Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF versus STATE

This incident occurred suddenly due to the absence of animosity between the parties and the heated exchange between the complainant and the accused party in Section 497 of the Conventional Code (XLV of 1860), Section 7A7A (III) / Sha i Shuja. Has happened. The accused contacted the complainant and only told him that he should return the loan amount and did not go to the complainant with the intention of committing the crime at which the complainant driving The accused stopped and demanded loan amount. He alleged that he intended to commit the crime, he would have been prepared for the same crime, yet trial evidence had not been registered by the trial court, which had been in prisons since 30 2006. ? The challan of the case required for further investigation was sent to the court of competent jurisdiction; no possibility of trial being concluded soon;

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010

• GHULAM ABBAS v. EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (HEALTH), GUJRAT 2010 PLC(CS) 744
• MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM v. DIL MORE 2010 CLC 746
• MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ v. State 2010 PCrLJ 746
• SUMERA YASMIN v. D.C.O. 2010 PLC(CS) 746
• MUMTAZ alias TAJU v. State 2010 YLR 749
• RAZA ALI v. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector, District Multan 2010 MLD 749
• MUHAMMAD ASIM v. State 2010 YLR 751
• Rana MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN v. DISTRICT OFFICER REVENUE/DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, FAISALABAD 2010 YLR 754

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2010 →

how to become a advocate from Kharan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes