Examination of evidence
Examination of evidence legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
In a complaint case, Trial Court was not required to examine material minutely and or in depth, but had merely to see that prima facie a case had been made out to proceed further with the matter for issuance of warrant or summons (as the case may be) under S. 204, Cr.P.C.
At the stage of consideration of the private complaint the court was not expected to see whether the allegations were likely to be proved by the materials produced before court.
Process of examination of evidence for upsetting concurrent findings of fact in exercise of powers under S. 115, C.P.C. was neither permissible nor warranted by law
High Court while examining concurrent findings of fact recorded by courts below, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 C.P.C., had to attend reasons given by courts below in support of such findings and misreading, non-reading or perverse appreciation of evidence was to be discovered in reasoning of courts below to justify interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction
Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court passed well reasoned judgments and decrees after proper appraisal of evidence on file and thus the same did not at all seem to have been tainted with any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error to warrant interference by High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction
High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of fact by two courts below
Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.
"Examination of evidence", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939515
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Examination of evidence"
1981 C L C 1101
MESSRS DADA LTD.‑Appellant Versus MADERSA MUZHARUL ULOOM ASSOCIATION‑Respondent
Court: Karachi1968 P Cr
ABDUL MAJID‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: Supreme Court1982 S C M R 1023
MUHAMMAD MOHSIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
Court: -- Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Petitioner's counsel contending that prosecution case rested only on testimony of two inimical eye-witnesses and their testimony not corroborated by any evidence-Case, held, needs re-examination of evidence to consider question raised-Leave to appeal granted -Witness.2014 S C M R 1819
AZIZ-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus Haji AURANGZEB through Legal Heirs and another — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1979 S C M R 406
IRSHAD‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: High Court1988 S C M R 570
ABDUL MAJID — Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN and another — Respondents
Court: High Court1982 S C M R 153
MUHAMMAD HANIF-Petitioner Versus MANZOOR AND OTHERS-Respondents
Court: ---S. 498-Bail-Court at stage of deciding question of bail, held, need not enter upon a detailed appreciation and examination of evidence Question however cannot be decided in vacuum and Court has to look at material available.Evidence.1994 P Cr
FOZAIL MERCHANT — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Karachi2013 M L D 172
AKHTAR HUSSAIN KAYANI — Petitioner Versus ZAFAR IQBAL KAYANI — Respondent
Court: Peshawar1986 S C M R 696
MAZHARUL HAQ‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ and others‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Pre‑emption‑‑Land purchased for construction of houses‑‑Suit for pre‑emption‑‑ Decreed on basis of petitioner's superior right as co‑sharer‑‑Concurrent finding of two Courts upset in revisional jurisdiction‑‑High Court relying on its earlier decision‑‑Supreme Court on examination of evidence on record found impugned order not open to interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑ Pre‑emption.