Following the trial against section 2302/2 452 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), section 417 (2A), 249 A&265, and trial of house-to-house corruption, the accused under the case 265 were appointed at the request of the accused. was done. , Without any record of evidence, the accused was acquitted on the basis of the search of various police officers, who in their investigation did not find the Ipse dixit to be innocent of the accused's guilt or innocence. There was sufficient file for evidence to be available on file, with the trial against the accused involved in the prosecution's testimony of twelve prosecutors and their statements were under 161 161, the CCPC also listed by the Investigation Officer evidence. So the first-degree fax contained material that could have served as a trial court trial for offenses involving crime. Without the recording of all such evidence in the circumstances of the case, it was premature to acquit the accused. There is no doubt that the jurisdiction to acquit an accused at any stage of the case related to the law's supply is very clear on this matter. But it was well settled that Section 249A and Section 265, CRPC, are exempt. The general rule stated that the provisions should be given the utmost importance so that a complainant had to deviate from the evidence to prove his or her source of evidence, which was collected during the investigation without strong and unusual reasons. There was no proper and equitable exercise of authority in this case. Section 6565K, under CRPC, was unnecessary and not enforceable, in these circumstances the trial core
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
