Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ-UR-REHMAN versus STATE

In section 3 and 10 of the Law Reform (Amendment) Act (VIII of 1972), the section 3 Intra Court of Appeal has a litigious case against the Chief Justice High Court, followed by proceedings against the Chief / Publisher and the editor in question. Went and was convicted in court for the accuracy of the contempt of court, which appeared in a newspaper that was supposed to discredit the Chief Justice and the judges, and the direct effect of such malicious, humiliating and illicit acts. Public trust in the courts was tarnished and as a result, the administration had to be badly affected. Serious accusations against the personal conduct of justice judges are unbelievably hypocritical. Also, to discredit the powers of the court, making false criminal charges against the judges would be utter humiliation and mischief, as well as on the minds of innocent readers. Shall be strictly forbidden and shall have no immunity, immunity or loss of any kind. Explanations can be made or may be enough to eliminate the general impression, negative effects and outward appearances on the minds of people who were born out of defamation as well as guilty of the newspaper headlines, defaming the Chief Justice and the courts. Even a serious blow to the institution of respect and dignity, if humiliating, unconditional, honest, sincere and repentant, will not be punished or punished for any defense, however, if the conscience of the court is satisfied that the defendant If this unconditional waiver offered by you is eligible for an apology, then the court will pass appropriate orders. For the conclusion of the Court, the Court deems it appropriate to affirm the dignity and dignity of the Court and its judges. power of attorney advocate Minchanabad lawyer