Find a Lawyer

GUL SUBHAN versus THE STATE

Article 15 (1) Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), Sections 417, 435 and 516 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 203F The possession of the vehicle was based on the confiscation of the Luxe Standby on the basis of 197 open transfer letters. The trial court acquitted the accused in the recovered case because the prosecution could not prove that they were the driver and driver of the truck truck as they were ordered to be detained under Article 15 (1). Prohibited (Enforcement of Head) Order, 1979, because it involved drug trafficking that was recovered from the truck's secret caves Appellant claimed to be the owner of the truck on the basis of a sale agreement under which he Only paid Rs. Out of the total consideration of Rs.1,00,000, the truck was not transferred in the name of the appellant and the application was made under section 417/435/516A, CRPC said Was sacked by Federal Shaw for possession. The appellant had raised the question by the Wright Court Plaintiff that he was an excessive owner of a truck that was operating legally. Was supposed to seize the property involved in the transport. In spite of the accusation of the accused person, the appellant was unable to file an appeal because he was neither a good buyer nor legally in possession of the truck nor did he have the right to file an existing case. There was a Lux Standby, which was approved by the trial court. For valid and valid reasons and according to the law, there was no misunderstanding or reading of material evidence, nor the theft of facts. law firms from Okara lawyer