Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus THE STATE

West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 Section 13 The accused commending the evidence was convicted and sentenced to 222 rifles recovered from his possession whose accused could not furnish the correct license at the time and place of the alleged rifle recovery. There was a clear contradiction with regard to. Police officers who were witnesses in the case reported that the recovery took place at 3:45 pm, while another police officer said it was alleged, however, that the sun was setting in the recovery. When the sun goes down in the month of month. A police officer said the location of the rifle retrieval was on the west side of the police post where the confidential information was received, while the other police officer, according to the information received by the police party, was on the west side of the recovery. This meant that according to the first police officer, when the police were confidential, the police party received information on the east side of the recovery site, whereas according to the second police officer, the police party was on the west side of the recovery when the intelligence was received. So such obvious contradictions invalidate the litigation case, which cannot be taken lightly and routinely, but especially when the litigation case is effective. It was a case of a single case of illegal arms retrieval The trial court did not succeed in settling the dispute in the true context, and the prosecutor failed to establish a case against the accused, especially since all witnesses were police officers and in the public affairs I was not involved in any of the cases. No attempt was made to combine such witnesses, nor any such witness. patent advocate from Makran lawyer