Find a Lawyer

KAMRAN ALI SIKANDAR versus STATE

During the prosecution of Section 195, and 476 forgery, the applicants alleged that the affidavit was administered under oath by the respondent, but her husband's signature stated that the affidavit was filed by the applicant. It was gathered from the aspect of the case that the purpose of filing such an affidavit was to mislead the court and gain unreasonable advantage. Respondent's counsel counsel's position was to maintain that the plaintiff's husband had signed his statement because of a major mistake, otherwise page number 2 of the statement was clearly indicated. The fact that the respondent himself appeared before the competent officer of the court to confirm the contents of the affidavit, which recorded the satisfaction that his original oath was taken from the respondents, was a clue to this statement. It is not that the commissioner worked together with them to take the oath. For the purpose of confirming the contents of the statements made by the defendant or her husband, it is alleged that the defendants committed any forgery before the trial court during the trial of the trial, in these cases record trials. Not yet visible on the face of the court, however, was the discretion to take action against the defendants under or under Section 195, CRPC. Section 476, CCPC jobs for fresh advocates from Lasbela lawyer