FIDA HUSSAIN versus STATE
Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Sections 17 (3) and 14 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 392 Evidence Evidence The prosecution's witnesses were not subjected to a test of purification, which was a prerequisite for proof ? The head investigating officer responsible for the theft, who was also the author of the FIR, was stopped by the prosecution, according to Hadith of Hadhrat Akram A, the culprit could not be charged in the presence of minor suspicion in the prosecution case. And the defendants were convicted by the trial court under section 17 (3) of the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance, 1979, however, in these cases the complainant was permanently dismissed. The other prosecution's witnesses were charged. Under section 392, the PPC read with Section 14 of the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 and has already been sentenced to imprisonment. Done properly
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
top advocate from Jatoi lawyer
