Find a Lawyer

MUKHTAR AHMAD versus STATE

Section 5 Validating the evidence was contradictory to the evidence and the complainant's license in connection with the search of the accused and the receipt of tainted money, and the suspected magistrate and other members of the raiding party had clearly stated that the complainant had made a false statement. And he had no members. The raiding party had either heard the conversation or witnessed any activity between the complainant and the accused. From the beginning to the end, the trial court misread the record, the accused was acquitted. Was. immigration advocates from Gilgit lawyer