Qanuni Amdad urdu

Murder reference  The Lahore High Court in "Abdul Hakeem v. The State" ruled that CCTV footage and DNA evidence were inadmissible due to procedural lapses and chain of custody issues. ## JUDGMENT SHEET ### IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT  #### RAWALPINDI BENCH RAWALPINDI ### JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT #### Criminal Appeal No. 835 of 2022 #### (Abdul Hakeem v. The State) #### and #### Murder Reference No. 44 of 2022 #### (The State v. Abdul Hakeem) **JUDGMENT** **Date of hearing:** 20.03.2024 **Appellant by:** Ch. Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate. **Complainant by:** M/S Hina Noman & Talat Mehmood Zaidi, Advocates. **State by:** Mian Imran Rahim, Deputy Prosecutor General with Abid Ali Inspector. **Ch. Abdul Aziz, J.:** 1. **Case Background:** Abdul Hakeem (appellant), involved in case F.I.R No. 138/2021 dated 04.05.2021 registered under Section 302 PPC at Police Station City Attock, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Attock. He was convicted and sentenced to death under Secti

The court order delineates the distinct jurisdictions and roles of the Consumer Court and the Healthcare Commission, highlighting their complementary yet separate functions: ### Consumer Court 1. **Scope of Authority**: The Consumer Court deals with claims for damages arising from faulty or defective services, including medical services, under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. 2. **Types of Claims**: It handles claims of damages, whether contractual or tortious, filed by consumers who have received defective or inadequate services. 3. **Jurisdictional Basis**: According to Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, a claim for damages due to a contravention of the Act should be filed in the Consumer Court. 4. **Remedial Powers**: The Consumer Court can award monetary compensation to the affected consumer for losses suffered due to defective services. 5. **Examples of Cases**: Claims can include cases where a consumer seeks compensation for harm or loss due to fault

One unique point decided in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the concept of "benefit of the doubt" in the context of malicious prosecution. The court emphasized that acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt does not automatically imply that the accused was falsely implicated. It acknowledged the possibility that the accused might have been involved in the matter but that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. This nuanced understanding underscores the importance of evidence and the presumption of innocence, even in cases where acquittal is based on the benefit of the doubt. The main story in the provided judgment revolves around a case of malicious prosecution. The appellant, Tariq Mehmood, filed a suit against the respondent, Tahir Farooq, seeking damages for malicious prosecution. The appellant alleged that the respondent, along with others, falsely implicated him in a criminal case, resul

درخواست گزار کا جان بوجھ کر متعلقہ معلومات کو چھپانے یا عدالت میں ظاہر نہ کرنے کا ہے۔ مذکورہ کیس میں، درخواست گزار یہ ظاہر کرنے میں ناکام رہا کہ اس نے ٹرانسفر آرڈر میں مذکور نئی پوسٹنگ کے لیے پہلے ہی جوائننگ رپورٹ جمع کرائی تھی۔ اس کوتاہی نے عدالت کو عبوری ریلیف دینے میں گمراہ کیا، جو شمولیت کی رپورٹ کے افشا ہونے کی صورت میں جاری نہیں کیا جاتا۔ اس طرح، درخواست گزار کی جانب سے اس اہم حقیقت کو چھپانے سے قانونی عمل کی سالمیت کو نقصان پہنچا۔ The unique point decided by the court was the dismissal of the petitioner's writ petition due to his concealment of material facts, specifically regarding his joining report submitted after the transfer order, which was crucial for the court's decision-making process. This concealment was deemed a serious issue that undermined the integrity of the court proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs on the petitioner. ORDER SHEET  LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE  JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Case No. W.P. No.27923 of 2024 Muhamma