Home Maxims & Terms Conversion of offence meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Conversion of offence

Conversion of offence legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2013 YLR 1311 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
S.237Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 392 & 394Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)Conversion of offence

Trial Court had not considered the evidence produced by the prosecution minutely and without going into the spirit of law mentioned in S.237, Cr.P.C., only converted the offence under S.17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 into sections punishable under Ss.392 and 394, P.P.C. without framing the charge, and without giving the opportunity to accused to defend himself, was quite against the canon of law and procedure.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Conversion of offence", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124940291

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Conversion of offence"

SCMR 1989
Criminal Appeal No.207 of 1986, decided on 24th January, 1989.

1989 S C M R 909

N/A

Court: High Court
SCMR 1981
N/A

1981 S C M R 372

MUHAMMAD ANWAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent

Court: S. 302-Murder-case--Appreciation of evidence Prosecution witnesses related to accused petitioner-False implication in circum stances inconceivable - Son of one of prosecution witnesses if admitted to have really killed deceased (his own sister) (as suggested by petitioner's counsel) due to having found her with paramour, eye witnesses, if they wanted to falsely implicate any body, would have named such paramour as murderer-Discrepancy on question of time elapsing between injuries and death discoverable from medical evidence and ocular account not of such type as to necessitate reappraisal of evidence particularly when based upon hypothesis -Prosecution evidence not suffering from any infirmity requiring interference - Petition, held, without force as far as conviction concerned.
YLR 2013
Criminal Appeal No.S-197 of 2012, decided on 19th October, 2012.

2013 Y L R 1311

SHAFQAT — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent

Court: Sindh
PLD 2003
2003-February-25

P L D 2003 Supreme Court 891

STATE through Deputy Prosecutor-General, Camp Office, Karachi — Petitioner Versus RAMESH M. UDESHI, EX-SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE (LAND UTILIZATION), SINDH and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PCRLJ 2013
2013-April-23

2013 P Cr

Mst. TAHSEEN and 2 others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and 5 others — Respondents

Court: Sindh
PLD 1988
Criminal Appeal No.321/L of 1987, decided on 14th April, 1988.

P L D 1988 Federal Shariat Court 105

Mst. ZARINA and another appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Court:
PCRLJ 1980
1980-April-29

1980 P Cr

DAYA‑Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
PCRLJ 2002
Criminal Accountability Appeals Nos.45, 48, 49, 50 and Criminal Revisions Nos. 147, 148, 149, 150, 162, 163 and 164 of 2001, decided on 3rd May, 2002.

2002 P Cr

RAMESH M. UDESHI‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Karachi
PCRLJ 2013
2013-February-27

2013 P Cr

MUHAMMAD SULEMAN — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent

Court: Sindh
PLD 1967
Criminal Appeal No. 2‑P of 1966, decided on 26th April 1967.

P L D 1967 Supreme Court 334

MRS. C. M. SAMUEL‑Appellant Versus (1) MR. C. SAMUEL AND

Court: