Interference in order of acquittal
Interference in order of acquittal legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Order of acquittal could only be interfered with if the same, on the face of it appeared to be perverse, arbitrary, illegal, wholly illogical or unreasonable or in case the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for acquittal were speculative and of artificial nature or the findings were based on no evidence.
Order of acquittal could only be interfered with if the same, on the face of it appeared to be perverse, arbitrary, illegal, wholly illogical or unreasonable or in case the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for acquittal were speculative and of artificial nature or the findings were based on no evidence.
"Interference in order of acquittal", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124942426
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Interference in order of acquittal"
1988 P Cr
Syed AHMAD MUNIR Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1995 M L D 1806
SARFRAZ‑‑‑Appellant Versus SULTAN‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1991 P Cr
RASHID AHMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore1983 S C M R 117
Mian SAID BAGHDAD-Appellant Versus SAID MIAN AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
Court: ---S. 417--Appeal against acquittal-Case involving re-appraisement of evidence-High Court in appraising evidence neither violating any principle of law nor ignoring any material fact-Conclu sion so drawn not suffering from any patent error or exception Different view on some matters even if to be taken, held, interference in order of acquittal not justified.-Appeal against acquittal.1988 MLD 311
BAQIR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2019 Y L R 2488
ATTA MUHAMMAD — Appellant Versus AURANGZAIB
Court: Balochistan1989 P Cr
STATE‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 3 others‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore2015 Y L R 2268
MUHAMMAD AZAM — Appellant Versus UMAIR AHMAD and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2020 Y L R 1926
KAMIL JAN — Appellant Versus SHAH ZAD alias MANO and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Federal Shariat CourtP L D 1984 Lahore 315
STATE‑Appellant Versus TAUQIR HUSSAIN‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑ Ss. 5(2) & 4‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑Solitary statement of complainant on question of demand of illegal gratification by accused disbelieved by trial Court‑Failure of prosecution to produce official who witnessed transaction of illegal gratification‑Witnesses in whose presence accused alleged to have agreed to receive illegal gratification and in turn do undue favour to complainant also not produced‑Held, solitary statement of complainant was rightly refused to be believed by trial Court‑Failure to produce such witnesses was fatal to prosecution ease and gives rise to justifiable presumption in circumstances, that such witnesses, if produced, would not have supported prosecution.‑Witness.