Find a Lawyer

ZAHID HUSSAIN versus STATE

Section 295A, 353 and 34 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Section 13 (d) (E) Counter-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Section 7 (b) in connection with an assault in appreciation of evidence do not have. Or the use of criminal power to prevent the police from performing their duties was on record sufficient evidence that the accused had complied with police orders under Section 353, PPC, in which case the accused was guilty under Section 295 Proving it was illegal. The PPC was recorded on the sole statement of the complainant, who made the allegation based on the information of the detective, no evidence, whatever the case, was presented by the prosecution to prove the allegation. It was alleged that the accused tried to defame the religion or religious beliefs of a class / sect, even if the complainant's version was that the accused were using illegal weapons to sell the communal group in the same way, the truth of the gospel Accepted as, how can the sale of illicit arms to an unknown sectarian group be the equivalent of a fiery trust? The intimidation of a class citizen or an attempt to defame religion or religious beliefs is not merely a speculation that the accused will be punished under Section 13 (e) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. There was nothing. Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 was also illegal, as it was neither proven by the evidence on record nor was it a legal punishment for the accused under Section 353, and 295, PPC. And was under section 7 and section of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. 13 (E) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 immigration advocates contact from Sarai Alamgir lawyer