ANALIZE OF JURIDIST PRE-JUDICATURE VERDICT NUMBER 02/PRA. PIDANA/2004/ PENGADILAN NEGERI MALANG FROM VINNO THOMSON’S PETITION (Study at Distric court of Malang)

Indra Wijaya, Eki (2006) ANALIZE OF JURIDIST PRE-JUDICATURE VERDICT NUMBER 02/PRA. PIDANA/2004/ PENGADILAN NEGERI MALANG FROM VINNO THOMSON’S PETITION (Study at Distric court of Malang). Other thesis, University of Muhammadiyah Malang.

[img]
Preview
Text
ANALIZE_OF_JURIDIST_PRE-JUDICATURE_VERDICT_NUMBER.pdf

Download (192kB) | Preview

Abstract

Study of object on this research abaut pre-judicature verdict Number 02/Pra.Pidana/2004 Pengadilan Negeri Malang where have been sentenced by singel judge on Pre-judicature distric court of Malang abaut arest action office of a public prosecutor of Malang , that has been submited by vinno thomson via her attorney Jhonny Hehakaya,SH. By that verdict the judge of pre-judicature has been denied appeal Vinno Thomson pre-judicature. Based on statement from (JPPM) Jaringan Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia of Malang in statement have been explain that diviorgence of law onverdict. So by that verdict the petitioner has been felt suffer of finansial loses. From that stetement writer is atracted to researt that problem what are the basic and reason that have been done by pre-judicature appeal, what are the basic of the law consideration for the judge have danied that appeal and analize abaut pre-judicature verdict. The purpose of this researt is re study of verdict where has been sentenced by judge pre-judicature distric court of malang. By this case are try find thruth of law fact that have proved on pre-judicature inspektion assemble proces. The researt methodology is used in this study is discriptive analysis methode. So this study the writer discribe totality of the law fact and wiil be analized critical and deeply. By this research the writer get the result that verdict juridist can be adjusted,because this case undertanable that arrest step office of a public prosecutor is argritariness of law, an this arrest step did’nt out of argritrariness line’s office of ao a public prosecutor of kepanjen because the witness was stayed in Malang, so that Vinno Thomson was arrestted. So by explanation above can conclude vinno thomson’s accusation pre-judicature’s accusation of patition has been danied bacause of the petitioner can not prove that have been done office of a public prosecutor of Malang was unlawful for that judge of pre-judicature distric of malang have been danied that petition. The dicision has been given by judge of pre-judicature and according with formil privat law. According to juridic that dicision has been concreted and can hold responsibied according to law

Item Type: Thesis (Other)
Subjects: K Law > K Law (General)
Divisions: Faculty of Law > Department of Law
Depositing User: Rayi Tegar Pamungkas
Date Deposited: 14 Jul 2012 02:23
Last Modified: 14 Jul 2012 02:23
URI: http://eprints.umm.ac.id/id/eprint/12037

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item