refers to the landmark case decided because of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2012. Right here’s a brief overview:
In accordance with the EPA rate schedule, the request should be limited in scope, rather than be intended for redistribution over the internet or for commercial purposes.
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment over the grounds of extenuating circumstances. The court acknowledged that although the crime of murder was recognized, the offender experienced a history of mental illness, which played a significant role in committing the offense. This case established a precedent for considering mitigating factors during sentencing.
Note: Please fill any field and Click on Search button, If you don't know the complete information please leave subject blank.
R.O, Office, Gujranwala along with the police officials didn't inform him that the identification parade with the accused hasn't been conducted nonetheless. In the moment case, now the accused made an effort to just take advantage of This system aired by SAMAA News, wherein the picture on the petitioner was greatly circulated. The police should not have uncovered the identity from the accused through electronic media. The regulation lends assurance on the accused that the identity should not be subjected to the witnesses, particularly for the witness to discover the accused before the Magistrate. The C.P.O, Gujranwala present in court, stated that the Investigating Officer put a mask over the accused to conceal their identity and developed images. Besides, the images shown about the media expose that a mask was not placed over the accused to hide his identity right until he was place up for an identification parade. Making photos with the accused publically, both by showing the same into the witness or by publicizing the same in almost any newspaper or system, would create doubt from the proceedings with the identification parade. The Investigating Officer has to make sure that there isn't any chance to the witness to see the accused before going to the identification parade. The accused should not be shown into the witness in person or through any other mode, i.e., photograph, video-graph, or even the press or electronic media. Offered the reasons elaborated earlier mentioned, the case against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the meanings of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
کیا ایف آئی آر درخواست گزار کی رپورٹ پر درج کی گئی تھی اور اگر ہاں تو کیا اسے اس کے خلاف ثبوت کے طور پر استعمال کیا جا سکتا ہے؟
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا ہے کہ پاکستان میں لوگوں کو جھوٹے مقدمات میں ملوث کر دینے کی شکایت عام ہے عدالت نے حکم جاری کیا ہے................
Electronic and paper court records retained at the court site can be viewed within the courthouse for free, however there can be a payment of ten cents for each page to print from a public access terminal.
The prosecution presented substantial evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and expert forensic analysis, confirming the copyright nature of the seized currency.
This public interest litigation came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan when petitioners challenged the construction of a nearby electricity grid station on account of likely health risks and hazards.
Apart from the rules of procedure for precedent, the load offered to any reported judgment may perhaps depend upon the reputation of both the reporter and also the judges.[7]
ten. Without touching the merits on the case from the issue of annual increases while in the pensionary emoluments with the petitioner, in terms of policy decision of your provincial government, this sort of annual increase, if permissible from the case of employees of KMC, calls for further assessment to be made by the court of plenary jurisdiction. KMC's reluctance check here as a result of funding issues and insufficient adoption of provincial increases, creates a factual dispute that cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction, demanding the petitioner to go after other legal avenues. Read more
In determining whether employees of DCFS are entitled to absolute immunity, which is generally held by certain government officials performing within the scope of their employment, the appellate court referred to case legislation previously rendered on similar cases.