Find a Lawyer

HAJI SARDAR KHALID SALEEM versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF

Articles 185 (3) and 199 of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Articles 420, 468, 471 and 489F of the Criminal Code (V9 1898), Section 249A & 265K Constitutional Request to be presented to the High Court To dismiss the constitutional petition, the FIR was accepted by the High Court on the basis that a check inquiry was issued before the issuance of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance (LXXXV of 2002). The intra-court appeal also maintained section 489. Was excluded for mention of the FIR, there was no scope for termination of the FIR by the FPPC, the High Court while the Constitution under Article 199 of the Constitution Using ayrh option, fir trial of the indictment before the trial had been controversial alternative treatment without raising the objection. Even after the court or the trial court records the evidence at the time of the final settlement. The null procedure code, 1898 ie Section 265A or 249A, the PCP and the fact that the High Court did not accept the fact that the contents of the Constitution Petition and FIR were put in the jurisdiction would apply in the area of controversial question. Will bring the matter to the forefront. The fact that the High Court could not, with its constitutional jurisdiction, require that the trial and the evidence filed by the High Court on the part of the parties, was initially dismissed by the FIR. There was a law error in accepting a constitutional request. In the question which was issued, which was disgraced, sections 420, 468 and 471 were the constituent aspects of the PPC, attracted by the appeal for leave in appeal, and the exclusionary rule. how to become a advocate from Sialkot lawyer