Find a Lawyer

ZARINA versus STATE

Criminal Procedure for Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Section 16/10 (2) Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), there was no evidence on record of the termination of section 555 proceedings so that the accused (applicant) could be shown to be a voluntary party. ? The incident and he was unambiguously cited by the police officer as a suspect in order to take advantage of the real suspect to end the prosecution case and prevent him from submitting it as a prosecution witness. While the case was presented in court. The FIR version was upheld and the applicant did not declare voluntary party that pending proceedings as a party consenting for adultery against the applicant were dismissed under circumstances and in this case they were referred to the prosecution witness. Was instructed to present as. famous high court advocate from Kotli lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes