Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ versus THE STATE

The defendants admitted that they were preventing the proceedings before the Accountability Court of Sections 9 and 10 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance 1999 (XLV of 1860), Section 107 of the Criminal Code (V9 1898), Section 561A & 265K. There was no chance. The conviction was pronounced for any offense because none of the 16 witnesses of the prosecution had been acquitted except the accompanying accused, which was unanimously approved, by the trial court under section 265 by the accused. Having dismissed the requests made, the CRPC's accuracy prosecution could not show that the witness / partner's testimony after the dismissal, on record by the accused and any other evidence, was available only on the occasion of the prosecution. The evidence available with was only approved / mate, who was also pardoned before recording his alleged confession. The confession was an excuse in nature, therefore, the prosecutor had no choice but to state that he would not rely on the statement of approval / his accomplice, as a result, there was no evidence left to the accused. That he was involved in a crime by the accused, who died, in the absence of any evidence of instability, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the accused, even one of the accused. Harassing and abusing the judicial process best law firms from Mandra lawyer