Find a Lawyer

ARIF KHAN versus THE STATE

West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 Section 13D Criminal Code (V9 1898), 5 103 Evidence was appreciated as it was alleged in the FIR that the complainant as well as other police officers used a private vehicle (daily diary registration). With the relevant police station. During the patrol and on patrol, they found the suspect suspicious and recovered the alleged weapons from his possession. The prosecutor did not prepare a copy of the daily diary to prove that the complainant was headed on the date of the incident. The police party actually went to the police station for patrol. The weapon allegedly recovered from the suspect was inconsistent, which not only allegedly recovered, as has been proven, but as a whole case the allegedly recovered weapons from the suspects were not sent to the Ballistic Express. To prove that it was automatic or semi-automatic to bring a prosecution. The default crime FIR and the arrest and recovery counsel's case did not matter, indicating that contradictory evidence regarding the seizure of the alleged weapons was sealed on the spot, thus suspecting the alleged recovery. Was made, both the prosecution witnesses were police officers who, in their evidence, confessed that the place where the accused was arrested was a densely populated area. And there were a few shops on the spot, but the prosecution's evidence did not show that the police had tried to arrange for private advisers, accused of retrieving the weapons from the suspects, in these circumstances the suspect was suspected. The trial was not without doubt, it was acquitted. case hearing jobs for fresh advocates from Jhal Magsi lawyer