Find a Lawyer

RAB NAWAZ versus STATE

Article 85 (), for a criminal trial, the applicant claimed that on the basis of vague and sketchy evidence, no sentence could be punished. The evidence that came on the record was not appreciated in its true context. This statement of the prosecution's testimony was ignored by the court below and the statement of the prosecutor's testimony relating to the facts of the recovery was not properly appreciated. Was allowed. The benefit of safe management of justice

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• MUHAMMAD SADIQ v. State 2011 SCMR 888
• HABIB BANK LTD. v. RAMAN ALI HEMANI 2011 SCMR 892
• MUHAMMAD YAQOOB v. State 2011 SCMR 893
• GOVERNMENT OF NORTH-WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE through Secretary, Agriculture, Livestock and Cooperative v. ABDULLAH KHAN 2011 SCMR 898
• MANZOOR HUSSAIN v. State 2011 SCMR 902
• MUHAMMAD YASEEN v. State 2011 SCMR 905
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BUTT v. MUHAMMAD ASIF BHATTI 2011 PLD 905
• SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN v. FIRST CAPITAL SECURITIES CORPORATION LIMITED 2011 CLD 907

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

top civil advocates from Musakhel lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes