Find a Lawyer

KH. WAQAR AHMAD versus THE STATE

Banking court complained that Section 497 of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), section 342/506/453/448/147/148, which was denied as a lawyer, was the recipient of the complainant who seized the recipient at the factory of the accused. Had taken Following the orders of the banking court and locking the outer gate of the factory and locking guards with which the suspects entered the factory as they were armed with a hammer, broke the locks and took away the same luggage. There was no crime committed inside the house. As the accused and his accomplices did not take any measures to conceal their crime, but their act, under section 452, attracted the PPC, who was sentenced to 7 years in prison. The RI suspect and his accomplice were armed with a hammer; they also received security threats to the detained guards and threatened them with serious consequences which would cause them harm and injury, and thus, the Crimes Section 506 of the accused. Part (2) falls under the PPC jurisdiction which was non-guaranteed online advocate from Village Sunder lawyer