Home Maxims & Terms Approver meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Approver

Approver legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2012 PLC 401 LABOUR-APPELLANT-TRIBUNAL-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Meaning.

2009 PLD 814 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 337Approver

Testimony of approver, in order to be accepted as worthy of credence, must pass the double test, namely that he is a reliable witness and that his testimony receives sufficient corroboration on material particulars.

1994 SCMR 932 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
ApproverTestimony of approver or accompliceNecessity of corroboration

Rule of prudence that the testimony of an approver or accomplice is to be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence has almost hardened into a rule of law

Conviction on the basis of sole testimony of an approver or accomplice thus is not safe.

[Accomplice

Evidence].

1992 SCMR 1983 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
ApproverInconsistent statement made by approver

Approver's first statement seemed to be in line with his exculpatory confession, which he made prior to grant of pardon to him for making him an approver

Testimony of such person had to be scrutinized with care and caution and could not be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars by reliable evidence.

1982 SCMR 1110 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 337-Approver-Totally exculpatory statement made by approver-Held, not reliable

[Approver].

1975 PLD 103 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Corroboration-Post-mortem examination report already available to police when approver's statement recorded-Medical report, in circumstance, no independent corroboration of approver's testimony.

1970 SCMR 307 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 133-Approver-Corroboration-Accused having motive to commit murder, leading police to an uninhabited room of his house and taking out blood-stained clothes and knife from an earthen pot-Articles found by serologist to be stained with human blood Approver's and accused hands also found to have cut injuries Recovery of incriminating articles, fact of their being stained with human blood and presence of cut marks on culprit's hands, held, furnished sufficient corroboration of approver's testimony on material particulars.

1969 SCMR 629 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Criminal appeal-Supreme Court accepting appeal and acquitting convict-appellant whether can set aside conviction of another co-accused who did not appeal (Quaere)-Supreme Court, in circumstance, recommended to provincial Government that sentence imposed on non-appealing convict be filly remitted.

1969 SCMR 621 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 337 and Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 133-Approver-Conviction based on evidence of-Corroboration in material particulars necessary

approver's near relationship with accused-Does not remove taint from his testimony.

1969 PLD 1071 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 339-ApproverConfession, retracted-Production of certificate by Public Prosecutor under S. 339-Condition precedent for initiating proceeding against an approver alleged to have forfeited his pardon-Conditions under S. 339 having been omitted, proceedings against accused, held, not sustainable in law.

1969 PLD 965 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 337(2) and Chap. XVIII-Approver-Examination of-Word "trial" in S. 337(2)-Includes inquiry under Chap. XVIII-Accused granted pardon can be examined as witness by Magistrate holding inquiry.

1968 PCRLJ 1775 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Approver Evidence ofRule of caution

No conviction should be based on testimony of approver unless corroborated by some other evidence on record.

1968 PLD 1035 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 337(3) read with Ss. 496, 497, 498 & 561-A-Approver-Bail-Provisions of S. 337(3) mandatory and based on very salutary principle of public policy and public interest-Approver cannot be granted bail either under S. 337(3) or Ss. 496, 497 & 498-Nor can inherent powers of High Court under S. 561-A be invoked for granting bail to an approver-Merely because detention has worked hardship on approver, law cannot be circumvented and powers not conferred on Court cannot be assumed - [Abdul Sattar v. State Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3692 of 1966 dissented from.

1962 PLD 249 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 114 (b)-Approver-Unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars by reliable in dependent evidence- Cor'roboraliV2 evidence to indicate that approver's story, substantially true.

1961 PLD 585 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Approver

Deposition of approver coupled with his confession can furnish valuable corroboration of evidence of other witnesses-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 133.

1958 PLD 317 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Approver Approver____ Depravity of character-Characteristic of ever, approver-Yet his evidence if corroborated cannot be rejected on that account- Evidence- Act (1 of 1872), S. 114, ills. (b) and S. 133.(f) Approver.-Statement. of-May be corroborated by confession of co-accused-Evidence Act(I of 1872),S.114 illus.(b) read along with further consideration appended to illus. (b).

1958 PLD 10 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Approver -Recovery of dead body before approver's statement-No corroboration of such statement-Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 133.

1957 PLD 75 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Approver Statement of-Should not be made basis of conviction unless there is independent corroboration connecting accused "in very clear terms" with offence charged

Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 114 and 133.

1956 PLD 266 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent
Approver

Approver-Whether can be examined as witness in Sessions Court if committing Magistrate bbl mistake or oversight includes his name amongst the accused.

1955 PLD 375 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Approver Approver-Statement of-Not a confession-Not subject to prohibition of S. 24, Evidence Act (1 of 2872) or to provisions of S. 264 (3), Cr. P. C.-Statement admissible under S. 339 (2) Cr. P. C. against approver at his own trial, after forfeiture of pardon-Necessity of corroboration-Statement should be taken as a whole.

1955 PLD 152 FEDERAL-COURT-OF-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Testimony of-Independent corroboration that the approver himself took part in the crime not necessary.

1955 PLD 113 FEDERAL-COURT-OF-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Approver Confessional statement by, before tender of pardon, recorded under S. 164 Cr. P. C.?S. 24, Evidence Act (I of 1872), held, not applicable to such a statement.

1954 PLD 783 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Approver Approver-Statement of-Must satisfy two essentials (1) that he took part in the crime and (2) that he is corroborated in material particulars as regards the participation of each of the accused.

1953 PLD 57 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Approver Forfeiting pardonTrial of-Statement before Committing Magistrate may be treated as a retracted confession

Conviction on basis of such confession-Corroboration.

1952 PLD 15 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent
Approver

Statement of-Corroboration-Recovery of deceased's clothes from a ditch at accused's pointing out and of a torch-Recovery from another accused of a loin cloth stained with blood and of a knife

Whether good corroboration.

1952 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent
Approver

Testimony of-Unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars-Such corroboration not dispensed with even if approver a near relation of accused-Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss. 114, ill. (b) and 133. It is well settled principle of law that an approver's evidence is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Approver", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/2256

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Approver"

PCRLJ 1981
Criminal Revision No. 10 of 1981, decided on 30thJune, 1981.

1981 P Cr

MANZOOR AHMED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court AJ&K
PLD 1968
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3305 of 1967, decided on 8th March 1968.

P L D 1968 Lahore 1030

REHMAT MASIH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑.Respondent

Court:
PTD 1986
I . T . A . No. 213 of 1978‑79, decided on 29th April, 1986.

1986 P T D (Trib

N/A

Court: Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
PLD 1958
Criminal App: al No. 8 of 1958, decided on 16th April, 1958. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistani Lahore, dated the 18th April 1957, in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 1956):

P L D 1958 Supreme Court (Pak

RAFIQ AR N1A D‑ Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Court:
SCMR 1969
Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1954, decided on 31st May 1954.

1969SCMR 907

TAJA‑Appellant Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent

Court: High Court
PCRLJ 1970
Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1954, decided on 31st May 1954.

1970 P Cr

TAJA‑Appellant Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent

Court: Supreme Court
PLD 1975
Criminal Bail Application No. 883 of 1973, decided on 17th June 1974,

P L D 1975 Karachi 159

ABDUL LATIF-Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent

Court: -- Ss. 337 & 561-A-Approver-Bail-Approver's detention in custody till termination of trial-Such strict principle not laid down by S. 337-Continued detention of approver may for variety of reasons be sometimes unjustified or even harsh-Bar under Ss. 337(3), Cr. P. C. ­Not absolute-Bail may be granted to approver under S. 561-A, Cr. P. C. in case of hardship bordering on injustice- Mohamed Abdul Majid v. Emperor A I R 1927 Sind 173 dissented from.
CLD 2022
2021-June-22

2022 C L D 184

AYAZ AHMAD MALIK and 4 others — Appellants Versus ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Director General and 3 others — Respondents

Court: Punjab Environmental Tribunal
CLC 2016
N/A

2016 C L C 210

Messrs AL-SAFA GOLDEN CO. (PVT.) LIMITED — Petitioner Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman and 4 others — Respondents

Court: Islamabad
YLR 1999
Suit No. 127 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.909 of 1998, decided on 12th October, 1998.

1999 Y L R 1823

Messrs PEACE DEVELOPERS through Managing Partner‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION through Administrator and 7 others‑‑‑Defendants

Court: Karachi