Find a Lawyer

SALEEM IMPEX versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE

Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Section 497 Sentencing Code (XLV of 1860), Section 302/324/148/149 bail, the grant of bail was sought by the defendant due to the delay in the end of his trial. About two-and-a-half years after his arrest, no witnesses were examined against him and he was not responsible for the delay, the prosecution strongly argued that the defendant's legal basis for the delay Not eligible to enter The end of his trial was because the accused was a harsh and hopeless offender because two criminal cases had already been registered against him. The prosecution did not dispute that not a single witness statement was recorded in more than two years. Was done and it was not too controversial. Not one of the co-accused was arrested and convicted and his case was not separated from the rest of the accused to enable the trial court to proceed with the trial. In those cases, further delays could be made to the accused, who in the two other cases listed against him, the allegations against the accused were of a general nature, and the trial was not conducted in these cases nor in fact or in his case. Still, the allegations against the accused still remain. The return of such pending and unresolved cases made it difficult for the accused to be convicted of a felony, frustrated or dangerous so that Section 497 refused to take advantage of the third provision, allowing the PC accused to bail. famous high court advocate from FR Bannu lawyer