Find a Lawyer

SHAHZAD ABID versus THE STATE

Sections 540/435/439 The Conduct Code (XLV of 1860), the authority to complain to Sections 403 and 406 Material Witness, who at the time was acting as Chief Manager of the concerned bank, was accused of embezzlement. / FIR filed against applicant. And the illegal use of huge amounts of bank direct complainant was followed by fraud / misuse of the bank's money itself and due to the complainant's inadequacy, the prosecutor was able to inspect the witness in place of the complainant. The request for permission was transferred and the trial court granted the said permit, against which the defendant / applicant filed a review request, the applicant could not indicate that the applicant was correct. After the trial of the trial, what was the reason for the prejudice with which the court actually filed the complaint? The place was allowed to examine the witness. Applicant / accused in his personal capacity case, but on the discharge of his official dot which was his successor in his office at the bank, he had to perform the same duties in such cases. Those were then put on a chair by law by his predecessor only because the original complainant was not available for some reason. The applicant / accused cannot be allowed to take advantage of the absence of the complainant / witness, which allows the trial court to fully monitor such situation and examine all necessary witnesses. Was instructed. After committing any crime, he was punished according to law and technically best law firms from Mirpur Khas lawyer