MULLAH YOUNAS versus THE STATE
The West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 Section 13E The suspect was arrested in a remote area of appreciation, as no such independent person was available to witness the recovery, the prosecution's witnesses told the accused in this case. There was no motive or motive for being involved illegally. The head of the patrolling party had filed an FIR and confirmed the prosecution's second witness on each material substance, and their statements were further corroborated by the preparation of the recovered weapons and ammunition in court. Evidence of natural and direct prosecution taken by the accused was not affirmed by his statement under Section 2, Cr, not examining his investigating officer after the trial, which was a very material witness. , It did not matter because it did not cause any prejudice to punish or punish the accused. The suspects were kept in critical condition
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
famous lower court advocate from Chiniot lawyer
