Essential ingredients of offence
Essential ingredients of offence legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
To constitute an offence under S. 489-F, P.P.C., dishonesty on the part of the payer is a condition precedent in the issuance of a cheque towards re-payment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation
Thus, it is for the Court to consider that under which circumstances, the cheque was issued and what was the intention of the person, issuing it
Hence, mere issuance of a cheque and it being dishonored by itself is not an offence, unless and until dishonesty on the part of a payer is proved.
Essential ingredients to form the offence, were twofold: (i) act of abduction, (ii) for the purpose of extorting from the person kidnapped or abducted; or to compel any person to comply with any other demand, whether in cash or otherwise, for obtaining release of the person kidnapped or abducted
Passing of ransom money was not necessary ingredient to constitute the offence under S.365-A, P.P.C., but only demand thereof was sufficient.
"Essential ingredients of offence", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124953522
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Essential ingredients of offence"
1969 P Cr
MD. REZZAQUL ISLAM AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Opposite‑Party
Court: DaccaP L D 1964 Dacca 170
SAKIR MULLA‑Petitioner Versus DIDAR MULLA‑Opposite‑Party
Court:1980 P Cr
STATE‑‑‑Appellant. Versus MANGTA AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court (A J & K)P L D 1980 Peshawar 186
KHUDA BAKHSH‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: --S. 99 read with S. 59‑Self‑defence‑Burden of proof‑Burden of proof in case of self‑defence lies on prosecution to prove each ingre dient of offence‑Accused able to establish by evidence, or prosecution evidence itself presenting such features as go to establish existence of a reasonable doubt regarding an essential ingredient of offence‑Prosecu tion must fail‑Such intention could be established by proof of circum stances surrounded by evident act of accused and need not necessarily be proved by direct evidence.‑Private defence, right of‑Burden of proof.1992 P Cr
BARKAT ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1968
JUMA‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1984 P Cr
HASSAN -Appellant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: KarachiP L D 1996 Lahore 257
MUHAMMAD AL Appellant Versus HE STATE‑ Respondent
Court:P L D 1957 Privy Council 112
THOMAS COLE CONTEH and others‑Appellants Versus THE QUEEN‑Respondent
Court: