MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE versus THE STATE
The testimony of Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965, the date, time and place of the alleged stun gun was not disclosed in the charge leveled against the accused, nor has it been stated that the arms were recovered without a license. In reference to the question, under section 2342, the accused was also banned for unlicensed stun gun during the investigation; CCPCP defects, because of inadequate treatment, the trial of the accused trial court. Had failed. Knowing that the accused did not have a valid license for the stun gun recovered, his decision was a matter of exclusion from the matter and his decision was not to be made. In the eyes of the law, the accused was acquitted. Conditions
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
immigration advocate from Hunza Nagar lawyer
