Find a Lawyer

MUSHTAQ KHAN versus THE STATE

Sections 156 (1), (8), (79), (81), (82), (89), (92), 165, 178 and 2 (s) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CR PC) Code of Conduct (V) 1898), Sections 103, 161, 162 and 164 Legal Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 38 The delay in the recording of the FIR was fully explained by the delay of seventeen hours in the recording of the FIR. The prosecution's case was bad, in the circumstances the recovery of the seized goods / artifacts was not poor as it was rare in the process of recovering any non-participation of the public that any public witness voluntarily proceeded with such recovery. Will be associated with the FIR shows who Tim authorities had previously reported that goods / artifacts would be exported via a special flight. This was just information that was prepared after the fake airway bills were prepared to deceive the occupation agency on the way to the airport, mentioning the flight number was irrelevant. Minor irregu Detection of statements of some prosecution witnesses can be ignored and the prosecution's case cannot be considered deliberate; confessional statements of the accused before the customs authorities could not be reached under Article 38 of the Conan Shaheed, 1984. ? The statements under Section 161, CR PCs cannot be stated and are not required to be signed by the manufacturer under Sec 162; the statements of the PCs were, in fact, given under 165 of the Customs Act 1969 And the accuracy of the signatures that were signed by the customs authorities and the fact that there was sufficient documentation and molecular evidence to link the accused to the crime was, therefore, truly true. ? when you need a advocate from Mari Indus lawyer