The appreciation version of sections 9 and 13E of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 was somewhat different from the version given by a prosecution witness, it was not the prosecution's case that when the police party spotted them in the Street FIR In the examination also, the Chief of Complainant clearly showed that the suspects were found in suspicious circumstances, but what was not explained in these suspicious circumstances, the arms and ammunition recovered, in the possession of the accused or under their possession. Cannot be said, because according to the prosecution's version, when the police encountered the party and When entering a domestic home, the accused attempted to flee the road in which the accused entered, it was not shown the residence of any of the accused nor was it shown that the accused had any connection or control. The alleged confiscation of the house was not made from the house of the accused, but from the house to which they had no concern and was mentioned only at that moment to avoid a confrontation with the patrol party of the police. The FIR's defamation has shown that the accused cannot be considered to be in possession of or possession of any article, prosecution or offense under section 9 of the Ordinance 1965. ? Failing to prove the charges against the accused, the accused's conviction and sentence were set aside
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
