Find a Lawyer

MST. HAMEEDA versus STATE

Section 616161 Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (1979 1979 1979 VII), Sections 11, 15 and 16 were examined by a judicial magistrate where the applicant / accused was examined. Has been divorced by her husband and after four years of divorce, she married co-accused Judicial Magistrate, recorded statements of the marriage witness, a man who offered marriage. That was, the person who confirmed the goodwill and the free will, who made the affidavit, who took the oath before the magistrate, Syed Nakhanama. Earlier, the magistrate's trial court did not bother to examine the material available on the record, including the spouse, the applicant's free will, the applicant's statement and other witnesses. Notwithstanding the above material, the petitioner was not attracted to the FIR against him, the question of verification of marriage, or otherwise can only be relied upon by the Family Court and was removed. The jurisdiction was not filed by a court of competent jurisdiction, petitioner or co-accused, could not be prosecuted, the investigating officer had also failed to perform his duties and he had applied for the petitioner and others. The co-accused was wrongly cheated. The trial court had failed to make up its mind before accepting the challan, whether such material case could also be prosecuted against the applicant and other accomplices who were tried for trial against the applicant and other accomplices. Need to acknowledge immigration advocates email from Samundri lawyer