Find a Lawyer

MUMTAZ AHMED versus STATE

Section 10 (3) Adultery Bill Repression The defendant's name was not stated before filing the alleged report to the benefit of the suspect, and was instead told the name of another person to whom the material witnesses were excluded. The suspect was already behind. For more than four years, bars prosecuted crimes according to the prosecutor's and prosecutor's testimonies, made allegations against various individuals, and the confusion lasted and was not explained by the prosecutor. That his name was suspected in the matter. Its real culprit and its benefit should be known to the accused and the culprit's conviction was set aside and the accused was acquitted of the charge and released.

Related judgments — Federal Shariat Court, 2011

• SOHAIL AFZAL v. State 2011 PCrLJ 190
• HUSSAIN BAKHSH alias BILAL v. State 2011 PCrLJ 245
• ATTA MUHAMMAD v. State 2011 PCrLJ 285
• MANZOOR AHMAD v. State 2011 PCrLJ 511
• AL-AMEER v. State 2011 PCrLJ 583
• AAS MUHAMMAD alias ASOO v. State 2011 PCrLJ 617
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR v. State 2011 PCrLJ 646
• MUKHTAR AHMED v. State 2011 PCrLJ 809

All Federal Shariat Court judgments of 2011 →

patent advocate from Kotla lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes