Find a Lawyer

BAACHAA ADVOCATE versus M. SARDAR KHAN

The Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Article 204 Timetable of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), a petition for the contempt of court proceedings against the Section 3 accused (Advocate General), was submitted by the respondents, discussing the writ petition. What. To withdraw the withdrawal as a sum of Rs. 30,000 as a reward / bribe to the applicant within the hearing of the judges of the Open Court and the Division Bench of the High Court and in the presence of lawyers and general prosecutors. In the writ petition, the defendant has been charged with contempt of court for offering money by the defendant. In the circumstances the contempt court does not fall into any category of court. , The proceedings / administration were interfered with, but the record of the writ petition does not support such an allegation because it contains Some is reflected and criminal bench did not care for him. The son that he did not have the tendency to diminish the authority of the court or to discredit the bench with regard to the delivery of justice, the intention of the respondents, also to see if the offer was made, with or in the presence of a man. Was done The mild mood, since the bench before which this incident occurred, did not observe nor notice anything in its decision to interfere or hinder or prejudice the law or judicial proceedings. , So it appears that this alleged offer was not made. The case of contempt of court with Mulayam Frauds for the contempt of court was primarily between the court and the plaintiff and not against each other. top civil advocates from FR Bannu lawyer