AHMAD HAYAT versus MUHAMMAD SHER
The appeal against the breach of the charges against Section 417 of the Conventional Code (XLV of 1860, Rule 430/148/149) was that they damaged the irrigation channel that the complaining party used to irrigate their lands. What the trial court did was dismissed the indisputable evidence against him, which was full of contradictory evidence, on the record, suggesting that the natural water channel was damaged by the rains. It was not alleged that the channel was harmed by the accused, it was also not established on record that Bursti Nala was found to be a complainant. T was used as irrigation channels. He was proved right by the trial court, the trial court had acquitted them correctly
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
immigration advocates from Madinah lawyer
