IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, SHAHEED BENAZIR

ABAD.

Cr. Tr. Appl: NO. OF 2011.

Hakim Dahri.
---------------------------------------------- Applicant.

Versus

Rab Rakhio & another

-------------------------------------------- Opponents.

OBJECTIONS TO APPLICATION
U/S 426 Cr.P.C.

Following objections are submitted on behalf of the opponent No.1.

1). That neither opponent No.1, issued any kind of threats to the applicant or
co-accused to implicate them in false case and to create trouble for them
in way while they were going to attend the Court at Daulatpur.

2). That the applicant has falsely alleged against opponent NO.1 nothing but
to create a false ground for the transfer of case from the case of Civil
Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I, Daulatpur to Nawabshah.

3). That opponent NO.1, is residing near Daulatpur, therefore, it shall be

inconvenient for him to attend the Court at Nawabshah.

4). That application is malafide one and liable to be dismissed.

Advocate for Opponent.

IN THE COURT OF IST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHAHEED BENAZIR ABAD.

Cr. Appal NO. 13 of 2008.

Ghullam Mustefa Versus The State.

OBJECTIONS TO APPLICATION U/S 428 Cr.P.C.

Following objections are submitted on behalf of the complainant.

1). That the application is not maintainable at law as neither any application

was moved before the trial court for the examination of the witnesses sought for

to be examined before the honourable court nor the accused in the statement

U/S 342 Cr.P.C sought the present witnesses to be examined, hence the

application is misconceived and it will be unfair to filling up the gapes by the

defence or discredit the prosecution evidence which has already come on

record.

2). That the witnesses sought to be examined are said to be defence

witnesses but this opportunity was not either applied or entertained by the

defence before the trial court, therefore at this stage it is not maintainable.

3). That the prosecution was not bound to take defence evidence as it is for

the prosecution to get their witnesses supporting the case examined in the trial.

4). That since the accused did not take the name of any person to be

examined while recording his statement U/S 342 Cr.P.C , hence, taking the

plea that he was not aware having no force as ignorance of law is no excuse.

5). That the application being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed.

Advocate for Complainant.