Find a Lawyer

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

✓ Trusted direct lawyer access
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.

☎ Phone and WhatsApp access ⚖ Verified lawyer directory 🔒 Secure payment
⚡ Connect with 10 Lawyers for Rs 1,000
Pay once. Open contact numbers for lawyers matching your legal need.

MUHAMMAD SULEMAN versus AHMAD


Civil Procedure for Code of Civil Procedure 1908A XLI, R 27 and Section 115 Product, Appeal for Review of Additional Evidence in Appellate Court: Jurisdiction, Application of Appeal Court Order Below, on Applicant's Request for Extra Evidence Procedure Accordingly, the applicant below who decided that the appellate court decided his appeal for the preparation of additional evidence, was wrong in the fact that the appellate court rejected the merit for the preparation of additional evidence. That is, it cannot be interfered with in the High Court review jurisdiction. Under the circumstances

1987 M L D 1120(1)

[Lahore]

Before: Muhammad Rafiq

Tarar, J

MASHOOQ ALI alias BHOLA--Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE--Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 650-B of 1987, decided: on 17th March, 1987.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-

---S. 497--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) S.10--Bail--Federal Shariat Court while setting aside conviction and sentence of accused and remanding case ordered that accused would remain in custody till final decision of case--High Court, held, could not sit in judgment on aforesaid order of Federal Shariat Court- Bail refused.

Dr. Farooq A. Chaudhry for Petitioner.

Fazal-ur-Rehman for the State.

ORDER

The petitioner was convicted under section 10(3) of Ordinance VII of 1979 and sentenced to 14 years' R.I. and whipping numbering 30 stripes. In appeal his conviction and sentence was set aside by the Federal Shariat Court vide judgment dated 28-10-1986 and case was remanded for fresh decision. After going through the aforesaid judgment and the order dated 19-2-1987, pissed in suo motu review No.l/L of 1987, I find that while remanding the case the Federal A Shariat Court had ordered that the appellant (petitioner herein) shall continue to be in custody till the final disposal of the case. This Court cannot sit in judgment on the aforesaid order of the Federal Shariat Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.

M.Y.H/M-352/L Bail refused

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 Malakand 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.