Name: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, (PO No. 10 of ). Country: Pakistan. Subject(s): Civil, commercial and family law. Type of legislation: Regulation. Art.2(1)(c) – Whether of evidence in civil & criminal cases-in criminal cases evidence must of such mature that factum of incident should be proved and any. An exhaustive commentary on the Qanun-e-Shahadat order, case law and amendments up-to-date. Responsibility: M. Mahmood. Edition: 3rd ed.
|Published (Last):||24 September 2007|
|PDF File Size:||4.23 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.71 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Similar is the position of contents of a telegram which per se are not evidence of the facts stated therein. The Court shall presume the genuineness of every book purporting to be printed or published under the authority of the Government of any country, and to contain any of the laws of that country, and of every book purporting to contain reports of decision of the Courts of such country.
Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence: A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally but in reference to the particulars matter in question.
Provided further that the Court shall determine the competence of a witness in accordance with the qualifications prescribed by the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah for a witness, and, where such witness is not forthcoming, the Court may take the evidence of a witness who may be available.
A procured position similar to that which was administered to D, is relevant. Joint allotted of shop in dispute. Admissions qajun pleadings would have overriding role which does not permit that admissions through evidence or unrebutted statements be made basis of adjudication in exclusion to admissions in pleadings.
Pakistan – Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, (PO No. 10 of ).
Element of malice was thus missing in the plaint; instead plea taken was that those remarks were made deliberately which expression was not synonymous with qxnun motive besmearing thinking of witness against the counsel.
Admittedly original document as placed on record, but record having been burnt, was reconstructed under orders of High Court.
For proving existence, condition or contents of a hsahadat certified copies can be tendered in evidence, if whahadat original is a public document within the meanings of Article 85, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, or where the original document forms part of judicial record or document of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, or of any part of Pakistan or.
Where a document is executed in several parts, each part ordre primary evidence of the document. Plaintiff in shqhadat statement before Court had admitted part of defendant claim viz.
The fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been given in the place where A was, is relevant, as showing that A did not in good faith believe that the real owner of the property could not be found. Opinion of Handwriting Expert supported by reasons deserves preference if the opinion is in accord with the direct evidence. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive.
The fact that, at the same time, an oral agreement was made that the money should not be paid till the thirty-first March cannot be proved. Oral evidence, held, would have no value in face of documentary evidence.
Please verify that you are not a robot. Best way of proving disputed handwriting or signature of a person.
Production of title deed of witness, not a party. Mere pointing out the place to police as being the place where children had been thrown by accused but such pointing out did not lead to discovery of any fact. Execution of such document had to be proved by examining the scribe and an attesting witness. Conviction and sentence–Challenge to–Benefit of doubt–Main point was determined by Court is whether the story set out by prosecution is probable or whether the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants without any shadow of doubt–Art.
Ordinary rule for the purpose would be to call that person in evidence—Where the person who was alleged to have executed document had denied his signatures, his signatures could be proved by calling the person in whose presence such document was executed—Signatures of executant could be proved by calling two attesting witnesses in whose presence, person concerned had signed the document—Where both the attesting witnesses of document in question were alive and were available but were not produced, in such case, Court could not hold on the basis of evidence on record that the execution of document in question was proved.
The entries are relevant, but are not sufficient, without other evidence, to prove the debt. He produces a letter written by himself and dated at Lahore on that day, and bearing the Lahore post-marks of that day.
Proof of execution of private document. P L D Lahore Burden of proof as to ownership. WorldCat is the world’s largest library catalog, helping you find library materials online.
Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years. The Qazi, however, ought not to pass a decree immediately on the refusal of the defendant but must first administer on oath to the plaintiff and then pass the decree against the defendant.
Disputed handwriting or signatures of a person. Appraisal of evidence by Appellate Court was strictly in accordance with rules of evidence. B would be entitled to retain his possession.
Remarks attributed to witness were not unconnected or irrelevant to the matter in issue; remarks in question were evoked when witness was apparently confronted with his previous statement and were deeply relatable to the subject-matter of suit; purport where of was, to express how a false suggestion was made to witness pertaining to the interest of orphans in ordee property.
Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible. Khurshid Begum and 6 others v. The statement in the date of the letter is ordre, because, if A were dead, it would be admissible under Article 46, paragraph 2.
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , | Jamil and Jamil
Production of title deed of witness, not a party: Similarly, relevancy and proof of a document while such in themselves are different in character, they, at the, same time, usually, do not involve any implication that either of them constitutes proof of correctness or veracity of a document, which must be separately established through oral evidence in an appropriate manner.
The fact that, without making a complaint, she said, that she had been ravished is not relevant as shqhadat under this Article though it aqnun be relevant as a dying declaration under Article 46m paragraph 1or as corroborative evidence under Article Probative force of individual material in establishing the general truth.
The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies: The existence of shahada decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against Ordfr for a trespass on the same land, in which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists. Such payment would be made by plaintiffs in addition to payment of decretal amount.
Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases: No mandatory pre-requisites of law exist that a dying declaration cannot be made before a police officer or that it should always be in writing.
Oral and documentary evidence Where oral evidence of parties was evenly placed but such evidence when read in conjunction with documentary evidence, supported possession of a party claim of possession of such party, held, would stand established. Courts below in keeping such entry out of consideration had committed an illegality justifying High Court to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction.