Find a Lawyer

MUZAFFAR ALI versus STATE

Sections 439 and 561A Panel Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 167, 220, 342, 148 and 149 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hoodoo) Ordinance, (VI 1979), Section 17 (3) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (1965) XX)), section 13 (d) in the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), the inherent powers of section 7 of the High Court scope review petition challenging the legal status of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, under which the magistrate Refused to accept the report submitted by the police to deal with the matter. The petitioner also prayed seriously against the B class and the accused / applicant to stop the action against him. As a result, after the FIR was registered against the applicant / accused, the police investigating agency formed the opinion that the case against the applicant was false and a report is submitted. The Judicial Magistrate, but the Judicial Magistrate disagreed with the police report to settle the case in the B-Class, and, taking the petitioner seriously, the state's counsel admitted that the evidence submitted during the probe against the applicant was his. The convictions were insufficient to warrant the conviction but the objection was raised on the plea, stating that the applicant should first obtain recourse under Section 265 K, CR PC under the first trial as the High Court generally Will not matter Recreation of the revision request; When the Sessions Court had the power to entertain the same, but the High Court would do so in special cases, once the revision petition was approved, the High Court neither denied it. Did not go through and maintain the amendment request attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Ziarat lawyer