Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF PATHAN versus THE STATE

Section 561 A Penal Code of the Corruption Act, 1947 (XLV of 1860), Section 420/468/471/109 Corruption Prevention Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) Passport Act of 1974, LXX), Section 6 ( 1) (a)) (c) Termination of proceedings The name of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR nor was it assigned to the interim challan or sub-interim invoice nor any part in which the accused was a Was a respected man and served as general manager (store) in the PIA, but his arrest and humiliation by the police starter [visiting his house and detaining him badly]. The suspect apprehended the applause After approval was applied for bail before the reactor and eventually bail of the accused in the trial in the trial this guarantee was not necessary. Any competence, but the lie was ordered to appear in the trial court for no reason and the defendant appeared before the court alleging obedience to the court until the accused was granted bail. No need to attend. Inquiries and final reports, but may be directed to the inquiry. The order to direct the accused to appear in court for trial was not guaranteed by the law and he was responsible for the cancellation of Article 561A, CRPC, under which the powers granted to the High Court. High Court seeking exemption from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561A, CRPC, to ensure the pursuit of justice for real and concrete justice and to prevent abuse of the court process. The options were very wide. first time best advocate from Khanewal lawyer