Find a Lawyer

IBRAHIM KHAN versus STATE

Further investigation by the grant of section 497 (2) of the Conduct Code (XLV of 1860), section 302/109/120/34 Qatil Im Bell, did not indicate that any body was charged, two of the reports Weeks later, the prosecution's witnesses were named by the accused, but they did not disclose the source of the information that the two-week timeframe in filing the FIR had raised suspicion and indicated false implications. There was no ocular evidence on record of the incident and no recovery was obtained from the accused. The role of the individual complaining about being linked to the commission of the crime also became suspicious when it was declared controversial with the witness. All said that the facts made the case of the accused persons that the accused had been admitted on bail in the inquiry, under the circumstances.

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010

• KHAN MUHAMMAD v. Mst. BAKHSHI BIBI 2010 MLD 1351
• COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR v. MAKK BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR 2010 PTD 1355
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ TAHIR v. GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Local Government Department, Peshawar 2010 CLC 1362
• INAMULLAH v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1375
• NEIK NAWAZ v. Mst. RAHIM JANA BIBI 2010 CLC 1379
• AKHTAR ALI KHAN v. State 2010 PCrLJ 1386
• ANJUMAN IRFAN-UL-ISLAM TRUST v. MUFTI SHAKEEL 2010 CLC 1393
• ZAHIR v. State 2010 MLD 1403

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2010 →

tax advocates from Sadiqabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes