Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SULTAN versus STATE

Section 9F9F Examining the Inquiry Regularly conducting a check Insufficient balance The suspect did not discuss his signature on the check The question was raised by the suspect that his signature was stolen from his checkbook. was done. It was against natural behavior that a defendant kept an empty signed check in his checkbook that when the defendant applied to stop paying the check, the accused had only a balance of Rs 300 in his account. Was. In the petition to stop the payment of the check, the accused did not plead that his checkbook was stolen or that any check was missing from the checkbook, the result of the harmony of the courts after the Supreme Court sentenced and retained the sentence. I refuse to interfere. Dismiss

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• SHAHAB-UD-DIN v. COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION 2010 SCMR 801
• MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN v. MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs 2010 PLD 803
• CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE v. NAWAB KHAN 2010 PLC(CS) 804
• Justice HASNAT AHMED KHAN v. REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 2010 PLD 806
• Syed KAMAL SHAH v. GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary 2010 PLC(CS) 809
• HASSAN DIN v. MANZOOR HUSSAIN 2010 SCMR 810
• ANEESUR REHMAN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2010 PLC(CS) 812
• Nawabzada IFTIKHAR AHMAD KHAN BAR v. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER ISLAMABAD 2010 PLD 817

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

online advocate from Nilam lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes