Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHABIR versus MUHAMMAD MUNIR

The evidence against the accused against sections 2 and 5 of the 7th Explosives Act (VII 1908) of the Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, was that Pattakhas was acquitted by the accused. Who was in possession of crackers. Under section 5 of the Explosives Act, 1908, the case of the accused should be brought to the fore till the prosecution has proved that the Pattakhas were not in the possession of the accused for a legal thing. It was unsuccessful that the accused had to use the leash. Or was used to assist in the explosion or in connection with the explosion, and in this case the accused was arrested, leading to reasonable suspicion that the accused had committed such crime. Failure to produce a certificate or report confirming the weapon. The meaning of section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, for the explosive substance, although the P prosecution gave ample time to present the report to show the non-production of the report by the prosecution. Patakas were explosive substances in the possession of the suspects, the prosecution's case was fatal and the prosecution would be prosecuted under the lawsuit and the accused would be prosecuted. Was set aside by the trial court for being unlawful in the circumstances immigration advocates email from Murree lawyer