No money trail of Sharif's London flats: Supreme Court

[The Eagle]

Just want to add into this as continuation...... Read Qanoon-e-Shahadat for evidence as well. Adjourning the matter doesn't mean that the case is not established or the respondent/accused is free. It is in the practice by giving both sides, the more chances to prove their words by arguments, evidence and producing witnesses. People may have the opinion that the proceedings are actually adjourned due to lack of evidence to establish the matter, which is totally wrong. Court do not see thing what these politicains use to say as "Ikhlaki tor par etc" but the facts, arguments and testimonials/evidences. The matter is still pending which is good enough to understand that neither the Court has given a free pass to accused nor the complainant won the case but the conclusion will tell. All these hypes and claims, made outside the Court are tactics to mislead the public.

 

[The Eagle]

Not a bad idea...That will help conclude one part of the matter quickly...

 

[Farah Sohail]

Lets see...what happens tomorrow in SC...and who wins tomorrow's round in SC? I hope ab kal ke baad door ki tareekh na aaye, SC ki next hearing ke liye

 

[Finer]

Can't you understand one thing that even if there is concrete evidence, all parties have to present their case. You think that Judges announce their decision just by reading papers presented by parties.

Who in their right mind would indict a person on first 5 hearings without listening all the parties and mind it here PM of the country is involved? When respondents present their case, they might have other documents or explain previous documents in such a way that we can't see.

As far as NS is concerned, you are now talking about merits of case and how he is involved. For that you have to also wait for the arguments of petitioners to be concluded where they are building a case about him being involved.

Your post suggests you are not familiar with the protocol of the court system. Google is your best answer where in most cases, defendant can claim to be 'innocent until proven guilty'. Even Inquisitorial court system supports in favor of my consistent point. Otherwise, it will be chaos. Do you understand the example of chaos?

It comes to the point that making accusation without evidence can be considered as crime because it wastes the time of court. Most judges are strict when it comes to that. PMLN has been accused, not accused others. Naturally, PMLN is defendant where it can plead 'Innocent until proven guilty' given the benefits of doubt if the prosecutors fail to provide the evidence.

When you accuse others, onus is on you to provide proof to back your allegation. But given the popularity of Blasphemy law where the protocol is based on 'shoot first, question later', then i will be remiss if i didn't say unpredictability might be factor in Pakistan court system.