MUHAMMAD SHER versus STATE
Prohibition (Enforcement Head) Order 1979 Arts 3, 4, 14 and 15 Applicant / truck owner's employees were charged under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement Head) Order 1979 And accordingly they were punished. The trial court also ruled on the truck, convicting the applicant's accused / employees, who also seized the state applicant who said that the truck was not involved in the execution of its employees. An application for superdriver has been filed because the owner of the truck was not found to be involved in the crime of his employees / accused, it would not be in the interest of justice to confiscate the truck, though his employees / suspects It was used without the permission of the commission of the crime. Did he know of the commission of the crime order when the seized truck was set aside and ordered to be released and handed over to the applicant?
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
online advocate from Kotli Loharan lawyer
