PAPOO versus STATE
SS 302, 324, 307, 395, 396, 397 and 398 Terrorism Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975), Section 4 Sindh Children Act (XIV of 1955), Section 10 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ), Section 57 Special Court, the jurisdiction of the two accused at the time of the incident was less than 16 years. All the accused, including the persons under trial in the Special Age Court, were tried and were similarly convicted and A valid trial was held for the accused under the age of 16. As was supposed to be done separately under section 10, the Sindh Children Act 1955, such illegal section was not curable under Section 3737, CRPC and it also adversely affected the entire Trial State Council. At the same time, the complainant's counsel had no objection to any new trial. In the circumstances the first remand for trial was obtained
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
famous supreme court advocate from Fateh Jang lawyer
