Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

WAJID ALI versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN


Sections 454 and 123 of the Property Act 1882 Make a legitimate gift The disputed house gift was allegedly made by the husband to his wife in exchange for his dower; Can't be Without such a registered document, the registered invoice required under Section 4 will also have no effect on this gift and in no case will it meet the legal requirements.

1986 M L D 2913

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J

IMRAN alias POMA‑‑Petitioner

versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2920/B of 1986, decided on 2nd November, 1986.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑

‑‑‑S.498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.377‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑ Sodomy allegedly committed with a boy of seven years‑‑Case got registered by father of victim‑‑Affidavit filed by complainant and witnesses stating that case was registered under misconception and accused to be innocent‑‑Victim also making 'contradictory statements‑ Interim bail allowed to accused was confirmed in circumstances.

S. Baqar Ali Naqvi for Petitioner.

Muhammad Akram for the State.

ORDER

This may be read in continuation of my order, dated 21‑10‑1986. The F. I. R. was lodged by Afzal Shah, father of the victim, on 8‑10‑1986, wherein he alleged that at 9‑00 a.m. his son Babar Hussain, aged 7, came weeping and in the presence of Akram Shah and Ahmad Hassan informed him that Imran petitioner had committed sodomy with him. Affidavit of Afzal Shah, father of the victim, referred to in the order, dated 21‑10‑1986 is to the effect that the case was got registered due to some misconception and when Imran alias Poma (petitioner) was brought before the victim then it transpired that he was innocent and that he had not done any wrong to his son. Afzal Shah complainant is present in Court and he admits the contents of .the affidavit. Affidavits of Akram Shah and Ahmad Hassan have also been placed on the file which are to the effect that Babar Hussain had not. said anything about Imran Butt (the petitioner) and that he is innocent. Perusal of the file further reveals that Afzal Shah made a statement during investigation that his son was making contradictory statement and he was not in a position to say whether Imran had committed the offence or not. In the circumstances, the interim bail allowed to the petitioner is confirmed. He has been directed to join the investigation if and when required.

S. A. Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
ask a advocate free from Ratto Dero lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.