Find a Lawyer

GHULAM SARWAR versus THE STATE

Instead of recording the accused's statement under the Prohibition (Enforcement Head) Order 1979 Articles 3/4 Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), Sections 342 and Section 342 of the 164 Clause Magistrate, the statement was recorded as if it were being recorded. Under Section 1, the CRPC, its confession and its conviction were based on a statement which was illegal because the statement under Section 2, 2, CRPC was not described under Article 6464. It may be, the CRPC Chemical Examiner's report has not been received. The prosecution's proceedings could not be proved by any witness and in the absence of it, as the decision of the intoxicating trial court did not indicate whether the accused had committed the offense under Article 3 or article of harassment (enforcement head) order. Confessed to the offense under section 4, nor did he mention any article or section of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which he was convicted in 1979. family advocate from Ghizer lawyer