Find a Lawyer

HAJI HAQ NAWAZ KHARA versus STATE

Section 561 The Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Section 11 Procedure Code (XLV of 1860), Section 380 FIR applicants / defendants themselves have stated that the Investigation Officer, nevertheless. Despite the opinion that the seven accused were innocent. And after they were put in column number 2, the challan was filed against them in the trial court, so the trial court is competent to ask the accused if there is material on record that the guaranteed applicant had his own case. The trial court had summoned and said that the only complaint I faced in this case was that the trial court had found the trial court's ability to summon the accused without any reason, There was no dispute and when he summoned the accused, he said that the order could not be dismissed simply because of the case. The trial was not in court. The recorded reason for the defendants being summoned for this; since it can be safely assumed that the trial court had expressed its authority after the release of the material available on its record and any further matter was dismissed. The justification for giving was not emphasized; the application for cancellation was dismissed because of lack of power. \ r \ n top advocate from FR Tank / DI Khan lawyer