Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AFRIDI versus THE STATE

Sections 156 (1) / 89, 157, 164, 167 and 178 of the Antiquities Control Act, 1975 (VII of 1976), Sections 26 and 27 of the Imports and Export Control Act (XXX of 1950), section 3 (1) of the Constitution The provisions of section 165 of the Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Application Customs Act, 1969 apply to the matter which states that for purposes of investigation of identifiable offenses under the provisions of the appropriate Customer Act, 1969 The officer in charge of the police station had a man in charge. Concerning the allegations filed by a competent officer (customs inspector), thus, someone in the authority had recorded statements like a police officer which were inadmissible in the evidence under the law and against them in violation of the law. Was used. Those who recorded the statements of the accused in their evidence in the case filed the statements under Section 161, CRPC Trial Court. Under Section 2342, the CCP provided the same details as the statements made, so the prosecutor cannot be allowed to deny the above facts or to exclude the legal consequences that may result. No statement was made. , But the statements of the co-accused were used against him which was not of any legal value and no other legal evidence was available against any other accused other than his own statement so that he could be convicted of the commission of the crime. And what statement he rejected and did not. Legally proven at trial; therefore his conviction was so illegal that the record had no legal evidence to prove that there was yet another accused. inheritance advocates near Kharian lawyer