The petitioner filed an FIR to set out provisions of sections 516 A & 561 A Penal Code (XLV of 1860), sections 379 and 411 Superdry stolen cattle, which he claimed were made shortly after his cattle F Police and cattle arrested after registration of IR In response, a question came out of the house of one of the accused, who was the brother of the defendant, after which the petitioner filed a petition for the custody of the livestock recovered at the surplus. However, the magistrate directed Section H to investigate the matter and directed the magistrate to submit a report on that basis. The section HA report, the applicant's request permission and the livestock application were handed over to the applicant on submission, however, upon filing a review by the plaintiff against the magistrate's order, the inquiry report submitted by D-section P But the reviewing court put aside its order. The magistrate and the applicant have stated that the reviewing court order was valid, with the approval of the hill order, failing to recognize that the accused persons involved in the case on the petitioner's action, section 9379 and 1111, was sentenced under the PPC and it was stated that the sentence and sentence had been finalized to the court, however, the importance of D-Section P's disclosure regarding the judicial decision was of no identifiable offense. Investigation cannot take place before the trial is registered and the inquiry report submitted by D-Section P cannot be identified in any way. Is. The conclusions and speculations and the finding of D-Section P were considered as judicial inquiries that followed
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
