The punishment prescribed under Section 302 PPC reflects the seriousness with which the Pakistani legal system views intentional murder.
However, if the same person were charged with section three hundred and 302, their defence that they never meant to kill the person – and that they just desired to injure them or incapacitate them –, will fail, because the elements with the offence only have to have the intent to cause injury to be proven, not the intention to cause death.
This Court may perhaps interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the manner of inquiry or where the summary or finding attained from the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. Should the conclusion or finding is such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court could interfere with the conclusion or the finding and mildew the relief to make it acceptable to your facts of every case. In service jurisprudence, the disciplinary authority could be the sole judge of facts. Where the appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-enjoy the evidence or even the nature of punishment. To the aforesaid proposition, we have been fortified via the decision with the Supreme Court while in the case of Ghulam Murtaza Shaikh v. Chief Minister Sindh (2024 SCMR 1757). Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Writer) Source: Order: Downloads 252 Order Date: 24-JAN-25 Approved for Reporting WhatsApp
Subscription access exclusively for organizations/businesses (SCC ID needed) to criminal and traffic case information while in the general district courts with the purpose of confirming an individual’s date of birth.
139 . Const. P. 5066/2024 (D.B.) Ayaz Hussain and 432 Others V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi Specified the legal analysis on the topic issue, we are of the view that the claim on the petitioners for retroactive regularization from their Preliminary contract appointment and seniority and promotion thereon, from that angle just isn't legally sound, Other than promotion and seniority, not absolute rights, These are matter to rules and regulations if the recruitment rules of the topic post allow the case on the petitioners for promotion may very well be deemed, however, we've been very clear inside our point of view that contractual service cannot be deemed for seniority and promotion given that the seniority is reckoned from the date of regular appointment and promotion depends upon seniority cum Health, subject to availability of vacancy matter to your approval of the competent authority.
States also ordinarily have courts that handle only a specific subset of legal matters, such as family law and probate. Case law, also known as precedent or common regulation, is definitely here the body of prior judicial decisions that guide judges deciding issues before them. Depending around the relationship between the deciding court as well as the precedent, case regulation could possibly be binding or merely persuasive. For example, a decision through the U.S. Court of Appeals for your Fifth Circuit is binding on all federal district courts within the Fifth Circuit, but a court sitting down in California (whether a federal or state court) just isn't strictly bound to follow the Fifth Circuit’s prior decision. Similarly, a decision by just one district court in New York is just not binding on another district court, but the original court’s reasoning could possibly help guide the second court in reaching its decision. Decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court are binding on all federal and state courts. Read more
Where there are several members of the court deciding a case, there might be a person or more judgments provided (or reported). Only the reason with the decision in the majority can represent a binding precedent, but all can be cited as persuasive, or their reasoning could be adopted within an argument.
Binding Precedent – A rule or principle recognized by a court, which other courts are obligated to stick to.
Civil Courts keep jurisdiction over title disputes in partition matters. Agreement to sell does not confer title; it calls for legal transfer of title. Agreement to sell must be generated and properly exhibited in evidence. Declining relief based on an unproduced and un-exhibited sale agreement is legally unsustainable. Read more
If granted absolute immunity, the parties would not only be protected from liability within the matter, but could not be answerable in any way for their actions. When the court delayed making such a ruling, the defendants took their request to the appellate court.
When the employee fails to serve a grievance notice, the NIRC may well dismiss the grievance petition. This is because the employer has not had a possibility to answer the grievance and attempt to resolve it. In certain cases, the NIRC may possibly allow the employee to amend the grievance petilion to include the grievance notice. However, this is often only accomplished if the employee can show that that they had a good reason for not serving the grievance notice. Within the present case, the parties were allowed to steer evidence along with the petitioner company responded on the allegations therefore they were nicely aware about the allegations and led the evidence as such this point is ofno use to get seemed into in constitutional jurisdiction at this stage. Read more
three. Rule of Law: The court reiterated the importance of upholding the rule of regulation and guaranteeing that all institutions function within their constitutional mandates.
A coalition of residents sent a letter of petition to the Supreme Court to challenge the Water and Power Development Authority’s (WAPDA) construction of the electricity grid station in their community, on designated “green belt” property. The Court listened to the matter to be a human rights case, as Article 184 (three) with the Pakistan Constitution delivers authentic jurisdiction towards the Supreme Court to consider up and determine any matter concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights of public importance.
P.C. for grant of post arrest bail should even be dismissed. Suffice is to watch that that considerations for pre- arrest and post-arrest bail are absolutely different. Reliance in this regard is placed on case regulation titled as “Shah Nawaz v. The State” 2005 SCMR 1899” wherein it has been held through the august Supreme Court of Pakistan as under:--