Manual of Pakistan Military Law
Manual of Pakistan Military Law legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
No restriction is imposed under S.84(a), Pakistan Army Act, 1952 for convening a Field General Court Martial during peace time
Proceedings -before a Field General Court Martial convened during peace time, however, has to be carried as far as practicable in the same manner as the proceedings of ordinary General Court Martial.
Art. 245 read with Manual of Pakistan Military Law, 1957 Edn., Part 4 Ch. VII, para. 7-Martial Law-No scope of Martial Law under Constitution of Pakistan (1973) of type where will of General of Army prevails all in all-Name of Martial Law given to use of armed forces in aid of civil power-Given for reason of such operation being styled as Martial Law from ancient times and as common parlance rather than as legal phraseology-Armed forces under Constitution of 1973-Can be called in only on direction issued by Federal Government and have to act 'subject to law'-No act on part of armed forces, held, could be justified in garb of aid to civil power unless shown to be within four corners of law.-[Martial Law].
Chap. III, para. 2-Place of close arrest of an officer or J. C. O.-His quarters or tent-Quarters, means place where person normally resides or is kept-An officer or J. C. O. does not live in a place having iron bars or iron gates-Place of custody of accused army officer until found guilty is not prison cell but a place of human habitation with same dignity as attached to office of Army personnel-Highest degree of restraint to which under-trial prisoners in military custody could be subjected to is confinement to their own quarters.
"Manual of Pakistan Military Law", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3043
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Manual of Pakistan Military Law"
P L D 1965 (W
RASHID AKHTAR NADVI‑Petitioner Versus (1) MAJOR IRSHAD AHMAD LODHI,
Court: High Court1985 S C M R 1887
WAPDA through Its Chairman — Petitioner Versus SAEED AHMAD — Respondent
Court: High CourtP L D 1981 Peshawar 118
Haji GULA KHAN AND 6 OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus SPECIAL MILITARY COURT No. 18, PESHAWAR CANTT.
Court: (a) Martial Law Order, 1977 C. M. L. A.'s‑P L D 1974 Lahore 120
BEGUM SHAMIM AFRIDI‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
Court: High CourtP L D 1979 Lahore 935
Before M. Dilawar Mahmood, J Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Court: -- R. 24-Defence of accused-Rule 24-Mandatory and gives very valuable right to accused to adduce his evidence in defence-Authorities, once list of defence witnesses filed, bound to take all necessary steps for procuring attendance of such witnesses and to allow reasonable time for consideration of defence evidence--Provisions of r. 24-May however, be suspended in certain, special circumstances on grounds of military exigencies or necessities of discipline.-Witness.P L D 1990 Peshawar 63
JAHANDAD and 6 others‑‑Petitioners Versus PRESIDENT'S SPECIAL MILITARY COURT N0.88, SECTOR 1
Court:P L D 1959 (W
M. A. KHANDEKAR and others‑Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN‑Respondent
Court: The question was whether the order was lawful and whether by disobeying the order, the petitioners had rendered themselves liable to conviction under S. 35, Air Force Act (XIV of 1932) =S. 37, Air Force Act (VI of 1953) .P L D 1981 Lahore 742
Syed MUHAMMAD ANWAR SHOHRAT BOKHARI‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 3 others‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑ Art. 199(3) read with Pakistan Army. Act (XXXIX of 1952), Ss. 2(1)(d), 59, 94 & 95 and Pakistan Army Act Rules, 1954, r. 13 Writ jurisdiction‑Word "accused" in S. 2(1)(d) of Act‑Section 2(1)(d) does not create offences against Act but meant only to define class of persons subject to Act‑Person cannot be said to be "accused" within mischief of Act unless Military Authorities find out a prima facie case against him and formally charge him‑Decision to institute proceedings before a court‑martial not yet taken and person not formally charged under Act‑Held, cl. (3) of Art. 199 of Constitution not operative in such case and High Court possesses jurisdiction in matter.‑Words and phrases‑Jurisdiction.2000 Y L R 494
GUARDS and 2, others — Appellants Versus MUJAHID MAJOR ABDUL MAJID BHATTI — Respondent
Court: LahoreP L D 1981 Lahore 462
MAJOR-GENERAL (RETD.) TAJIAMAL HUSSAIN MALIK-Petitioner Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGHDEFENCE SECRETARY AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
Court: --- And Proclamation of the Fifth Day of July, 1977 read with C. M. L. A. Order 1 of 1977-Provisional Constitution Order appearing to be a misnomer and not a compact self-contained constitutional document-Order deriving its existence, strength and validity from judicially recognised Proclamation of Fifth Day of July, 1977 read with Laws (Continuance in force) Order, 1977, held, cannot be of a superior or higher status than its ancestors.-Interpretation of statutes.