Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NIAZ KHAN versus STATE

Section 14 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hoods) Act 1985, along with a complaint of the presence of testimony that his salary bag was also going with the accused in the same vehicle. When the vehicle stopped, he grabbed the complainant's bag and fled. At the complainant's voice and crying, a passerby grabbed the accused and recovered the bag from him, the accused had requested that he complain of the complainant through ignorance. Snatched the bag or was accidentally caught. His own bag was in the same vehicle as the accused's player was not proud because if he had accidentally or accidentally snatched the complainant's currency bag, it would have been of no use immediately after taking the currency bag. Only then will he run away from the incident and the complainant's place. And others will chase after the suspect was caught by someone along with a bag for crying and crying. He did not convince the public that he had taken the complainant's bag through ignorance and had not stolen the same, which, based on the evidence of the witnesses, led to legal proceedings against the accused, who was a passenger in the same vehicle. There was a case against the accused. Beyond any reasonable doubt that the witnesses were natural and independent witnesses, there was no enmity or grudge against the accused so that he could be involved in a fraudulent case. Eyewitnesses have been cross-examined for a long time, but their evidence did not yield anything positive. For the accused, under the circumstances, he was properly sentenced and sentenced divorce advocates from Chiniot lawyer