This blog will help reader in understanding Law and it provides articles, assignments, study materials etc. Substantive law is related with the person and property while procedural law deals with the procedure as to how substantive law is proceeded in a court of law. If a person does not fulfill legal obligation, how he can get remedy? How his rights are enforced?

Author:Grogis Kezuru
Country:Trinidad & Tobago
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):9 May 2018
PDF File Size:13.33 Mb
ePub File Size:8.82 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

This blog will help reader in understanding Law and it provides articles, assignments, study materials etc.

Substantive law is related with the person and property while procedural law deals with the procedure as to how substantive law is proceeded in a court of law. If a person does not fulfill legal obligation, how he can get remedy? How his rights are enforced? For example, a contract is formed between two persons, and one of them commits breach of contract. It is fact and alleged in court that it was not performed.

He pleads a fact, which is breach. What is the procedure by which breach is proved? How he establishes that fact stands exist? It is only evidence, which proves the existence of fact. Court itself takes notice of question of law. Parties are not required to resolve the question of law but only question of fact.

Parties have to just prove the existence of fact. It was rearranged during the Islamization process in the Zia regime. It is more or less same as earlier.

Differences are as follows: Under old law provisions of the law were called sections while in new one they are called Article. Provisions of law have been reshuffled.

Few Islamic provisions have been introduced, e. Financial provisions have been brought Islamic. Qualification of witnesses and law of accomplice has been changed. If the new provisions do not fulfill the requirement of the case then old provisions remain applicable.

Finally it is more or less the same law, same ruling, same judgement, same decisions, and same cases. What is function of evidence law? To whom, as witness is to be produced in court to testify truth? Witnesses are produced from both sides to prove or disprove the facts in issues. Whether the produced witness is competent to give evidence in court of law and what are the qualifications of competent witness are also questions of law of evidence.

Witnesses also have some rights and duties as well. Generally all are the competent witnesses provided they are not debarred to give evidence except in certain cases. They have certain privileges and no question can be asked from them against which they are protected under law. If any question is asked which falls within their privilege they may refuse to answer the question. Rights are called technically privileges. Generally witnesses are free to answer or refuse.

During the cross-examination they bear legal duty to answer question asked. Whether evidence once given on one court can be adduced cite, offer, present in all courts? No, it is accepted only where court or person administers it under oath. Arbitrator does not take evidence under oath so evidence taken by him is not admissible in courts. A, advances to B Rs. B commits default in repayment. A files a suit in court against B for the recovery of amount of Rs.

B either may admit the receipt of amount and not repaid or may allege repaid within due time. A alleges advance of Rs. Two facts in issue arise. Advancement of Rs. Both have to prove their claims by producing evidence.

If B claims receipt of advance amounting to Rs. Both plaintiff and defendant put their facts in their pleadings but court frames the facts in issue. Whenever defendant denies the fact which plaintiff alleges, then fact in issue arises. There may be more facts in issue than one.

Relevant evidence is given to prove or disprove the facts in issue. Denial of B can be proved through the Cheque issued to him while the receipt of Money Order can prove repayment. Kinds of evidences: There are certain kinds of evidence, e. Primary evidence contains original documents or postmortem reports.

Secondary evidence contains copy or attested copy of the original document. Secondary evidence is allowed where primary evidence is not available. Documentary evidence excludes oral evidence being authentic and preferred.

Following are kinds of evidences: 1. Oral: Statements made by witnesses in Court. Documentary: It includes public and private documents, and statements of relevant facts made by persons in writing. Conclusive: Evidence of a fact which the Court must take as full proof of it, and which excludes all evidence to disprove it. Direct: It is evidence of fact actually in issue; evidence of a fact actually perceived by a witness with his own senses.

Circumstantial: It is evidence of a fact not actually in issue, but legally relevant to a fact in issue. Real: It is a kind of evidence supplied by material objects produced for the inspection of the Court. Extrinsic: It is oral evidence given in connection with written documents. In criminal proceedings that common law rules as to hearsay still obtain. In civil proceedings the common law rules are abrogated. Indirect: It is circumstantial or hearsay evidence. Original: It is evidence, which has an independent probative force of its own.

Derivative: It is evidence, which derives its force from some other source. Parole: It is oral, extrinsic unrelated evidence. Prima facie: It is evidence of fact, which the Court must take as proof of such fact, unless disproved, by further evidence.

Primary: Primary evidence of a document is the document itself, or duplicate original. Secondary: It is the evidence other than the best evidence, and which is rejected if primary evidence is available, e. Theft: Where property is removed from the custody of its owner with unlawful intention, it is called theft.

It has four ingredients such as: 1. Dishonest intention: Where property is removed without unlawful intention and later on dishonest intention is formed, it not called theft but misappropriation. Dishonest intention must be there at the time of removal of property.

Moveable or tangible property: Only moveable property is subject of theft. Where immovable property is removed such as fan which is removed from wall or ceiling or tree is removed from earth, it becomes moveable property thus its removal with dishonest intention becomes subject of theft. Removal of property: Mere dishonest intention is insufficient to constitute the offence of theft.

Its removal must be there. Where dishonest intention exists but property is not removed, theft does not take place. From the possession of other: Moveable property, which is removed with dishonest intention, must have its owner. Where any person has abandoned his possession of any property, its removal shall not form the offence of theft. Where owner of bull abandons the ownership of bull, its slaughter shall not form the offence of theft.

Ownership or physical possession of property is one of element of theft. Misappropriation of property: Misappropriation of property is a result of state of mind, which is changed subsequently. All the elements of theft are found in misappropriation of property except the dishonest intention at the time of removal of property.

To constitute misappropriation of property, its dishonest intention after the removal of property must be proved. It is breach of trust. Breach of trust does mean a person is entrusted but later on he changes his mind and keeps the property dishonestly for personal use is termed misappropriation. Where a manager gives some amount to his clerk for disbursement to employees relying upon him creates a trust to his subordinate.

When clerk changes his mind after taking possession of money for the keeping amount for his personal use without having any lawful authority, is breach of trust for which he was entrusted. Where a worker takes bicycle relating to another worker mistakenly but subsequently he keeps such bicycle at home for his child and also takes his bicycle for his own use is also misappropriation of property.

Law of theft is not applicable on misappropriation of property on the fact that dishonest intention was not there when moveable property was removed from the possession relating to other.

Under the offence of theft owner of the property does not know whether property relating to him is removed while he gives possession of his property himself to other person where misappropriation of property may take place. Result of breach of trust form misappropriation of property. Mere removal of moveable of property from the possession relating to other is insufficient to constitute either the offence of theft or misappropriation of property. Judicial notice: Where something is not produced then court itself takes its notice.

This notice is taken where there is no need to prove something, e.



Meztigul There is a distinction also between proof of a document, upon its being exhibited and its authorship. There was no rule of law that statement of interested witness could not qanoon e shahadat order taken into consideration without corroboration and even uncorroborated version could be relied upon shahadta supported by surrounding circumstances. Deed of surrender, therefore, had no value and on basis thereof, P. Such kind of compilation has qanoon e shahadat order no service to humanity but has only strengthened sectarianism. Statement made immediately after murder occurrence under influence of occurrence in order to characterize it and explain circumstances connected therewith would be admissible under Art. No misreading or non-reading of material evidence which might have affected judgment of Appellate Court was pointed out.


Today is #GivingTuesday, help us reclaim the rights of women & girls.




Related Articles