Find a Lawyer

SAEED AKBAR KHAN versus MST. AMIR MAI

O XXXVII, The Institutional Finger Prints / Impressions of Talking Instruments Compared Fingerprints Imprinted on the Recovery of the Pro Note rather than the Claimant Received on the Pro Note Applied to send the defendant's original pro-note and fingerprint samples for feedback and then decided to sue. On such a report, the trial court sent the original fingerprint to the Fingerprint Bureau with a sample slip of the defendant's fingerprint, stating that the fingerprint of the document affixed to the document and the slip of the fingerprint sample of the defendant's receipt. There is a difference It was an integral part of the same that could not be taken in isolation from Dante H. The Fingerprints Bureau report produced an advertisement in the case of the plaintiff which could not be repaired on the request of the plaintiff as such The exercise was carried out and he was now obliged to accept the conclusion that there was no illegal identification in the judgment and the decree passed by the trial court appeals was dismissed in the circumstances.

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014

• IQBAL ZADA v. State 2014 PCrLJ 1397
• SHAHBAZ GUL SHINWARI v. FAQIR HUSSAIN 2014 CLC 1404
• Mst. SHAHIDA v. NADRA through Director National Database 2014 MLD 1411
• Mst. SHAFEEN AKHTAR v. Malik MUMRAIZ 2014 PCrLJ 1415
• FARMAN ALI v. ANAR GUL 2014 YLR 1424
• INAMULLAH v. QUDRATULLAH alias QUDRATI 2014 MLD 1425
• SALYAR v. AMJID ALI 2014 MLD 1436
• AHMAD NAWAZ v. RABNAWAZ 2014 YLR 1441

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2014 →

when you need a advocate from Sudhnoti lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes