MIRMAT KHAN versus STATE
Section 540 Prohibition (Enforcement) Order (4 of 1979), Arts 3 and 4 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Section 9 (c) Request for re-examination of witnesses, Prosecution of two witnesses After investigation, the case was closed and the case was decided for the statement of the accused under Section 2342, during which the CCPC Petitioner / Accused filed an application because his former lawyer had properly examined both witnesses. Did not, so they may be called again for re-examination. After the application of the new lawyer, PCCAD, under section application4040, the applicant filed a review request, the Adjustment Petitioner failed to state that both the prosecution's witnesses should be re-summoned for further cross-examination. Was necessary to meet the end. There is no scope for the trial court to accept such a request; in the circumstances the applicant's application was rightly rejected.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
online advocate from Mingora lawyer
