Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AHMAD versus STATE

Sections 161, 173, 342 and 540 against the property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), section 17 (3) witnesses were presented by the applicant under section 404040, CR PC, witnesses during the trial. Called to be summoned, the petitioner on the complainant was dismissed as an unnecessary complaint; after a period of seven months, the section 404040 of the CRPC called for a witness to meet with the police officer. The petition was moved, which arrested the accused trial court, dismissed the request, the request for the witness to be verified, to close the evidence of the prosecutor and After the statements were recorded under yksn 342, CC PPP application was intended to prolong the suffering of the complainant. The complainant's argument was that it was necessary for the accused to seek testimony to convict him, for reasons that were wrong. First, the witness was released at the request of the complainant who has been able to testify since the date of the indictment. Secondly, under the law, the witnesses had to go through the process of purification that only Mozakis could do, but that facility was not available and, third, that the complainant was allowed to fill the vacancy sought by the prosecuting police officer. Could not be given. Neither the investigating officer nor his statement was filed under Section 161, the CCPC statement stated, that the summons sought by the complainant was not necessary only for the decision of the case. law firms from Dunyapur lawyer