Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO.86/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 20TH APRIL, 2005. versus APPEAL NO.86/LB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 20TH APRIL, 2005.

Sections 2 (s), 156 (1), 168, 169, 171 and 180 Section RA No. 374 (I) / 2002 dated 15 6 2002 by Franz Science Laboratory at the request of its owner after seizing and seizing the vehicle. I am shown the chassis number in which the vehicle manufacturer will be punctured manually. At the request of the prosecution, it was stated that its chassis number was not in accordance with the standard of punching and its font and format. The format did not conform to the company's model and ordering the vehicle to be seized on such evidence without a letter code would not be sufficient to convince such evidence that the vehicle was a smuggler. Was done According to the company's report, the vehicle unit imported into the CCD kit was imported from Japan and stored locally. Prosecutors did not contend that the prosecution had failed to establish that the vehicle was made foreign and brought to the country without payment of duties and taxes. Put the eal and real order aside while ordering the car's owner to deliver. \ r \ n famous high court advocate from Karachi lawyer