Find a Lawyer

SHOAIB AHMAD versus STATE

Section 497 Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hodg) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Sections 10, 18, 13 and 14 guaranteed, the grant of preparation for adultery was not found in a compromising position. The accused / applicants were not charged. They were preparing to commit adultery when the police raided a guest house on the information of the detective and arrested them. Was claimed by a trial court accused. Sections 13 and 14 of the Enforcement of Adultery (Enforcement Hoodood) Ordinance, 1979, were not attracted to his case. Since none of the rooms had committed sexual abuse, section 10 of the ordinance did not attract either. That section 18 of the ordinance did not apply to the issue as the FIR was silent about the accused's role and did not describe the preparations that were made for committing adultery. The raid was illegal because neither the magistrate's permission nor the magistrate supported the raiding party, and it was not possible for the three real brothers to commit adultery in the same guesthouse, from every guest room. Two men and a woman were arrested. But they would not be in a position to compromise Thus, therefore, Section 10 of the Ordinance was not attracted under Sections 13 and 14 of the Ordinance; it was necessary to have a sale deal with the intention of committing adultery or illicit sex And get hired. The fact of the matter was to prove through evidence that the presence of men and women in the room alone was not sufficient to assure that women had to how to become a advocate from Pishin lawyer