Find a Lawyer

THE STATE versus AHMED ZAMAN KHAN

Articles 6 and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 (VII of 1908), Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition Code (XLV of 1860), section 324 alleged telephone calls the accused admitted in his statement before appearing. Was Section 342, ccid telephone call was received to the accused's original niece from whom he was not a stranger and was mistreated by the accused. His voice may also identify the accused, who is not the only source of identification. But there was evidence that the suspect was identified in the light of the electric bulb mounted in the house of the complainant, and that no improvement was made or that the complainant had received an FIR incident. A detailed statement is required. The injured witness, who was free, testified that he saw the suspect throwing hand grenades from the roof of the house, resulting in injuries to the police. The cooler account was assisted with the recovery of hand grenades, a fuse and a washer from the scene, with a positive result from the bomb disposal specialist and the Franzic Science Laboratory, which received blood from the complainant's home. An appeal was filed against the accused for false conduct, so its appeal to the extent of Section 3 was not pressed by the Deputy Advocate General on the Explosive Substances Act, as required by the Government High Court. The permit was granted by a trial to be granted. The court sentenced and punished them under section (b), the Anti-Terrorism Act, as well as the compensation of the injured prosecution witness. solicitors from Phool nagar lawyer