Find a Lawyer

JAVID versus THE STATE

The offense of adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979, section 11 and 18/10 (4) / 7, evidence was neither valid in the FIR nor in the statements of the prosecution witnesses in the case, the accused was convicted under section 10. () The Imposition of Adultery (Enforcement Hodg) Ordinance, 1979, was declared unlawful by the trial court and the culprit of the accused under section 10 (4) of the said ordinance was also declared a consequence and thereafter In the test, the kidnapper had declared him wrong. There is no case of attempted murder by the accused to open the Shalwar wire, in which case, the accused was also acquitted of the accused under Section 18 of the Ordinance, his statement regarding the abduction of the accused was also given by the prosecution. It is endorsed by the witness who under the Enforcement Ordinance 1979 of the crime did not have any enmity with the perpetrators of the accused, the circumstances of 1979 were maintained, but thereby they were The trial court sentenced law firms from Hub Inds Estate lawyer