindh High Court · 2006-03-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL Versus State2006 PLD 165 · Sindh High Court · 2006-01-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court, where the applicant sought pre-trial relief in a case registered under sections 17(2)(b) and 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, concerning allegations of human trafficking and receiving money for providing foreign employment. The core legal question examined by the court was whether the ingredients of an offence under section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 were prima facie satisfied, and whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the evidence. The court held that section 22(b) contemplates fraud or deceit practised upon a victim by extorting money on the pretext of securing foreign employment, which was absent here as there was no complaint from any victim, though circumstantial evidence potentially attracted section 17(2)(b). Consequently, the court ruled that the case fell into the category of further inquiry and did not attract the prohibitory clause of the relevant law, thereby granting bail to the applicant subject to furnishing sureties. The key principle laid down is that section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 requires proof of receiving money on the pretext of securing foreign employment involving fraud or deceit upon a victim, and where the case rests on circumstantial evidence not falling within the prohibitory clause, further inquiry warrants the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Whether an offence under section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 is attracted without a complaint from a victim of fraud regarding foreign employment?
- Does an offence under section 17(2)(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of offences disentitling an accused to bail?
- When can an accused be admitted to bail on the ground of further inquiry based on circumstantial evidence?
- ALLAH DINO Versus HAJI AHMED through Legal Heirs2006 PLD 148 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus The State2005 PLD 232 · Sindh High Court · 2004-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was sentenced for offences under sections 364 and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, despite the absence of a formal conviction. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of an unexplained three-day delay in lodging the First Information Report, a retracted and involuntary confessional statement recorded after thirteen days reflecting marks of violence, and the absence of independent corroborating evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge due to glaring contradictions, procedural infirmities, an involuntary confession, and a judgment vitiated by serious legal errors. The court established that an involuntary confession bearing marks of torture and lacking prompt recording is devoid of evidentiary value, and a conviction cannot stand where the prosecution evidence is uncorroborated and riddled with doubt. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.
Questions settled- Whether a sentence can be awarded without a formal conviction being recorded against the accused?
- Does a confessional statement recorded after a considerable delay and bearing marks of violence qualify as voluntary?
- Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution relies solely on uncorroborated testimony and a doubtful confessional statement?
- What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report?
- WAZIR ALI Versus The State2005 PLD 201 · Sindh High Court · 2004-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, charged with murder and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Arms Ordinance, sought post-arrest bail after remaining in custody for over four years without the conclusion of his trial. The core legal question was whether bail should be granted on the grounds of inordinate delay in the trial process, despite the omission of specific statutory provisions regarding delay in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that while the mere non-compliance with a previous court direction to conclude a trial within a specified period does not constitute a fresh ground for bail, the court retains the discretion to grant bail where the delay is shocking, scandalous, or caused by the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses. The court affirmed that the right to a fair and expeditious trial is a fundamental right that must be safeguarded. Consequently, finding that the delay in this case was unjustified and the prosecution witnesses had failed to appear, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail to the applicant subject to furnishing substantial surety.
Questions settled- Can an accused be released on bail due to inordinate delay in the conclusion of a trial even after the omission of specific statutory provisions regarding delay?
- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to appear in court despite being served constitute a valid ground for considering the delay in trial for bail purposes?
- Is the non-compliance with a court's direction to conclude a trial within a specified period a fresh ground for filing a bail application?
- MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus The State2005 PLD 196 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order declining the release of a truck on Superdari under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The lower courts had refused custody on the ground that the vehicle was liable to confiscation under Article 14 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 for being used in the transportation of liquor. The core legal question was whether a vehicle liable to confiscation under the Prohibition Order can be denied Superdari during trial and whether confiscation is automatic. The High Court held that confiscation is not a mechanical or automatic process and requires an inquiry adhering to the principles of natural justice and the opportunity of being heard under Article 15 of the Prohibition Order. Furthermore, the pendency of such liability does not bar the interim release of the vehicle on Superdari under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The impugned orders were set aside and the application was allowed.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'liable to confiscation' under Article 14 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 mean that the vehicle must automatically be confiscated?
- Can a vehicle seized under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 be released on Superdari under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the pendency of the trial?
- Is an opportunity of being heard required before ordering the confiscation of a vehicle used in an offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- ARSHAD ALI Versus THE STATE2004 PLD 602 · Sindh High Court · 2003-12-30Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMED Versus THE STATE2004 PLD 577 · Sindh High Court · 2004-03-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF JAMAL Versus Mirza SABIR BAIG2004 PLD 537 · Sindh High Court · 2004-01-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN Versus THE STATE2004 PLD 520 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case involving murder, abduction for ransom, and use of explosives under sections 302, 365/A, 451, 148, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 3/4 of the Explosive Act, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The primary legal questions concerned whether the omission of the applicant's name from the initial first information report (FIR) warranted bail, whether a subsequent statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was admissible, and whether the lack of an assigned specific overt act entitled the accused to further inquiry. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that omission from the FIR is not a sole ground for bail when multiple eyewitnesses and the abductee subsequently implicate the accused, and that the presence of the accused armed with a weapon in furtherance of a common intention satisfies the legal threshold at the bail stage without requiring a specific overt act. The court emphasized that tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage does not warrant enlargement on bail where prima facie incriminating material exists.
Questions settled- Whether the omission of an accused person's name from the first information report entitles them to post-arrest bail as a matter of right?
- Is a subsequent statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 naming the accused inadmissible for the purposes of bail?
- Does the absence of a specifically assigned overt act in the statements of witnesses warrant the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether presence of an accused armed with a weapon at the scene of crime is sufficient to attract common intention under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the bail stage?
- Hafiz SHAFATULLAH Versus Mst. SHAMIM JAHAN and another2004 PLD 502 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus THE STATE2004 PLD 345 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by applicant Muhammad Saleem, who is facing trial for murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in Crime No. 222 of 1996. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to the discretionary relief of bail in view of the incriminating statements of prosecution witnesses, the recovery of the deceased's body from the applicant's clinic under newly constructed cement, and his prolonged abscondence for over five years. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the material brought on record tentatively establishes a prima facie case against the applicant, and noted that delay in the First Information Report does not per se destroy the prosecution's case at this stage, while abscondence further disentitles the applicant to bail. The key principle laid down is that where ocular and circumstantial evidence, including recovery of a dead body from the accused's premises and prolonged abscondence, prima facie connect the accused to the crime, post-arrest bail will be refused.
Questions settled- Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report per se destroy the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
- Whether prolonged abscondence of an accused disentitles them to the discretionary relief of post-arrest bail?
- Can post-arrest bail be refused when prosecution witnesses tentatively establish a prima facie case and point to the recovery of a body from the accused's premises?
- MUHAMMAD DILAWAR KHAN Versus THE STATE2004 PLD 319 · Sindh High Court · 2004-03-08Read full judgment →
- MUNIR AHMAD---Appellant Versus THE STATE---Respondent2004 PLD 290 · Sindh High Court · 2003-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal assails the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for offences under section 7(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the Anti-Terrorism Court retained jurisdiction to try the case after the promulgation of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, which excluded vehicle snatching from the schedule of terrorist acts and mandated the transfer of pending cases to ordinary courts. The High Court held that upon the statutory amendment, the case stood transferred to an ordinary court, rendering the continued trial by the Anti-Terrorism Court coram non judice. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, bifurcated the cases, and remanded them for trial before courts of competent jurisdiction, establishing the principle that trials conducted by special courts lacking statutory jurisdiction post-amendment are null and void.
Questions settled- Whether an Anti-Terrorism Court retains jurisdiction to try a pending case of vehicle snatching after the offence is removed from the schedule of terrorist acts by an amendment?
- What is the legal effect of a judgment rendered by an Anti-Terrorism Court in a case that stood statutorily transferred to an ordinary court under section 39-B(2)(e) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997?
- Are proceedings conducted by a court lacking jurisdiction considered coram non judice?
- ABDUL RAZZAK KHAMOSH---Appellant Versus ABBAS ALI and others---Respondents2004 PLD 269 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE2004 PLD 191 · Sindh High Court · 2004-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, requiring the applicant to furnish security upon being granted bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the requirement of furnishing security under section 51(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 mandates the deposit of cash or a bank guarantee, or whether it can be satisfied by furnishing title documents of property worth the bail amount. The Sindh High Court held that the requirement of furnishing security under section 51(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 does not contemplate the mandatory deposit of cash, and that the condition of security can be satisfied by providing surety or documents creating title to property worth the bail amount. The key principle laid down is that cash security cannot be arbitrarily demanded as a mandatory precondition for the grant of bail unless expressly provided, and property title documents are acceptable.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement of furnishing security under section 51(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 makes it mandatory to deposit cash or a bank guarantee?
- Can a court demand cash security as a condition for the grant of bail under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Does the term security under section 51(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 include title documents of landed property?
- Syed MUNIR HASSAN Versus SHAMSA SAFDAR2003 PLD 519 · Sindh High Court · 2003-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mrs. SHEHER BANO Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF2003 PLD 507 · Sindh High Court · 2003-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FEROZE Versus THE STATE2003 PLD 355 · Sindh High Court · 2003-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Mst. Naheed. The appellant raised a legal plea that because he was the father of the victim’s children, who were the Wali, the offence was not liable to Qisas under Section 306(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendering the trial court's conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 coram non judice. The High Court accepted this, noting that the trial court lacked authority to impose the death penalty in such circumstances. Furthermore, the Court scrutinized the prosecution's reliance on the testimony of a child witness. It held that the child’s evidence was unreliable, inconsistent, and likely the result of tutoring, especially given that the child had previously been deemed incompetent by a magistrate. Additionally, the Court found the recovery of the crime weapon and clothes insufficient due to the absence of bloodstains noted in the recovery memos. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and answered the murder reference in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court has the jurisdiction to convict an accused under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-i-Amd when the offender is the father of the victim's children?
- Is the testimony of a child witness who was previously deemed incompetent by a magistrate reliable for a murder conviction?
- Does the recovery of incriminating items without a contemporaneous record of bloodstains in the recovery memo provide sufficient corroborative evidence?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's case relies on a child witness whose testimony is inconsistent with their earliest statements?
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus THE STATE2003 PLD 243 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- KUNWAR KHALID YOUNUS Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2003 PLD 209 · Sindh High Court · 2002-10-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. MARIUM HAJI Versus Mrs. YASMIN R. MINHAS2003 PLD 148 · Sindh High Court · 2002-03-21Read full judgment →
- M. ADIL HAYAT KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH2002 PLD 131 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the denial of a Permanent Residence Certificate (P.R.C.) by government officials, which effectively barred the petitioner’s admission to N.E.D. University. The core legal questions concerned whether the University could lawfully deny admission despite an interim court order directing them to consider the petitioner on merit, and whether the University’s failure to comply constituted contempt of court. The Court held that the University’s refusal to obey the clear interim order was mala fide and constituted contempt, rejecting the University's attempt to justify its actions through internal prospectus requirements. The Court convicted the Registrar for contempt, imposing a sentence of detention until the rising of the Court, and set aside the administrative orders denying the P.R.C., directing its issuance. The key principle established is that High Courts possess broad constitutional powers under Article 199 to grant interim relief and strike down regulations conflicting with fundamental rights. Furthermore, statutory bodies cannot override court orders by citing internal regulations, and an apology for contempt must be unconditional and immediate to be accepted.
Questions settled- Does a High Court have the power to grant interim relief in a constitutional petition that requires a statutory body to ignore its own prospectus requirements?
- Can a statutory body justify the disobedience of a court order by claiming that compliance would violate its own internal statutes or prospectus?
- What are the requirements for an apology to be considered a valid purging of contempt of court?
- Does a High Court have the jurisdiction to strike down provisions of a university prospectus if they conflict with fundamental rights?
- S.M. ILYAS AND ANOTHER Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY THROUGH CHIEF CONTROLLER OF BUILDINGS AND ANOTHER2001 PLD 85 · Sindh High Court · 2000-02-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADDIQ AND ANOTHER Versus MST. RUQAYA KHANUM AND OTHERS2001 PLD 60 · Sindh High Court · 1999-12-23Read full judgment →
- GUL QIAS Versus SAEED KHAN2001 PLD 6 · Sindh High Court · 2000-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two applicants, Shahzad Ahmed and Saeed Ahmed, who were detained in connection with F.I.R. No. 111 of 1999 registered under sections 392, 324, 353, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given that the police had failed to submit a final challan (report) to the court for approximately eleven months following their arrest. The court observed that the Investigating Officer is legally obligated to submit a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 within seventeen days, a requirement that was neglected in this instance. The State failed to provide any justification for this delay. Consequently, the court held that the prolonged detention without the submission of a challan entitled the applicants to bail. The key principle laid down is that the failure of the prosecution to submit a challan within the statutory period, without valid explanation, constitutes a significant ground for the grant of bail to an accused person.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the police to submit a challan within the statutory period entitle an accused to bail?
- Is the Investigating Officer legally bound to submit a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 within seventeen days?
- SARFRAZ Versus THE STATE2001 PLD 162 · Sindh High Court · 2000-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a bail application filed under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, by an accused charged with murder. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given alleged discrepancies in the timing of the incident between the F.I.R. and the medical report, and whether the case warranted "further enquiry" regarding the specific fatal blow. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant was a nominated accused, the ocular account was corroborated by medical evidence, and the motive was established by the accused's prior conduct. The court affirmed that at the bail stage, a deeper appreciation of evidence—such as determining which specific blow caused death—is impermissible. It established that where a nominated accused is linked to a non-bailable offence within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the ocular version is supported by medical reports, bail should generally be refused. The court noted that the applicant could re-approach the trial court after the examination of eye-witnesses.
Questions settled- Does a discrepancy between the time of the incident in the F.I.R. and the medical report automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Can a court determine which specific blow caused death during the bail stage?
- Is a case involving a nominated accused supported by medical evidence considered a case of further enquiry for the purpose of bail?
- When can an accused re-approach the trial court for bail after an initial refusal?
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE2001 PLD 112 · Sindh High Court · 2000-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the applicant seeking to set aside and quash the orders of the trial court and the revisional court whereby he was convicted and sentenced for running an unlicensed cable system. The core legal question was whether a trial court could take cognizance of an offence under the relevant telecommunication laws on the basis of a police report rather than a formal written complaint by an authorized officer, and whether the recording of the plea of guilt complied with mandatory legal requirements. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court's cognizance based on a police report was contrary to mandatory statutory provisions requiring a written complaint by an authorized officer, and that the plea of guilt was defectively recorded. The court established the key principles that an FIR and police report cannot be equated with a statutory complaint, and that non-compliance with mandatory complaint and plea-recording procedures vitiates the trial, leading to the acceptance of the application and the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Can an FIR and a police report be equated with a formal complaint as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Whether a court can take cognizance of an offence under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 without a written complaint by an authorized officer?
- Does recording a plea of guilt in a typed format rather than in the accused's own words violate mandatory legal requirements?
- MUHAMMAD AMJAD Versus THE STATE2001 PLD 10 · Sindh High Court · 2000-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, which convicted the appellant under Section 451 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for house-trespass. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the same witnesses were disbelieved regarding a more serious charge under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court noted that the prosecution's narrative was improbable, material evidence (the alleged keys) was not produced in court, and the investigation appeared to have commenced before the formal F.I.R. was lodged. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The judgment reaffirms that the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution and that an accused’s decision not to testify on oath cannot be used to draw an adverse inference against them. The conviction was deemed unsafe due to significant evidentiary gaps and lack of credibility in the prosecution's witnesses.
Questions settled- Can an adverse inference be drawn against an accused for failing to examine themselves on oath?
- Does the failure to produce material evidence in court vitiate the prosecution's case?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution witnesses have been disbelieved on other charges in the same case?
- ABDUL BASIT ZAHID Versus MODARABA AL-TIJARAH2000 PLD 322 · Sindh High Court · 2000-05-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus THE STATE1999 PLD 450 · Sindh High Court · 1999-07-05Read full judgment →
- PAK. INDUSTRIAL C&I CORPN. Versus BAWANY INDUSTRIES LTD.1998 PLD 45 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-19Read full judgment →
- CHIRAGH SUN ENGINEERING LTD. Versus I.D.B.P.1998 PLD 380 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
- NASIR RAZA JAFERY Versus MACTER PHARMACEUTICAL PVT. LTD.1998 PLD 250 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-24Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI Versus THE STATE1998 PLD 124 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
- GROSVENOR CASINO LTD. Versus ABDUL MALIK BADRUDDIN1998 PLD 104 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
- PETROCOMMODITIES (PVT.) LTD Versus RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN1998 PLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE1997 PLD 165 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-20Read full judgment →
- ALI AKBA Versus THE STATE1997 PLD 146 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-01Read full judgment →
- RANI Versus THE STATE1996 PLD 316 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
- IZHAR FATIMA, M. B. B. S., Versus HAJI MUHAMMAD1996 PLD 164 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
- ABIDA BASHIR Versus BLUE LINES AIRCONDITIONED LUXURY COACH SERVICES, KARACHI1996 PLD 153 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
- ZOHRA Versus GOVT. OF SINDH, HEALTH DEPARTMENT1996 PLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-04Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD DIN Versus THE STATE1995 PLD 469 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
- KASHMIR CORPN. LTD. Versus P.I.A1995 PLD 301 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
- AKHTAR ALI Versus THE STATE1994 PLD 421 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-24Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR Versus THE STATE1994 PLD 192 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
- SAIDULLAH Versus THE STATE1994 PLD 122 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-29Read full judgment →
- NADEEM AHMA Versus THE STATE1994 PLD 118 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-14Read full judgment →
- CONTROLLER OF INSURANC Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO.1993 PLD 720 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR Versus SHAH ZAMAN1993 PLD 55 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
- AKBAR KHAN Versus THE STATE1993 PLD 358 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-13Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAZIQUE KHAN Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH1993 PLD 286 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
- BAKHT-E-RAWIDA Versus GHULAM HABIB1992 PLD 46 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus JAVAID ARSHAD1992 PLD 353 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- THE STATE Versus SHAMIM AKHTAR1992 PLD 332 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
- N.B.P. Versus ALAM INDUSTRIES LTD.1992 PLD 295 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-10Read full judgment →
- RABIA BEE Versus NAJIBUN NISA BEGUM1992 PLD 234 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-28Read full judgment →
- MOHD. CHOTEY KHAN Versus MODH MUNIR KHAN1992 PLD 160 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-09Read full judgment →
- FARZANA ASAR Versus NATIONAL INVESTMENT TRUST1991 PLD 335 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
- THE STATE Versus EDITOR DAILY JASARAT1991 PLD 233 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
- SINDH HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION Versus I.R. OF PAK1991 PLD 178 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PRESIDENT Versus BENAZIR BHUTTO1991 PLD 165 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- PAK N.S. CORPN. Versus L & M MARITIME INC.1991 PLD 156 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-29Read full judgment →
- KHALID MALIK Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1991 PLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-18Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MUJEEB PIRZADA Versus FEDERATION OF I.R OF PAKISTAN1990 PLD 9 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-26Read full judgment →
- FARHAT JALIL Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH1990 PLD 342 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-02Read full judgment →
- DILSHAD AHMAD Versus SARWAT BI1990 PLD 239 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus WELTH TAX OFFICER CIRCLE IV1989 PLD 15 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE1989 PLD 144 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
- INDUS AUTOMOBILE (PVT), LTD. Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE1988 PLD 99 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR Versus GOVT. OF SIND1988 PLD 92 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-24Read full judgment →
- KHALIDA REHMAN Versus MUHAMMAD QAIL1988 PLD 85 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →