Incorrect address
Incorrect address legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Accused was convicted and sentenced under S.31-A of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, for abscondence to avoid service
Validity
Warrants of arrest of accused and co-accused were issued and forwarded to police and Investigating Officer of the case but could not be executed
Proclamation under S.87, Cr.P.C. was issued and notice was affixed on notice board of the court
When reference was filed and proceedings under S.31-A of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, were initiated against accused, he was present in another city and was unaware of the proceedings
Nothing was available on record which could prove that Trial Court issued any notice against accused at his address given in appeal
Prosecution failed to prove that accused had deliberately or wilfully absconded himself
Trial in absentia was against the provisions of Arts. 9 and 10 of the Constitution, therefore, conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law
High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused under S.31-A of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and remanded that case to Trial Court for fresh trial.
"Incorrect address", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124938194
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Incorrect address"
1992 P Cr
Mst. SHAKILA ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore2010 C L D 741
SAUDI PAK COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. — Plaintiff Versus UMAR BILAL (PVT.) LTD. — Defendant
Court: Lahore2008 Y L R 2312
IJAZ AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABAIDULLAH — Respondent
Court: Lahore1998 P Cr
Mst. GHAFOORAN and 5 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore1999 Y L R 648
ABDUR RAHIM KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHER ALI KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Peshawar1979 S C M R 85
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI ETC. Respondents
Court: ---O. V, r. 20 and O. IX, r. 13‑Substituted service‑Ex parte decree, setting aside of'‑Summons issued to defendant returned with report of defendant being not available at given address‑Petitioner decree holder admitting in his writ petition notices having been issued to defendant "at his last known address"‑Such fact itself connoting plaintiff's failure to sue defendant at "his the then address" or correct address‑Petitioner also alleging in his writ petition his having known 8 of defendant's illness at Alexandria in Egypt and his death after a major operation‑Plaintiff, held, obtained order from Court for effecting substituted service by wilful suppression of defendant's correct address and thus played fraud on Court and Court annulled its own proceedings for sufficient reasons.‑Ex parte decree.1991 S C M R 383
MUHAMMAD BINYAMIN — Petitioner Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Respondents
Court: High Court2022 C L D 1412
Messrs AGMORE INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED and 2 others — Appellants Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Branch Manager and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore2002 C L D 491
AQEEL AHMED alias AQEEL AMJAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus CITIBANK N.A., FAISALABAD through General‑Attorney ‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore2007 C L D 332
MUHAMMAD YASIN — Appellant Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager and another-Respondents
Court: Lahore