Find a Lawyer

UMAR FAROOQ versus THE STATE

West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 Section 13 Testimony of Proof The police had no justification for not caring for compliance with the $ 103 compulsory provisions, the CR PC ROM that claimed recovery was not in the special possession of the accused. Was. The policeman was subjected to corruption and was a frontrunner in the nature who played the role of complainant in the case and then took responsibility for the self-defense witnesses who were accused by the police for good conduct of the accused. Was confirmed and reported the incident. It was impossible and the evidence led to the conviction of the accused with the origin of the police, which did not inspire confidence at all. ask a advocate free from Mustang lawyer