MUZAFFAR ALI versus STATE
The Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Sections 17 (3) and 7 (B) of the Contempt (XLV of 1860), before the testimony of section 394 evidence, the trial court granted the terms of purification Did not complete Under Section 7 (b) of the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979, it was mandatory that the accused be convicted of committing the act of harassment and consequently the relief sentence was set aside. ? Failure to testify, witnesses gave full details about the suspect and before giving statements in the case, they identified the suspect during the identification parade held at the jail under the supervision of magistrate ocular testimony. As was That which was unconstitutional was fully confirmed that upon the confirmation of the accused there was evidence of the recovery of the dacoit articles, which was done under section 394, PPC and in each case with a fine of seven years. Was sentenced
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
law firms from Ziarat lawyer
