M. KHURSHID versus STATE
Section 13D of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 praised the prosecution for failing to obtain independent witnesses near the location of the police raid, which could have been readily available, allegedly not recovered from the accused. The police registered a seal in the presence of a recovery witness who could not even identify the fact that the accused had an illegal weapon in connection with suspicion of section 8 of the Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. Which could not be appealed against. Prosecution 5999/2 under2, recording of evidence by the trial court in the main case under PPC and not under the Arms Ordinance, ? 65 65 under, was a serious misconduct that resulted in the defendants being discriminated against. Was, he was acquitted under the circumstances.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
top advocates from Sibi lawyer
