Find a Lawyer

REHMATULLAH versus STATE

In its statement under Section 144 (2) of the Foreigners' Order 1951, Section 3/4 (a) of the definition of evidence, the CRPC did not mention the place from which it apprehended the two accused. And where he was searching for foreign nationals. If the complainant was really looking for foreign nationals and had arrested the accused, it would have been his duty to find out the place where he was looking for him and he would go to the lower court. In his statement, the accused was arrested by the complainant on his statement under Section 154, CCP sought the foreigners as stated by the complainant in his statement under Section 154, CCP showed false, fabricated and fake. And the suspect was arrested by the accused who presented his CNC which was released. On the basis of his NIC and he also produced his birth certificates from which he was born in Pakistan, evidence that showed that he was based in Pakistan at the time of his birth and since He was a Pakistani, his NIC and CNIC were charged by Nadra for not properly justifying the prosecution, the court documented the accused, including the CNICs, below. Had no justification in convicting. Confirmation of the rights of the accused by Nadra, who confirmed them, showed that the accused were neither illegally entering Pakistan nor were they foreigners and the court, for no good reason. The documentary evidence presented by the accused was excluded, and m advocate for immigration from Manga Mandi lawyer