Find a Lawyer

KHADIM HUSSAIN versus STATE

Articles 302 and 304 criminal code of conduct (v. 1898), section 367 law testimony (10 of 1984), Article 17 defined the evidence as violating the law's settled principle that the verdict was recorded in violation of law. Was, therefore, not punished. To be remanded in a trial court for a lasting and new decision on this case. The State Counsel acknowledged the contested decisions taken by the accused that the decision was not recorded in accordance with the provisions of Section 676767, CRPC was not appropriate. The State Council of Law agreed to remand the matter, the operative part of the uncontested decision, clearly making it clear that the unreasonable decision was recorded in defiance of the prescribed principles, the law and clauses against the provisions of section 367 Was added, the PC Trial Court refused to comply. The testimony of law 1984 1984 the provisions of section un304, PPC and Article 17 of the 1984 section while recording the evidence of the witnesses did not only result in such cause. The abrogation of justice, but also preventing the high courts from rectifying mistakes and approving appropriate orders, put the discrimination decision aside and the case was remanded for re-writing. famous supreme court advocate from Kakur Town lawyer