Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD KARIM versus MUMTAZ AHMAD

Sections 324 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Court) Act 1975 [as amended by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1993]], 337A (II), 337d, 448 and 454 The jurisdictional complaint presented by the relevant persons under the Special Activities Courts (XV of 1975) Act, Sections 4 and 5 Section H shows that the accused had fired on the complainant with a TT pistol. The complainant suffered injuries to his left arm as well as his left hand. An empty stomach cartridge and a live cartridge of TT pistols were also recovered during the interrogation, it was established in the circumstances that the accused was arrested by a special court under the Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. An adjudicatory offense was set up, the Additional Sessions Judge, who prosecuted for not having a special case for the accused, to have the Additional Sessions Judge Presiding Officer on the basis of FIR and other M There was no jurisdiction to prosecute the crime. Ariel, who was produced on record by the prosecutor at the time of the submission of the invoice, was obliged to carefully scrutinize the crime and determine if he had the authority to prosecute the crime. Whether or not he did, but he did not, was to commit the offense scheduled by the special judge, without the jurisdiction granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, and thus set aside and set aside by law. Accordingly, the trial was referred to the Special Judge under the Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975. when you need a advocate from Toru lawyer