Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TARIQ versus THE STATE

Section 265 & 517 Crimes (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI 1979) of Criminal Code against Property (CRPC), Section 20 allegedly involved in police investigating the export of money from robber accused Received some money from the accused. The accused was acquitted at the end of the trial in the robbery, but the trial court ordered that the money recovered should be deposited in the public exchequer within a specified period. Those who, after his success, applied for a refund of the allegedly recovered amounts, never claimed that amount during the proceedings, even in the petition filed under section 265, C.R. The accused did not even mention that the money was illegally recovered by the police or they belonged to the accused before the trial court passed the order to be deposited in the state treasury. There was ample opportunity to file their claim on the money, but the trial court did nothing by them, in which case the trial court did Yash accused the request was rightly rejected. Under Section 517, CR PCs will be required to provide them a refund famous high court advocate from Matli lawyer