Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD UMAR versus UMAR

In the Section 5 435 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), the appeal against the evil FIR in the Section 417 case was filed after a delay of 15 days for which no plausible explanation was presented, so long as the delay was between the parties. Enough to prevent hostility. In his statement to the trial judge before the trial court had given a statement about the burning of the babu trees, but that fact was not mentioned in the FIR, in which statement it was exaggerated. Is. The complainant had shown from all these circumstances that the trial court, after reviewing all the evidence available on record, had successfully acquitted the accused from the decision of the trial court, without any interference by the High Court in the appeal. Did not demand.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• IMRAN-UL-HAQ v. State 2010 PCrLJ 368
• Syed SALEEMUDDIN v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Registrar Properties 2010 YLR 372
• BABER QAYYUM RAJA v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Interior; Ministry of Interior 2010 CLC 373
• ZAINAB GARMENTS (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad 2010 PLD 374
• KHADIM HUSSAIN SHAH v. State 2010 MLD 377
• SARWAR KHAN v. State 2010 PCrLJ 381
• MUHAMMAD SHOAIB v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Land Utilization Department 2010 YLR 383
• WAKEELUR REHMAN through L.Rs. v. ABDUL BASIT 2010 CLC 383

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

jobs for fresh advocates from Kala Shah Kaku lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes