Find a Lawyer

SAEEDUR REHMAN versus STATE

Section 2 (2 (b)) Definition of Nature Proposals to be examined in the value of evidence The proposals in the value check are not conclusive evidence against the accused and there is no indication against the accused on the basis of such suggestions. The facts referenced in the proposal are entitled to take advantage of the request made by the lawyer, but the defense's request cannot be substantiated by what the lawyer has presented. In a criminal case, the lawyer defends his defense. There is no implied option of trial either for the purpose of transferring the evidence to the trial or to the facts of the case that a defense lawyer plays in a criminal case. Assisting the accused in the invention of the prosecution's testimony cannot be used to fill in the gap found in the prosecution's evidence. The Bard Prosecution has been lied to prove the defendants guilty. Even in this case, under Article 342, the CRP cannot be elevated by the accused's statement.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• Mrs. RUBINA FAIZ v. UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI through Vice-Chancellor 2010 PLC(CS) 1208
• ISMAIL v. State 2010 MLD 1211
• KHATRI BROTHERS v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division and Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Is 2010 PTD 1225
• ISMAT ASAD v. PAKISTAN OXYGEN LIMITED 2010 CLC 1226
• Mrs. ROHI CHAUDHRY v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad 2010 PTD 1233
• TAHIR AHMED v. NAEEM IQBAL 2010 PLC(CS) 1233
• Dr. Syed MUHAMMAD ALI SHAH v. CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN CRICKET BOARD, LAHORE 2010 MLD 1241
• HABIB BANK LTD. v. BELA AUTOMOTIVES LTD. 2010 CLD 1243

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

online advocate from Barkhan lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes