After the trial of the trial to make the case for 13, the investigating witness testified that the notice was signed by two witnesses, one of the witnesses who had examined the affidavit declined to state the oath. And was suspiciously removed. He was not aware of the student's notice and admitted in his own investigation that he was unaware of the student's notice, such a statement of the witness was not sufficient to confirm that the plaintiff's performance. Was able to prove. The overwhelming evidence, as required by law to establish the notice of the student by presenting two witnesses, was completely missing from the case and in his absence the defendant was not liable to prosecute the case. , Though could not be knocked down in front of him. Based on technical capabilities, but there was nothing to suggest that non-compliance with Section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-Impression Act of 1987 was a technicality, not fatal to a pre-discrimination trial. While the requirements of the K-Tal students were not mandated, in the present case, the requirement to present evidence of two fact witnesses was not fulfilled which lacked the root of the matter. The evidence presented by the plaintiff was contradictory, outlined and suspicious of the nature of the testimony, which had no clear value in the eyes of the law; The orders of the courts below, which were not sustainable in the eyes of the law, were set aside and the plaintiff's case was dismissed, under circumstances \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2012
