Pro and Contra Grounds in Superdari

  • That motorcycle was purchased by him after paying full installments to the leasing company, which had issued a certificate in his favor.
2012 YLR 2718
  • That motorcycle was registered in his name.
2012 YLR 2718
  • That FIR against the accused was disposed of for the reason
2012 YLR 2718
  • That dispute between the parties was of civil nature.
2012 YLR 2718
  • That Trial Court omitted to specify the place of recovery in charge-sheet as such charge-sheet was defective.
2006 MLD 1546
  • That prosecution failed to specify place of recovery in its evidence
2006 MLD 1546
  • That the case property was not produced before Trial Court.
2006 MLD 1546
  • That Chemical Examiner's report was vague and could not be used as an incriminating piece of evidence against accused.
2006 MLD 1546
  • That notice was not issued to him before destruction of contraband Charas.
2006 PCrLJ 316
  • That seized Charas was destroyed by the order of Magistrate and not on the direction of Special Judge.
2006 PCrLJ 316
  • That applicant did not co-operate with the police and had not supplied names and addresses of the drivers of the vehicles
2008 MLD 1491
  • That vehicle was the case property
2008 MLD 1491
  • That accused persons were absconding
2008 MLD 1491
  • That the vehicles were the material piece of evidence in the hands of the prosecution,
2008 MLD 1491
  • That if vehicles were released, the prosecution's case would be hampered.
2008 MLD 1491
  • That he had given the vehicle to his driver (accused) for running the same as a private taxi, therefore, it was no fault on part of the applicant if vehicle had been misused;
2012 MLD 1543
  • That the vehicle was his only source of income,
2012 MLD 1543
  • That vehicle was lying in the police station and some of its parts had been removed by police officials.
2012 MLD 1543
  • That he had purchased the bus on lease from a bank on finance facility;
2013 YLR 1626
  • That he had paid 55 lease installments out of a total of 60;
2013 YLR 1626
  • That the bus was being used for public transport and not for carriage of narcotics as recovery had not been made from any secret cavity but from a box underneath the driver's seat;
2013 YLR 1626
  • That driver of bus was exclusively responsible for the illegal act;
2013 YLR 1626
  • That he (owner) was neither present in the bus nor could be tagged with the alleged recovery.
2013 YLR 1626
  • That bus was parked in the police station, where it was deteriorating day by day.
2013 YLR 1626

Post a Comment

0 Comments

close