Find a Lawyer

THE STATE versus AZAM MALIK

Section 185F & 185G Criminal Code (v. 1898), Central Law Officers Ordinance of Section 265 (VII of 1970), Section 4A Rules of Business (1973), R14 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 against Britain. Appealing questions, in the present case, the question arises whether this expression was confined to a private person who was found guilty or convicted, or to any person, private person, corporate person or authority. Individuals on whom the order passed were inconsistent with the Customs Act, 1969; whether the appeal filed by the Collector through an Advocate for the qualification under section 158F Customs Act, 1969 It was filed or was affected by 5 185G (2) of the Customs Act 1969, and was not prosecuted. No material / evidence sufficient for litigation or 5: 265K of the accused, no possibility of committing any crime under CRPC, by legislative law to approve the death sentence of the accused. The officers do not intend to ban representation, unless the competent authority in the Federal Government decides that the relevant registrar of entry bills was charged with serious tampering / overwriting / cutting. Were investigated at the departmental level. They were proven to be valid, there was documentary, oral and circumstantial evidence to substantiate the allegations, despite the content of which the trial court could not have requested. ection265 K, CR PC and the Special Appellate Court of Customs (Customs) were acquitted of the charges of going through the material and evidence filed during the trial; attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Mangal Sada lawyer