Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF versus THE STATE

Article 8 378/666/2452/222/111111 / Anti34 Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6 and 7 (c) The accused against the evidence corroborating the evidence was to enter the house of the complainant armed with daggers The complainant's house has been alleged that under the circumstances, it was a case of robbery by the commission committing a domestic crime under the relevant section of the PPC and not a section (1). ) A case or any other clause of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Section 6 (2) (c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 of 1997 states that serious damage is done to property. Damage to property was a separate act of brutally / forcibly seizing property from the owner / owner. Damage to property), property was damaged, whether movable or immovable, partially or completely, without seizing the property, while in the latter case (dishonestly / forcibly damaging the property) After being taken out of the position (Owner's Meeting), Section 787878, the definition of theft property property in PPC, was dishonestly seizing their property without damaging anyone's property. I will not fall under the provisions of section (1) (c). The jurisdiction of the special court established under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. In order to bring it in, it would be necessary to reduce any offense in any of the provisions of (a) to (n) Section 2) or (3) Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and to counter it. Must satisfy any of the conditions set forth in section (b) or (c) of section 6 of the Terrorism Act 1997. Terrorism is just that top advocates from Goular Khel lawyer