Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASIF versus STATE

Section 498 Contempt Rule (XLV of 1860), arrest of the master clerk or the servant of the property before theft 381, the defendant's denial was not designated in the FIR, but the co-accused during the investigation He was named in his confessional statement. It was the mastermind of the entire scheme of theft, the accused's involvement in the case during the investigation and interrogation of the named accused, alleging that the rule of consistency could not be applied in every case. There was justification to interfere with the trial court's order, interim arrest warrant before the accused's arrest,

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• SAIF UR REHMAN v. XTH CIVIL JUDGE/J.M., HYDERABAD 2011 PCrLJ 1629
• ABDUL REHMAN alias ABRI v. State 2011 YLR 1631
• ZAHID IQBAL JUNEJO v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Ports and Shipping, Government of Pakistan 2011 PLC(CS) 1635
• ABDUL RAOOF v. AZIZULLAH 2011 PCrLJ 1637
• ACHAR v. State 2011 YLR 1640
• TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. v. UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION (PTE.) LTD. 2011 CLD 1642
• SHAMAN MAL v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION 2011 MLD 1644
• ASAD ULLAH KHAN v. State 2011 YLR 1648

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

ask a advocate free from Dudial lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes