Find a Lawyer

STATE versus UMER HAYAT

The trial court ordered the seizure of Article 39, Article 3 (question) assets, property under the Constitution of Pakistan and the High Court Plaintiff maintained that the two courts simultaneously placed importance on the accused. Was not admired. Section 39 of the Control of Narcotic Material Stances Act 1997, the charge of justifying the explicit purchase of property was put on an accused without evidence on record, the appeal was upheld by the Supreme Court. Consider the application raised

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB v. AKHTAR AND CO. 2011 SCMR 1516
• MUHAMMAD NADEEM alias BANKA v. State 2011 SCMR 1517
• Mst. NADIA MALIK v. MAKKI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 2011 CLD 1517
• ANSAR MAHMOOD v. State 2011 SCMR 1524
• MUKHTAR AHMAD v. DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE 2011 SCMR 1531
• SOHAIL KHAN v. AFZAL HUSSAIN 2011 SCMR 1532
• MUHAMMAD AZEEM v. State 2011 SCMR 1533
• ADNAN TRADING COMPANY v. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX 2011 SCMR 1535

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

top advocates from Sangla Hill lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes