Find a Lawyer

KHAN AFSAR versus STATE

Section 498 Contempt Code (XLV of 1860), Section 407, 489 F & 506 pre-arrest guarantee, the grant of the parcel hearing under the hearing was not handed over to the accused, but he was handed over the parcel to the booking clerk of the courier company. The accused was not said to be the proprietor or proprietor of the courier company; there was absolutely no evidence on record of any kind of inquiry regarding theft of the parcel by the accused or theft of the Parliament. The provisions of section 407, PPC for the case. The local police allegedly issued three checks to the accused under rigor and repression, but before the disclosure of the checks, the accused had written to the bank requesting that the payment be stopped on the basis of such scrutiny. ? While the job was not checked in section 489F, the PPC clearly stated that it was committed when someone had dishonestly issued a check to PM. NT loan or fulfillment of obligation accused Definitely stated check was not issued by any of the accused for payment of any loan nor was the accused liable in this regard as the complainant and concerned Courier server based on the terms and conditions of the agreement between the courier. The Company was under any obligation and obligation to pay or compensate the Customer in the event of any loss or theft of any parcel filed with such courier company, while the employee of the relevant courier company is As a result, the complainant had no personal responsibility or liability. In this regard, it cannot be said that the check issued by them towards the fulfillment of any obligation by him was issued by section 506, pp. criminal advocate from Ghotki lawyer