Find a Lawyer

MUMTAZ versus STATE

The defendant raised the section 497 Preventive Code (XLV of 1860), section 302/34 murder and a joint-purpose bail, medical and accounting account dispute that disputed the medical and general accounts. Without a deep assessment of the nature of the crime charged in the FIR about disputes between medical and accounting accounts, it could not be appreciated and was not guaranteed at the bail-out stage.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2012

• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD. 2012 PTD 541
• MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ v. State 2012 SCMR 549
• MUHAMMAD JAMEEL RAHI v. D.-G. NAB 2012 SCMR 552
• SUO MOTU CASE NO.4 OF 2010 2012 PLD 553
• A.P. MOLLER through Maersk Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ZONE I, KARACHI 2012 SCMR 557
• PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX 2012 PTD 561
• GUL BADSHAH v. State 2012 SCMR 567
• NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD v. State 2012 SCMR 569

All Supreme Court judgments of 2012 →

jobs for advocates from Shadiwal lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes