Find a Lawyer

RAFIQ versus STATE

Section 497 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 337A (iii) guarantees, grant of further inquiries, unexpected delays in filing an FIR, cannot be ignored, there was every possibility that the complainant Had previously resorted to manipulation of facts. Filing an FIR Even after the delay in recording the statements under Section 161, the CCP will further investigate the accused's case yet it was not determined as to the nature of the injury. No weapons were recovered, nor was it stated. In addition to the FIR which was indicated, the complainant alleged that he had been killed by the accused and that the accused was released on bail after further investigation came out.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009

• MUHAMMAD DANISH RAFIQ v. Mst. NAFISA SIDDIQUI 2009 MLD 144
• ADAM LIMITED v. MITSUI & COMPANY 2009 CLD 144
• AZHAR HUSSAIN SHAH v. HARAT MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director 2009 PLD 148
• CRESCENT DISTRIBUTORS v. CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI 2009 PTD 148
• MARKETING SERVICES INC. through President v. JULLUNDHUR (PVT.). LTD. 2009 CLC 149
• KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY, through Attorney v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Law Department 2009 YLR 149
• ABDUL WAHEED v. State 2009 MLD 151
• FAR EASTERN IMPEX (PVT.) LTD. v. QUEST INTERNATIONAL NEDERLAND BV 2009 CLD 153

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2009 →

jobs for advocates from Skardu lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes