Qanuni Amdad urdu

Case law on charge frame فوجداری مقدمات میں فرد جرم کی اہمیت اور فرد جرم عائد کرتے ہوئے ٹرائل کورٹ کی ذمہ داریوں کے بارے سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان کا رہنما فیصلہ Framing of charge is the foundation of trial; section 221 of Cr.P.C. provides an elaborate procedure for framing of charge; it is the responsibility of the Trial Judge to take all necessary and possible steps to ensure compliance of law with regard to framing of proper and unambiguous charge; if necessary ingredients of the offences with which the accused is charged, are not mentioned in the charge, or it is framed in an incomplete, defective or vague manner, it might mislead the accused, which would be a failure of justice. Under the criminal administration of justice, a criminal case is initiated upon registration of an FIR and a police officer is appointed as an I.O. to undertake a formal investigation into the complaint of breach of law. If the I.O. finds that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds of suspicion

S.489F. Admission of accused facing charge u/s 489F to pre-arrest Bail u/s 498, CrPC by Single Judge of High Court on view that accused could not be refused Bail before arrest when no recovery was to be effected from him. Supreme Court disapproving such erroneous view of Single Judge of High Court, setting aside his order passed on basis of his erroneous view and remanding case to High Court for passing fresh order on accused's application for Bail before arrest. Supreme Court holding that accused would remain on ad interim Bail before arrest till its confirmation by High Court.  [NLR-2017-Criminal-SC-268] The Supreme Court disagreed with the Single Judge of the High Court who granted pre-arrest bail to an accused under Section 498 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court overturned the order due to the incorrect reasoning and sent the case back to the High Court for a new decision on the bail application. The accused will stay on interim bail until the High Court confirms it. For more infor

The plaintiff wanted the defendants to fulfill a part of the sale agreement for a specific portion of the property they purchased. The courts ruled against the plaintiff, stating the agreement was not separable and couldn't be enforced. The defendants argued the property was sold as a whole to multiple parties and fell under the bar of Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, due to common ownership. This led to the dismissal of the suit. Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell , severability of --- Part performance --- Specific enforceability --- Scope - Bar contained under S. 17 of the Specific Relief Act , 1877 ( ' Act , 1877 ' ) --- Right of specific execution of contract --- Discretion of the Court --- Scope --- Claim of the plaintiff was that he and two defendants / vendees entered into agreement with the defendants ( four in number ) being the owners - in - possession of property out of which almost fifth of the suit - property was purchased by him ( p