Find a Lawyer

THE STATE versus AZEEM SHAKIR ALIAS TARA

Sections 7 (iii), 6 (d), Schedules, Items (1), (4) and 25 (4) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XLV of the Criminal Procedure Code), Section 386/324/353/34 Code of Criminal Procedure (V) 1898), the appeal against evil eye witnesses, including the section 417 (1) complainant, fully supported the prosecution's case in connection with the accusation against the accused, as in the FIR Has been revealed. In the cross examination, the notorious accused confessed to his presence at the scene of the incident and the police took a different position to recover his injuries, which was falsified by the material available on the record. The court also relied on witnesses' statements to place the kiln in charge, but wrongly concluded that the attempt to charge the kiln was in accordance with section 6 (d) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Was not included under, as stated in section 6 (d) of the said Act, the offense of charging a kiln may be punished under section 7 (II). The dog And the APP's use of these clauses together with Item Nos. (1) and (4) shows that the crime schedules contained in the above act indicate that the attempt to charge Bhutta was a scheduled offense that the Anti-Terrorism Court had charged. Was imposed as a result of Section 7 (conviction). iii) Trying to accuse Bhutta and passing a three year RI with a ton of Rs 20,000 and taking advantage of Section 382B CR PC and hearing the trial under this trial Was sentenced. However, the PPC was retained in order to obtain the accused under section 638 / 444/3 353 / under 34, as the case was adjourned by the trial court top advocate from Phalia lawyer