Sections 4 (b) and 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), section 19 (8b) and 27 of a Criminal Procedure Code (v. 1898), section 510 claim testimony testimony for suspects with explosives It has been held that the proper permission was not obtained from the Provincial Government for prosecution under section 19 (8b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, provided that the proceedings by the trial court provide for the relevant law. There was a violation. That was registered by the FIRCIA, who had no authority to investigate the matter and their only duty was to assist the police. That the investigating officer was responsible for investigating the matter independent of the material submitted by the CIA, which adversely affected the prosecution's case. That no expert report was present on the record, nor was the expert examined for the recovered material, only an unauthorized report was produced during the evidence, which is not admissible under the law. And that is a false case. Action was taken against the accused, who failed to establish a prosecution, who was responsible for acquittal of the accused, although acknowledging that no such permit had been obtained, but as the defendant countered. A special court established under the Terrorism Act 1997 prosecuted the case. , The procedure provided under the special law must be adopted and the trial court properly held against the accused in connection with the proceedings of Section 19 (8b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which provided this procedure. Was, in these circumstances, discussed by the trial court. Objections and Consequences
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2012
