Sections 497 (2) of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Sections 395 and 412 of the Duty, the Duty Bell Commission on the fraudulently receiving stolen property, the further investigation granting the complainant the identity of the complainant in connection with the parade do not have. The container was looted which contained the articles related to the complainant, the accused was not named in the FIR and was involved in the case through the complainant's supplemental statement, which was made about three weeks after the incident. , In which no specific source of information was mentioned. They were informed by the drivers about the alleged incident but the FIR did not provide any details of the suspect and was not put in the identification parade for examination that the suspect was allegedly identified at the police station. But since the complainant did not own it. At the time of the incident, the accused witnessed the question, how did he identify the SC? The statements of the drivers of the complaint filed at the police station were not available on the record that they had identified the accused as the container case is one of the further investigations of the robber, the accused was admitted on bail under the circumstances. r \ n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
