Find a Lawyer

ABDUL RAOOF versus THE STATE

Criminal Code of Conduct (CCPC) Section 540 Control of the Narcotic Substance Act (XXV of 1997), Section 9 (C) Convention Evidence (10 of 1984), Arts 132 and 133 for prosecution witnesses to be re-examined. After being summoned, the prosecution witnesses could not inspect their lawyer due to the absence of a lawyer after the investigation and since the trial of the accused may be up to a certain date, under the direction of the High Court, the trial court By his order terminated the right of the accused. The request to have the witnesses re-examined for crossing the witnesses dismissed. The validity of the accused's cross-examination was the most valuable right of the accused and was the only vehicle by which the truth or error of the witnesses could be determined if the prosecutor was a witness. If not cross-examined then the accused's case could be seriously prejudiced. The cross-examination was a special task that could only be made by a lawyer, although the trial was to end at a fixed date, but Such a direction was, in fact, only for the fast end of the trial, and in exceptional cases the interests of justice could not be extended at this time, nor was the court questioned. Determine the truth of the prosecution's witnesses, nor did the defendant examine the witnesses themselves. The High Court accepted the request and directed the trial court to re-call the prosecution's witnesses for cross-examination. divorce advocates from Khewra lawyer