QASIM versus RAHIM SHAH
Prohibited Order 1979 Article Article 4 Testimony of the evidence was disclosed during the interrogation in another case and the recovery was not affected in the premises of the police station, nor was there any opportunity or call for anyone. Even witnessing the recovery from outside the police station required otherwise it could not be considered unreasonable for the accused to be the accomplice of the accused who sent the parcel to the Chemical Examiner's office for 14 days. Delay was specified. Therefore, he also testified that as long as the parcel remained with him, no one had tampered with them. The Head Head Constable was not serving under Complainant Section H: There was no external interest in the matter. Could not have occurred and the conviction was upheld.
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
tax advocates from Kazi Ahmed lawyer
