MANZOOR AHMAD versus THE STATE
Zina's Commission on the Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Section 10 (2) and 16 of the evidence by any witness of the prosecution with a statement abducted by the abductor (accused free of the accused) under section 342 Didn't say anything about. , CCP could not be used against the accused because he did not make this statement on the oath, nor did the accused have the opportunity to examine his statement, otherwise, the accused under section 10 (2) Was convicted. The Implementation of Adultery (Enforced Jewish) Ordinance, 1979, resulted in the setting aside of the abduction statement regarding her abduction, however, the prosecution's other witnesses testified that she was somehow hostile to the accused. No, under Section 16, the conviction of the accused was therefore not guaranteed and no interference in the said ordinance was made, but the sentence was substantially reduced in view of the facts and circumstances. Problem
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
property advocates from Abbaspur lawyer
