Find a Lawyer

STATE versus CH. AHMED MUKTHAR

Section 32 was different from appeal for scrutiny of appeals against acquittal. Appeal against acquittal was alleged that the interference of such order in the credit court was too great to interfere with. Was slow, unless it was shown that the verdict was misleading or the court did not take into account important inquiry evidence during the recording of the injunction, \ etc. In the present case, the trial court considered the evidence in accordance with the law, in which case there was no misrepresentation or failure to read the evidence. There was no illegal action or irregularity that said no interference was required in the decision. \ R \ n \ r \ n advocates from Warburton lawyer