Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HAYAT versus STATE

Section 5 (2) of the Contempt Code (XLV of 1860), testimony of the testimony of the prosecution witness, Section 161, alleged that Danto, the defendant, had disclosed that he had been called by the accused to the police station and that he was in evidence of the testimony of the other two prosecutors. Was closed. It was revealed that the prosecution witness, after learning of the detention of the alleged dento, went to the police station where he met the accused (head constable) who demanded money from the detainee for his release. The prosecution's witnesses did not examine the defendant at that point, because no question was asked, the witnesses denied, saying that the accused was in fact the complaining party. Did not demand illegal trespass from, accusing him of demanding and accepting illegal repayments, non-textual situations The contention between the complaining party and the prosecution of the accused was suggested and it had, without any reasonable doubt, proved its case against the accused, that the appeal against the accused's conviction and conviction was dismissed within the circumstances. Was done top civil advocates from Mehar lawyer