MUHAMMAD AHMAD versus THE STATE
The Star's witnesses, including the Complaints Complaint of Section 5 (2) Criminal Procedure Code (XLV of 1860), section 34 of the Evidence Prevention Act, 1947, did not identify the same person who seized the police mobile recovery after the accused was acquitted. had been. The money from the accused was not linked to the incident. The main accused, according to the FIR, played a key role in harassing the complainant and never was arrested for negotiating for bribery, nor was the accused charged for bringing the book through the investigating agency. Was acquitted. The benefit of the doubt in 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
property advocate from Daulat Pur lawyer
