Find a Lawyer

HAJI AMANULLAH versus MUNIR AHMED

The appellate court against the wrongful interference by the principles of the Section 417 Appellate Court will not interfere with the prosecution only because the decision on the restoration of evidence is different from the court's acquittal of an accused, provided both of these conclusions are reasonably possible. However, the lower court concluded that no reasonable person could control it and that it was impossible, then the appellate court would interfere with the overwhelming evidence in matters which led to the final and irrational conclusion. Can be seen, and that too to avoid abortion. The crucial test for justice and for any other purpose is that the intervention to which it is sought should be found to be completely artificial, shocking, and ridiculous.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• ABDUL MUKTADAR v. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, JHANG 2010 SCMR 194
• STANDARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. v. PAKISTAN through Secretary, M/O Communications 2010 CLD 196
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUL FAROOQ v. State 2010 SCMR 198
• MAP RICE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED v. SHAKEEL AHMED 2010 PLC(CS) 216
• UNITED BANK LIMITED v. Mst. JAMEELA MUMTAZ 2010 SCMR 229
• EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GEPCO LIMITED v. LIAQAT ALI 2010 SCMR 237
• KHURSHID ALAM v. E.D.O. (EDUCATION) SKP 2010 SCMR 240
• COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, MULTAN- v. HOLIDAY INN, MULTAN 2010 SCMR 241

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

when you need a advocate from Chakwal lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes