Sabotage
Sabotage legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Definition not found in search database.
"Sabotage", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/21984
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Sabotage"
1999 P Cr
KHAN ZAMAN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Quetta2000 Y L R 2531
WAQAR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT SUPPRESSION OF ANTI‑TERRORIST COURT NO. VI, MULTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1996 Lahore 342
MUHAMMAD ALI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE; RAHIMYARKHAN ‑‑‑ Respondent
Court:1995 M L D 1748
AHMAD ALI‑‑-Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore2002 Y L R 623
GHULAM MEHBOOB and 2 others — Applicants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: KarachiP L D 1978 Lahore 1087
Before Muhammad Siddigue, ! Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: Preamble read with Railways Act (IX of 1890), S. 126-SabotageSubversion-Simple possession of stolen railway fish-plates or removal thereof-Would not bring case within mischief of sabotage or subversion, justifying trial under Act XV 'of 19 5-Accused found guilty of offence under S. 126(b) of Railways Act, for having removed and being found in possession of fish-plates and thus endangering safety of persons travelling by train-Mere removal of fish-plates, held, would not be sufficient to prove guilt of accused under cl. (b) of S. 126 of Railways Act-Prosecution, held further, bound to prove requisite interest or knowledge on part of accused to "endanger" safety of any person travelling by train.-Sabotage-Burden of proof.2022 Y L R 846
MAHENDAR KUMAR and 2 others — Applicants Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Sindh2006 M L D 1337
Ch. MUHAMMAD RIAZ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANSAR and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2011 P Cr
KARIM BAKHSH and others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: QuettaP L D 2012 Lahore 336
LIAQAT ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, BAHAWALPUR and 3 others — Respondents
Court: High Court