Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NADEEM versus STATE

Section 265, 439 and 235 of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Section 377 of the Xena (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Section 12 revised against the order of trial by the applicant / accused The application under which the applicant has filed. Under Section 6565K, the CCP denied for its verdict The trial of the accused / applicant was almost complete and the defense was given the opportunity to add evidence. It was recorded in the record that the prosecution had presented nine witnesses in support of his case and that the case was registered when the accused connected with the offenses listed in Section 7373, CRPC, under section 6565 While KK was on record at the time of submitting the application under the CRPC, the trial court did not dismiss and prosecute the law. He said that the plea was registered under Section 777777, PPC and the Enforcement of Adultery (Enforcement) Ordinance, 1979 and the accused had been lodged under Section 777777, as per the FIR, The PPC alleged that the affected report was submitted under section 737373, the CCP also disclosed the offense under section 12 of the Enforcement Hood Ordinance of Adultery, 1979 and even if at this stage But the evidence was not available, the court was authorized to hear and dismiss the case that the offense under section 12 (Enforcement Hood) ordinance 1979 was not proved by the evidence. Nor was opened after Commission Section 777777, PC, court / trial court had no jurisdiction to prosecute the offense, he was repulsed, Section 235, CR conditions divorce advocates from Fizagat lawyer