“There is not any ocular evidence to show that Muhammad Abbas was murdered by any of your present petitioners. Mere fact that Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Din saw firstly the deceased and after some distance they noticed the petitioners going towards the same direction, didn't imply that the petitioners were chasing the deceased or were accompanying him. Such evidence cannot be treated as evidence of previous found.

Delay in recording confessional statement may not be treated fatal on the case of prosecution(Murder Trial)

4.  It has been noticed by this Court that there is usually a delay of at some point during the registration of FIR which has not been explained through the complainant. Moreover, there isn't any eye-witness of the alleged event as well as prosecution is counting on the witnesses of extra judicial confession. The evidence of extra judicial confession with the petitioners has been tendered by Ghulam Dastigir and Mohammad Akram through their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., on 06.02.2018. Both of these namely Ghulam Dastigir and Mohammad Akram took place for being the real brothers of the deceased but they didn't respond in any way towards the confessional statements in the petitioners and calmly saw them leaving, 1 after the other, without even moving an inch. They have not mentioned in their statements that the accused held some weapon when they visited them to confess their guilt about the murder of Ghulam Farid which could have precluded these witnesses from apprehending the petitioners. Their conduct does not glimpse much inspiring or natural. The petitioner, namely, Mst. Mubeena Bibi was arrested on 14.02.2018 and there is no explanation concerning why her arrest was not effected after making on the alleged extra judicial confession. It's been held on countless instances that extra judicial confession of an accused is often a weak type of evidence which can be manoeuvred by the prosecution in any case where direct connecting evidence does not occur their way. The prosecution is also counting on the evidence of Murid Hussain and Muhammad Afzal which is equally fragile, as both the witnesses Murid Hussain and Muhammad Afzal didn't say a word regarding presence of some light with the place, where they allegedly observed the petitioners with each other with a motorcycle at four.

The former means “guilty act” along with the latter means “guilty mind.” With the omission from the intention, the commission of the act by yourself is not ample to gain a conviction for that crime. This is actually a fundamental principle that all legislation students are well acquainted with.

Because of their position between the two main systems of legislation, these types of legal systems are sometimes referred to as blended systems of legislation.

The recent amendment to Section 489-F with the Pakistan Penal Code signifies a progressive step towards effectively combatting counterfeiting activities. Through its expanded scope, heightened penalties, and technological considerations, the amendment aligns the legislation with contemporary challenges.

Where there are several members of the court deciding a case, there could be one or more judgments presented (or reported). Only the reason for your decision with the majority can constitute a binding precedent, but all may be cited as persuasive, or their reasoning could possibly be adopted in an argument.

6.  Mere involvement inside of a heinous offence isn't any ground for refusing bail to an accused who otherwise becomes entitled for the concession of bail. The petitioner namely Bhoora was arrested in this case on 08.05.2018, since then He's behind the bars, He's previous non-convict, never involved in any case, investigation qua him is complete, his person isn't more info any more required for further investigation, therefore, his ongoing incarceration would not serve any useful purpose at this stage.

13. The Supreme Court has held that as soon as the act of misconduct is established plus the employee is found guilty after owing process of law, it's the prerogative from the employer to decide the quantum of punishment, outside of the various penalties provided in legislation. The casual or unpremeditated observation that the penalty imposed isn't proportionate with the seriousness with the act of misconduct just isn't suitable even so the order must show that the competent authority has applied its mind and exercised the discretion in a structured and lawful method. Read more

Matter:-SERVICE Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Writer) Const. P. 8180/2019 (D.B.) Saif Shujaat and Ors V/S Govt. of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi SHC Citation: SHC-223999 Tag:Specified the legal analysis on the subject issue, we have been of your view that the claim on the petitioners for retroactive regularization from their initial contract appointment and promotion thereon, from that angle is just not legally seem, In addition to promotion and seniority, not absolute rights, They can be issue to rules and regulations When the recruitment rules of the topic post allow the case of the petitioners for promotion can be considered, however, we are very clear within our point of view that contractual service cannot be viewed as for seniority and promotion as being the seniority is reckoned from the date of standard appointment and promotion depends upon seniority cum Health and fitness, subject matter to availability of vacancy subject on the approval with the competent authority.

 Criminal cases From the common regulation tradition, courts decide the regulation applicable to your case by interpreting statutes and implementing precedents which record how and why prior cases have been decided. Compared with most civil legislation systems, common law systems follow the doctrine of stare decisis, by which most courts are bound by their personal previous decisions in similar cases. According to stare decisis, all decrease courts should make decisions constant with the previous decisions of higher courts.

PACER allows anybody with an account to search and Track down appellate, district, and bankruptcy court case and docket information. Register for the PACER account.

A lessen court may well not rule against a binding precedent, even though it feels that it's unjust; it may well only express the hope that a higher court or perhaps the legislature will reform the rule in question. Should the court believes that developments or trends in legal reasoning render the precedent unhelpful, and desires to evade it and help the law evolve, it could possibly hold that the precedent is inconsistent with subsequent authority, or that it should be distinguished by some material difference between the facts of your cases; some jurisdictions allow for your judge to recommend that an appeal be performed.

a hundred and fifteen . Const. P. 6025/2024 (D.B.) Dr. Pritam Das V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi So far as the stance on the respondents that pensionary benefits may very well be withheld on account in the allegations leveled against the petitioner, within our view, section twenty in the Sindh Civil Servants Act of 1973 deals with the pension and gratuity that civil servants are entitled to. However, the act does give for certain circumstances under which a civil servant's pension might be withheld or reduced. These contain if a civil servant is found guilty of misconduct or negligence during their service, their pension may very well be withheld or reduced. If a civil servant is convicted of a significant crime, their pension might be withheld or reduced. In a few cases, a civil servant's pension could possibly be withheld or reduced if he/she fails to comply with certain conditions established from the government.