KAMAL KHOSO versus STATE
Articles 5, 6 and 14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act 1975 (V9 1898), the expression of section 561A are `` trivially '' and `frequently 'used by persons in section 14 for such offenses. Permanent habits are identified for committing. And the two cases against the co-accused were not directly linked to the allegations contained in the report. The material contained in the report was not sufficient to show that persons against whom repeated action is initiated and habitually commit one or more offenses as mentioned in section 14 of the Act. The accused were ambiguous and ordinary and no specific instance was cited, nor was the time and place mentioned in the report nor the copy attached in the report with the warrant.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
famous supreme court advocate from Khoski lawyer
