CH. MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus SIRDAR AHMAD NAWAZ SUKHERA
Articles 3 and 4 define the evidence for illegal possession. The complainant alleged that 25 unidentified persons, along with the accomplices, participated in the incident. And the incident happened after the accused's utility / permission did not mention where the suspect conspired. And who were the witnesses to the plot? A private complaint was filed contradicting the fact that the co-accused had told the complainant that he had ordered the accused to be seized so that no legally admissible evidence was available so that he could seize it. The statement of the participant in the initial litigation against the accused was of no legal value, otherwise living abroad at the relevant time, in his private complaint by the complainant, according to the provisions of Section 3 of the Illegal Disposition Act Was not present on. In this case in 2005, it was not attracted that the complainant alleged that he had allegedly plotted the accused in his complaint. The reasoning error was identified by the complainant's lawyer in order to guarantee that the immunity from any of the qualifications mentioned in the immovable injunction was dismissed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
