Find a Lawyer

THE STATE versus NISAR AHMED KHORO

Sections 12 and 17 of the Accountability Act 1997, evidence of law (10 of 1984), Arts 74 and 76 Secondary Proof Adjustability Construction of a building in violation of the mandatory approval plan The building control authority authorized the owners to construct such building Prevents the owner from submitting two letters from the concerned ministers to the authorities, asking them not to control the owner in the construction of the building, and his approval will be given thereafter, Violation of the building was completed, two ministers were challaned and their case was destroyed. Five were sent. The letters intended to be sent by the Ministers were not detected; the prosecution did not have any difficulty in meeting the requirements of Art 74 and 76, Law Testimony, 1984, on presenting the secondary evidence, no evidence of the prosecution. Did not claim that they did not see the original letters nor would photocopies of such letters be available as secondary evidence nor do such letters appear in the relevant article, the law, the testimony, 1984 1984 The category described in Article in Article II should be constituted for the purpose of the approval of the evidence while Article, 74, sets forth the law as determining 1984 evidence. Whether any particular evidence qualifies as secondary evidence or not. No evidence was presented by the prosecution in denying that such letters were intended to be received, to prove that the relevant person had received the letters in fact unless the actual loss was expressly stated. The evidence could not be found, the secondary evidence could not be led to all the evidence regarding such letters. time best law firm from Kotla Pathan lawyer