Find a Lawyer

MOLVI MUHAMMAD YOUSIF versus STATE

Section 4040 of the PC Trial Court dismissed the accused's plea for summoning witnesses in the present case; Also call the witness. He had to stand on his own case to prove the allegations of any suspicion when the courts were obliged to provide the parties with a full opportunity of defense when the accused made a special plea. If such witnesses were named in their application under Section 404040, CRPC, they would face serious prejudice on the matter. If the said witnesses are called the High Court, then it is allowed to be revised, while the court directed that the witnesses be summoned and strictly examined by the law.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• LIGHT METAL AND RUBBER INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED v. SARFRAZ QAUDRI 2011 CLD 1485
• MUHAMMAD MOINUDDIN v. PRESIDING OFFICER,\' SPECIAL COURT (OFFENCES IN BANKS), SINDH AT KARACHI 2011 PCrLJ 1488
• GULSHER BURIRO v. State 2011 YLR 1493
• NAZIR AHMED v. Mst. SHER BANO 2011 MLD 1498
• SHAZIA AKBAR v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, through Secretary Home Department Sindh Secretariat, Karachi 2011 PCrLJ 1501
• DILDAR v. State 2011 YLR 1509
• JAMAL UDDIN AHMED v. MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL 2011 PCrLJ 1513
• GULAB v. State 2011 PCrLJ 1520

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

advocate for immigration from Kotla Arab Ali Khan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes