Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD FARAZ versus STATE

Section 9 (c) defines drug possession and smuggling evidence as a complainant, if he was a witness to a crime commission and remains an investigating officer, unless it is in any way, Prejudice alleges that no prejudice was shown on the record due to the accused. A driving license was sought in this case. And it was also suggested that there was no secret cave in the bus, the accused's lawyer in question could not identify any contradiction in the counsel's evidence and that the complainant's evidence was proved guilty by the evidence presented before the trial court. It was The lawyer also failed to indicate any evidence, which could have led to doubts in the prosecutor's story, or any unlawful action in the unlawful order passed by the trial court under which the accused was convicted. Was sentenced and sentenced.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013

• GHULAM MUSTAFA v. CHANCELLOR, MEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, JAMSHORO AT KARACHI 2013 PLC(CS) 1300
• Haji FARMAN ALI KOLACHI v. SESSIONS JUDGE 2013 YLR 1302
• SHADMAN ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY PVT. LIMITED v. NIB BANK LIMITED 2013 CLD 1305
• SHAKEEL v. H. Syed MASROOR AHMED 2013 MLD 1305
• SHAFQAT v. State 2013 YLR 1311
• EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED v. DUTY FREE SHOPS LTD. 2013 CLD 1313
• GHULAM RASOOL alias BHORO v. State 2013 MLD 1315
• JAM KHAN SHORO v. DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER, HYDERABAD/DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD 2013 CLC 1315

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2013 →

list of supreme court advocates from Shujabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes