Find a Lawyer

THE STATE versus FAISAL MUSHTAQ

Within 15 minutes of filing an appeal against the Pakistan Penal Code Section 392 Anti Terrorism Act (XXXVII of 1997), sections 7 and 25 (4) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13D motorcycle snatching. Was listed. The police station confessed that the complainant had apprehended the accused correctly in the identity parade preceding the robbery of the magistrate and that the unlicensed pistol suspect had been secured, within a few hours of the incident. There were civilians running around. Due to the shootings between the accused and the police, therefore, the two police constables signed a recovery memo that was not known in the prosecution case; the witness had no enmity or motive to engage the accused in this case. While the police were trying to arrest the accused who was running away with a stolen motorcycle, the suspects fired at the police to prevent them from performing their official duties. The action taken under the definition of Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was dismissed by the accused and the evidence was proved false, the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the accused was acquitted and sentenced under section 392. , PPC, Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and Section 13D of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced to seven years on each count - all penalties with fines on each count on the first two counts. It was directed to run alongside the benefits of Section 382. B, CRPC power of attorney advocate Kahuta lawyer