Pakistan Military Law
Pakistan Military Law legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Rr. 24 & 26 read with Pakistan Military Law, 1957 (Vol. I) (1975) published by Government of Pakistan, p. 332-Form of Declaration for suspension of Rules under r. 26-Convening officer required to specifically mention "military exigency" necessitating suspension of rule-Declaration referring to case being agitational case having repercussions on public at large-Such considerations, held, not relevant for suspension of relevant rule under r. 26 and suspension of r. 26 not justified in circumstances.
"Pakistan Military Law", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3245
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Pakistan Military Law"
2016 P Cr
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus BASE COMMANDER, P.A.F. BASE, KORANGI CREEK KARACHI and 2 others — Respondents
Court: SindhP 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 1965 (W
RASHID AKHTAR NADVI‑Petitioner Versus (1) MAJOR IRSHAD AHMAD LODHI,
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‑1985 S C M R 1887
WAPDA through Its Chairman — Petitioner Versus SAEED AHMAD — Respondent
Court: High CourtP 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) .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.P L D 1974 Lahore 120
BEGUM SHAMIM AFRIDI‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
Court: High Court