Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MUHAYUDDIN versus HABIBUR REHMAN

The pre-exploitation of sections 6 and 13 failed to mention the required evidence for the student publication evidence, which was required by law under section 13 of the KP Pre-Impression Act 1987. Section 13 of the Pre-Impression Act of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa did not prove by sending an AD (Acceptance Due) card or postman to certify that the notice sent to the defendants was sent to the respondents against the mandate of the law. Alias did not prove providing notice to the student. , 1987 plaintiff was obliged to call for custody before special discipline and that meant that the students' intent was to establish evidence through specific procedures whether the required students were made or it was in fact a question of whether Notice should have been presented to the defendants as to the photocopies. The evidence was insufficient in the notice that the accused were to be kept separately and the sale was not considered jointly. The real revision was allowed and the judgment of the appellate court was suspended while the trial court proceeded to dismiss the case. The decision was reinstated.

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015

• AL-IMDAD GENERAL TRADING CO. v. PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad 2015 PTD 734
• IQBAL v. State 2015 PCrLJ 735
• MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN v. MUHAMMAD SARWAR 2015 YLR 750
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM GUL v. Mst. SAKEENA 2015 CLC 765
• SAIL KHAN v. MUZAFAR KHAN 2015 MLD 769
• SHAHID IMRAN v. State 2015 PCrLJ 779
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD BADAL v. ISLAM GUL 2015 YLR 788
• RASHID ALAM v. State 2015 YLR 794

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2015 →

criminal advocate from Shangla lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes