Find a Lawyer

SHAHID versus STATE

The Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC), Section 439 of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), section 302/34, reversed the High Court verdict and remanded the trial to the court after rejecting the verdict. Was used but if the ruling was read, it was clear that the trial was not ordered at trial for the purpose of the de novo trial. The verdict shows that the trial court in this case prosecuted the High Court only for the consideration of the ocular evidence arranged by the prosecution. The support for the allegations, which also shows in the case against the accused judge under question, shows that the High Court did not agree with the trial court's conclusion that the recovery and motive in this case could not be proved by the prosecution. , Part said that after the trial, the trial did not resume its decision, though the trial only meant reviewing the evidence of the prosecution listed in the trial court. The presentation of the evidence will not constitute any observation by the High Court in relation to the merits of the case and it may be free to review and examine the evidence of the witnesses as the case is based on ocular evidence. Of course, without reopening the question of time, motivations and recoveries, which were already denied by the trial court and the High Court. power of attorney advocate Ghari Dupatta lawyer