Judgments

Delay in sending incriminating articles to Expert could not treated fatal in absence of objections of having tempered or manipulated

Trial in absentia was against the provision of Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution

The offences were heinous in nature and fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C

Impugned order was administrative/supervisory in nature, could not be challenged u/s 435, 439 Cr.P.C but could be challenged u/s 561-A Cr.P.C

Second application was maintainable on any of grounds provided by S.13 of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ord. 1959

Constitution of valid agreement there must be at least two persons i.e promisor and promise as required u/s 2 of Contract Act, 1872

Disclosure of co-accused was discovery of new facts as per Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984, sufficient to disentitle the accused from concession of bail