EVON DILBAR versus INNOCENT DILBAR FEROZE
The prosecution did not present its evidence to abolish Section 561A Penal Code (XLV of 1860), section 182, although many dates were given for that purpose and the magistrate adjourned the case to section 249A, C.R. Heard of the petition moved by the accused under PC. The court did not make a decision for a full year and it still withdrew the bail order passed in favor of the accused without notice to the trial court when it did not appear in court in only one date. She had forgotten her job. And the delay which caused her to become a magistrate put the prosecutor in a beneficial position and, despite the negligence of the accused, her suspension under Section 249A, CR PC Was gone
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 Pirpai lawyer
