Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF versus STATE

Crimes of adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 Section 10, 11 and 16 Criminal Code of Conduct (V 1898), section 227 was registered under section 10 and 11 of the Adultery (Enforcement Ordinance) Ordinance, 1979, but The charge against them was levied only under section 10 (2) of the Ordinance Trial Court, which acquitted the accused under section 10 (2) of the Adultery of the Crime (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979, but on the charge They were sentenced without modification under Section 16 of the Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979 according to which the accused did not amend the charge before the judgment which was declared under section 16 of the Penal Code. Under PC punishment, it should have been up to 5 227. (Enforcement Hood) The ordinance, 1979, could not be retained and the trial would go on, but the accused received the remand. As a result, the accusations, in the circumstances, emphasized that the accused had already undergone a sentence of 1/2 year imprisonment, which would have been satisfied if his sentence had already been reduced to a period of time. Will And his sentence was reduced to a prison that the accused has already passed famous supreme court advocate from Gari Habibullah lawyer