Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO.1292/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 7TH JANUARY, 2006. versus APPEAL NO.1292/LB OF 2001, DECIDED ON 7TH JANUARY, 2006.

Section 156 (1) (89) and 2 (languages) trafficking of vehicles due to smuggling because the vehicle was stripped / tampered with no chassis number and in any case other than its original location. The litigation was acknowledged by a local firm. This report showed that no one bought the vehicle and could not be asked to prove that the underlying vehicle was smuggled and if any such information was to be collected, it could be collected from the car's assembler, if the vehicle had a chassis. ? No. But the model code was missing, this assembler can still be called to resolve the dispute, so, the statement of the assembler's representative should have been recorded when such a statement was recorded, it was affected. That was chassis number after 1985 and up to now the chassis frame was manually drilled and this machine was not a blowing machine, if the chassis number on the car was manually trimmed, or had to be grinded on it. It didn't matter. If the prosecution insists on something other than the original, then the prosecutor has to prove where the original place was in the frame of the chassis, otherwise when the chassis number is manually marked as maize, it is not. Was. It is likely to be repeatedly affixed to the same place and so far there is a possibility of variation or difference because the chassis frame was related to it, the report of the Franzic Science Laboratory was not worth the dependence because it was Was obtained without. The appellant prosecutor failed to establish his case and could not actually maintain the order as the law was originally set aside by the appellate tribunal. property advocates from Nawab Shah lawyer