Find a Lawyer

ZAHID IQBAL versus STATE

Sections 21 (2) (A) and 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), 5 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3), review of the evidence before the accused in a statement under Section 342, CCP. Specific details in the FAQ. The recovery of the infected and defective pesticides was observed by the Deputy District Officer (Agriculture Extension) and a senior officer of the complaining company could not identify any hostility or illicit desire by the witnesses to recover the accused. They may be liars. The trial court convicted the accused under section 21 (2) (a) and 23A of the Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance, 1971, and the appellate court dismissed the sentence under section 21 (2) (a). Whereas, under section 23A, the Agriculture Pesticide Ordinance, 1971 1971, was maintained, it had questions under the 3434 CR PC for particulars of pesticides. 0 accused who were sufficient to state the allegations leveled against them and the evidence presented by the prosecution did not show any bias. In their own defense, the reason for this was that the High Court reviewed all aspects of the case, as well as the continuing consequences of the crimes against the accused by three courts, including the Supreme Court. Of Haji Mohammad Rafi Siddiqui, the counsel for the petitioner for growth, denied knowing Ghulam Nabi Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji Mohammad Rafi Siddiqui, finding out why the accused was found guilty or convicted. Was done. best law firms from Head Marala lawyer