In criminal law, placing a witness face-to-face defendant. Then the witness may identify the defendant or the defendant may may make any objection he has directly to the witness and cross-examine him.
YLH&Co is a Lahore-Pakistan-based full service law firm committed to law and information about the law. The primary practice area of the law firm is internet law, information technology law, telecom law and cyberspace laws and security. Contact: For details contact Mr. Yasser Latif Hamdani, Attorney at Law. Email: yasser.hamdani@gmail.com; or Call: +92 300 555 2232
Showing posts with label criminal law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criminal law. Show all posts
Monday, June 10, 2013
apprehension (criminal law)
The seizure or taking talking of a person on a criminal charge. The word is applied only to criminal cases.The term arrest is used in both criminal cases and civil cases.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Confirmation or rescission of a freezing order under Narcotics Law
2009 PCr.LJ 254
Page 257
As is clear from the provision itself, the paramount consideration for the purpose of confirming or rescinding the freezing of the assets will be the existence or otherwise of reasonable grounds for believing the accused guilty of the offence.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Understanding Qisas and Diyat Laws of Pakistan
Book recommendation: The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
When all the heirs of those murdered by Davis pardoned him for badl-i-sulh , the religious right cried foul. Technically there was nothing wrong procedurally and legally with the way Davis’ alleged crime was pardoned under law. The religious right claims that (i) that the heirs of the two victims were pressured into accepting badl-i-sulh , (ii) that Davis should have been convicted for fasad fil arz and (iii) the judge’s decision to impose a fine of Rs.20,000 and time served under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance of 1965 was far too lenient under the circumstances.
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
When all the heirs of those murdered by Davis pardoned him for badl-i-sulh , the religious right cried foul. Technically there was nothing wrong procedurally and legally with the way Davis’ alleged crime was pardoned under law. The religious right claims that (i) that the heirs of the two victims were pressured into accepting badl-i-sulh , (ii) that Davis should have been convicted for fasad fil arz and (iii) the judge’s decision to impose a fine of Rs.20,000 and time served under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance of 1965 was far too lenient under the circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)