Find a Lawyer

SH. RASHID SHARIF versus STATE

Section 5 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 161 Definition of Evidence Benefits of Suspicion The mainstay of the prosecution's case was that the fraudulent money was recovered from the possession of the defendant's evidence on the record, however it was evident that the amount. Was never exported. Immediate seizure of the suspect but instead it was recovered from the prosecution's witness, the medical store owner did not find any evidence to indicate whether the fraudulent money was being accepted, bribery or unlawful release at the relevant time. When contradicting the contents of the record on the record was inconsistent, a statement of the memo complaint had to be read with a pinch of salt because the bribe had to go through a double check prosecution on the evidence of the bribe. Beyond being unable to prove his case, the accused was acquitted. Give him the benefit of the doubt

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009

• ALLAH BAKHSH alias BUTT v. State 2009 YLR 1831
• YOUNAS GROUP OF INDUSTRIES through Proprietor v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SAMBRIAL, SIALKOT 2009 PTD 1835
• ABDUL RAZZAQ v. State 2009 YLR 1837
• MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ AHMAD SIAL v. BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN through Vice Chancellor 2009 YLR 1841
• GULZAR ENGINEERING CO. through Manager v. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GUJRANWALA 2009 PTD 1854
• Mrs. SHAHIDA ANWAR v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, LAHORE 2009 PTD 1860
• Mst. RASHIDAN BIBI v. State 2009 YLR 1861
• AVARI HOTELS LIMITED through Controller v. DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE AND TAXATION GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, through Secretary 2009 PTD 1868

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2009 →

jobs for advocates from Muridkay lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes