Find a Lawyer

SARDAR versus STATE

Kalashnikov's jurisdiction to recover an accused during interrogation of the Pakistan Penal Code Sections 396 and 149 of the Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975), Section 4 Special Court, none of the accused has any such weapon. As stated in the schedule. (a) (iii) In suppressing the Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, the prosecutor's witness at the time of the incident stated that all the accused were armed with weapons not mentioned in the Scheduled Special Court without any decision of the petition. was done. The jury sentenced the accused. With Kalashnikov's recovery from one of the defendants, he could be liable for litigation under the appropriate provisions of the law, but he did not cancel a permanent version of the prosecution's testimony, which the special court did not properly consider suppressing. ? The Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, and the Schedule and the Issue were mistaken. The convictions and punishments sentenced to the accused were set aside and the court of common jurisdiction with the consent of the parties. Received remand for a fresh trial. law firms from Dandot lawyer