Find a Lawyer

AZMAT ALIAS PAPU AND 3 OTHERS versus MST. NISA BEGUM AND 2 OTHERS

The Shariah Court also sought dismissal of Section 540 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 324 and 34 of the material witnesses when the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 234 Cr, CRPC. In CRPC, the petitioner's evidence was necessary to summon the prosecution's witnesses as their plea was accepted only for judgment in this case. However, he refused to seek a Shariah court of prosecution in reviewing the complaint filed by the complainant against the order, directed the trial court to summon, the prosecution witness also filed an appeal against the Shariah court's decision. Earlier, when it was said that the witnesses were closed, the review petition filed before the Shariah court was dismissed due to time constraints and sharia. The court did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case. ? The Supreme Court also dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Shariah court had earlier revised it, which was time-barred and therefore both the Shariat Court and the Supreme Court did not come to the merits of the matter. The petition was filed under section 404040, CRPC allowed by the trial court and the order passed by the trial court was upheld by the Shariah court and the trial court under section 540, CR PC. Allowing the complainant's request for permission was granted, which allowed the court to summon any person as a witness or examine anyone Was given the option to do so. Although not called as a witness and when a person deems the evidence necessary for a fair trial decision, best advocate from Ghizer lawyer