Find a Lawyer

ABDUL MANNAN versus THE STATE

Sections 14, 5 and 6 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act 1975 (v. 1898), the prosecution of the 555 accused was routine and vague, the accused did not give the names of the alleged victims of theft. And the names of the culprits who were accused of leading the accused were not given except for a notorious robbery detail under Section 6, the witnesses were not referred to the accused even in the provisions of the Act. The warrant was issued on the receipt of the police report, along with the issuance of the unauthorized warrant Section E vague and without jurisdiction to manage and act on the police station to report the allegations in connection with the violation of the 5 and 6 top advocate from Tando Jam lawyer