Find a Lawyer

ZULFIQAR AHMED versus THE STATE

Section 497 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 400/401/411/412/109 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI 1979), Section 17 (3) Guarantees, Grant of Defendants Although FIR The riots were blamed. However, in the case of the robber, it was unreasonable to mention the names of the accused in the FIR as it was not expected that at the time of the incident, the accused would disclose his name and identity and the identity of the subjects listed in the FIR was the complainant. Was told that they had no idea that the recovered articles had been stolen, they were repulsed, because the first reason was that the defendants were unable to tell how the recovered items were seized. Second, the opinion on the bail-out stage that the accused did not know that the property was stolen in the robberies would be akin to a deep appreciation of the evidence while the court seized it to investigate the bail case. The facts I have taken should only be temporarily reviewed. The identity parade was twice identified in relation to the accused, while conducting an identity test was not required by law, but it was a way to test the evidence of witnesses who had the opportunity to see the accused. Was. And claimed to have identified that the complainant immediately wrote articles related to the Station House Officer of the police, which were found in the FIR, and not only the identity of the accused. Was recovered, but was picked up in the identity test record, with no suspicion from the prosecution's witnesses with the suspects. famous high court advocate from Mehrab Pur lawyer