Find a Lawyer

WAHEED ULLAH HABIB versus STATE

The prosecution of section 561 adultery (Enforcement Hood) ordinance (VII of 1979), sections 13 and 14 of the Foreign Act (XXXI of 1946), section 14 FIR was the only charge against the accused to the extent that the raiding accused At the time of the semi-naked house inquiries were found, no one was accused that at the time the accused was either committing adultery or had any intention of doing so, It was not alleged that the accused were kissing or hugging or approaching each other. No money was recovered from the occupation of the woman who was alleged to have run a brothel, except for the allegations contained in the FIR, nor did any witnesses see the accused committing adultery. Nor did he see any attempt at it, he had no witnesses at the time of the raid. The area was linked to testimony that the undercover house was being used by prosecutors for prostitution, including statements from prosecution witnesses. Under section 161, CCPC, it was not possible to improve the case as per the disclosures in the FIR, nor on the basis of the allegations contained in the FIR, as well as the material submitted by the prosecution, An unrecognizable offense was proved, in which case the challan had not yet been presented. Despite the fact that the FIR was registered back in July, 2004, continuing the proceedings in the case would be merely a wasteful exercise, the FIR filed against the accused was canceled. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Chawinda lawyer