MUHAMMAD ASLAM versus THE STATE
The Criminal Procedure for Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Section 10 (2) Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), after conviction of the accused by the testimony of Sections 342 and 382B, the trial court did not sentence the prisoner only, nor did he Punishment was tried and no sentence was passed under Section 382B, CRPC, which was required by the trial court on both the grounds that the complaint against the female accused was given. The alleged divorce from the client was not confirmed by the chairman and as such a divorce did not prove to be effective and the two accused were living in sin, No question was raised by either of them on this important aspect of the case, while they were examined under Section 234 Cr, separating the CRPC conviction and consequently the conviction of the accused. Was done. And the cases were returned to the trial court for a fresh ruling according to law
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
best advocate from Farooqabad lawyer
