Semper Praesumiter Pro Negante
Semper Praesumiter Pro Negante legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Art. 188 and Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI read with Government of India Act, 1935, S. 214(4), Constitutions of Pakistan (1956), (1962), (1972) and (1973) and maxim "semper praesumiter pro negante (presumption is always in favour of one denying or in favour of negative)-Review-Maintenance of judgment of Court appealed against in case of equal division in a Bench of even number of Judges-Well backed by maxim "semper praesumiter pro negante" and practice of House of Lords-Supreme Court of Pakistan competent to adopt such practice due to non-existence of a rule similar to one existing in S. 214(4) of Government of India Act, 1935, or in Constitutions of Pakistan or any other enactment or rules-Procedure adopted by Supreme Court to maintain judgment of Court appealed against in case of equal division in a Bench of even Judges, .held, not without any precedent, principle, or sanction and judgment delivered on such procedure not illegal
"Semper Praesumiter Pro Negante", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3149
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Semper Praesumiter Pro Negante"
P L D 1981 Supreme Court 325
AMINULLAH‑‑Petitioner Versus TBE STATE‑Respondent
Court: Art. 188 and Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI read with Govern ment of India Act, 1935, S. 214(4), Constitutions of Pakistan (1956), (1962), (1972) and (1973) and maxim "semper praesumiter pro negante (presumption is always in favour of one denying or in favour of nega tive)‑Review‑Maintenance of judgment of Court appealed against in case of equal division in a Bench of even number of Judges‑Well backed by maxim "semper praesumiter pro negante" and practice of House of Lords‑Supreme Court of Pakistan competent to adopt such practice due to non‑existence of a rule similar to one existing in S. 214(4) of Government of India Act, 1935, or in Constitutions of Pakistan or any other enactment or rules‑Procedure adopted by Supreme Court to maintain judgment of Court appealed against in case of equal division in a Bench of even Judges, .held, not without any precedent, principle, or sanction and judgment delivered on such procedure not illegal‑‑Supreme Court however in similar situations having some times referred matter to a larger Bench, contention that no reason having been given in order of Court as to why, practice of referring matter to larger Bench not followed in case in hand, two procedures having been available one more favourable to accused ought to have been followed in order to maintain confidence. in proce dures of Court, and consequently case in hand should also have been referred for decision to a larger Bench, held, not without force. Varying practice having been adopted by Supreme Court in similar situations in past, prisoner facing capital sentence can justifiably ask for review of case by way of hearing by a larger Bench‑Point raised being apparent on face of record, held, constitutes a valid ground for review of "operative order" involved in case‑Case of other prisoner, however, being different for reason of majority of Judges having found him guilty, yet his case from juridical point of view being not separ able, review petitions filed by both prisoners accepted and cases of both prisoners‑referred to a larger Bench for hearing and disposal‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.‑‑Maxim‑Review‑Practice and procedure.