Find a Lawyer

ANIS AHMAD versus STATE

Sections 265K, 561A, 439 and 435 of the Immigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Sections 17, 18 and 22 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking (LIX of 2002), Sections 3 and 4 under Section 265K, CR PC Delete the request. The applicant had questioned the order passed by the Special Judge under which the application for dismissal under section 265 of the CRPC was dismissed, the name of the applicant / accused being FIR I was listed as having a special role in facilitating crime, which is included in section 17 (2) (b) of the emigration. The Ordinance, 1979, the prosecution witnesses fully involved the accused in their statements under Section 161, CCPC, CRPC in their statements under Section 161, CCP completed the accused. But was later referred to in section 160, CRPC in his statements. Their statements were allegedly given under Section 161, CRPC, followed by the statements of the two witnesses of the prosecution under Section 164, CCP contradicting their earlier statements made under s. Action 161, the CRPC had dubious credibility, first because they were set aside and secondly, the witnesses took a completely different approach and gave no explanation as to why they had made Section 161, C.R. The PC under its first statements specifically named the accused / applicant as the trial was held. Has already begun, the credibility of the prosecution's star witnesses against the accused / applicants will be decided by the trial court, the need to get their statements through the special judicial magistrate will also show that the present M property advocates from Sehwan lawyer