Find a Lawyer

SALMAN QURESHI versus STATE

No further investigation of the accused was designated in Section 497 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 365 A / 34 Abduction Guarantee, FIR and the direct role of the alleged offender in the invoice complainant was not designated. had gone. The kidnappers or prosecution witnesses did not identify the accused in the alleged crime and no active role was assigned, except that the alleged use of the car in the crime was against the accused as a crime against the accused. Failure was not presented and he appeared to be involved in a prosecution case that was not without doubt, requiring further investigation.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• RAJA WEAVING MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARACHI 2010 PTD 674
• JATCO KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2010 CLD 676
• WASIM AHMED v. State 2010 YLR 678
• GHULAM SARWAR v. State 2010 MLD 680
• MUHAMMAD JALILULLAH v. A-ONE HOUSING MANAGEMENTS through Owners 2010 MLD 687
• Haji MUHAMMAD ZAKRIA SETH v. State 2010 PCrLJ 691
• ABDUL REHMAN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum, Islamabad 2010 PLC(CS) 691
• MASTER ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. through duly Authorized Signatory v. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 2010 CLD 692

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

family advocate from Hub Chowki lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes