Find a Lawyer

MUNIR AHMED versus STATE

Sections 302 and 109 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Crimes Against Section 7 (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Section 17 (3) Definition of Evidence 2 The prosecution had no material on record It should reflect this stage. While discharging his official duties, he sustained firearms, resulting in his death in a police uniform, while the facts of the case described in section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act came under the definition of terrorism. If so, the Anti-Terrorism Court had the power to prosecute. In 1997, much of the FIR's work revealed that the victim was killed when he was arrested along with one of the perpetrators, and the circumstances of the prosecution's case, clearly indicated. It was said that the perpetrators had no intention of killing the deceased or anyone else because only one policeman was killed. There was not enough room for trial by Anti-Terrorism Court, there was no jurisdiction to hear the case, there was no subsequent decision, the matter was remanded with the direction of the Anti-Terrorism Court. So that he too could be sent to a court session under whose jurisdiction to start a new trial. immigration advocates from Rajanpur lawyer