Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHARIF versus PARVEEN AKHTAR

Law E-Evidence Order 1984 Article 30 The identification cost that was sought to be used against the plaintiff was intended to be executed by the brother of the plaintiff in front of the police authorities, in which he satisfied the claim of the plaintiff. Had admitted that he had recovered it. The plaintiff's signature is not signed, its entrants will not be binding against the plaintiff and may not be used as a piece of evidence against their entry and documents executed by the police officers during criminal proceedings. However, they were generally tainted with the element of coercion and such documents could not be treated because the admission was made with a free mind and in connection with the dismissal of his claim, by his brother. There was no admission benefit. The defendant lawer from fb area from Kamalia Musa lawyer