MUHAMMAD HANIF versus THE STATE
Sections 29 and 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), the Section 103 raid, were reported to the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (Complainant) as he was patrolling, and it was not possible for him Time out The customary statement of costs at the conclusion of the accused in violation of section 103 was wrong in the light of Section 29 of the Ordinance Provision of CCPR Section 103, in light of Section 29 of the Ordinance 1997 of Narcotic Material to CRPC. Was deleted The public's reluctance to be a witness to such cases was a judicially recognized fact and there was no option but to consider the statement of a public witness as no legal restriction was imposed in this case because the police The officer was and is a good witness. Depending on if his testimony was in vain during multiple investigations
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
top advocates from Pindi bhohri lawyer
