Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD JAVED versus STATE

Article 132 and 133 of the Contempt of the Constitution (XLV of 1860), Sections 302 and 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), the section 42 witness cross-examination was a legal, legitimate and equal right under the law and cannot do so No party arbitrarily and inadvertently denied the litigation, no doubt they had made four consultations with the local bar, but none of them appeared to date when the relevant The doctor's chief was called for a hearing and an inquiry. The trial court had much objections to the advocates' conduct. Appellant was, in cases, justified in requesting a postponement so that he could engage with another lawyer. Appellant cannot be held guilty as he engaged four lawyers from the local bar and none of them appeared. Claimed by the appellant for the purpose of cross-examination on their behalf to defend them, was not unfair bt a good thing, but it should not be fair and merely at the cost of trial; Some of the other witnesses were yet to appear for prosecution, approved by the trial court and administered by the Shariah court, illegal and unlawful and by the rule of law. Accepting the appeal of the justice, the orders passed by the trial court and the Shariah court, the Supreme Court set aside. us immigration advocates from Wana lawyer