Find a Lawyer

SUDHEER AKHTAR versus STATE

Section 302 (b) Constitution of Pakistan, Article 185 (3) Qatiel Ahmed heard the counsel of the accused lawyer saying that the FLR was lodged with significant delay in the matter and surrounded by locals. I had listed. Police arrived after receiving information about the incident from an unknown source. That the witnesses presented by the prosecution were extraordinary and opportunistic witnesses that could not be relied on without independent support. That the purpose set forth by the prosecution was far from established and that the medical evidence presented by the prosecution contradicts the account. The reasons recorded by the High Court in the unnecessary verdict have not been seriously examined by the evidence and such reasons were not only speculative but were also largely based on the grounds that the apex court appealed for leave. Allowed on which the available evidence may be reproduced. Record

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA) through Chairman v. Dr. ALTAF-UR-REHMAN 2011 SCMR 1070
• Mst. FARHAT JABEEN v. MUHAMMAD SAFDAR 2011 SCMR 1073
• MUHAMMAD AMIN v. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION 2011 SCMR 1075
• SUO MOTU CASE NO. 24 OF 2010 v. (Regarding Corruption in Hajj Arrangements in 2010) 2011 PLC(CS) 1076
• Dr. SOHRAB AHMEDKHAN SARKI v. Mir HASSAN KHOSO 2011 SCMR 1084
• Syed DILAWAR MADAD v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN 2011 PLC(CS) 1086
• HABIBULLAH BHUTTO v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 2011 PLC(CS) 1094
• PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEES\' OLD-AGE BENEFITS 2011 SCMR 1102

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Pindi gheb lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes