Find a Lawyer

UMAR DRAZ versus THE STATE

The West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 was charged with defining section 13 evidence, the day the prosecutor's testimony was examined, it moved a petition to the trial court that his lawyer was distant, so his cross-examination Was safe, but the request of the accused was not allowed. The accused's right to examine the prosecution's testimony, which was denied by the court, was not presented to the court at the time of the prosecution's testimony, the prosecution's witnesses made contrary statements. Because no public witness was involved in the recovery process, the restoration was charged. In a public place, the accused was thus not free from suspicion, so the High Court accepted the review and set aside the judgment of the lower courts and dismissed the charge. ask a advocate free from Bhan Saeedabad lawyer