Find a Lawyer

NIZAM-UD-DIN versus STATE

Pakistan Penal Code Sections 324 and 380 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI 1979), Appeal Jurisdiction against Section 9/14 and 24 accused were registered under Sections 454, 380, 324 and 337, P.O. PC read with 59 / Crimes Against Property (Enforced Jewish) Ordinance, 1979 14 1979 Court of Sessions Court on receipt of court challan Sections 242424, 7 337 J, 808080 and 4 454, P.P.C. Demanded an answer to the allegations under which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed. After the trial, the sessions court, sentencing and conviction of the accused under Sections 242424 and the80 under, challenged this decision in the High Court by appealing from the jail, Federal Court of Appeal in the High Court. The Shariah was sent to the court for judgment, stating that a challan was presented under it. Crimes against property (Enforcement Hodg) Ordinance, Section 9/14 of 1979 and other PPC offenses in the same transaction may not be. Distributed for the purpose of jurisdiction and the appeal will be in the Federal Shariat Court under which the accused was charged only under the basic provisions of the PPC, it could not be prosecuted under any of the provisions of the Crimes Against Property. ) Ordinance, 1979 because no parallel or parallel supply of the first clause of section 24 of the said ordinance was available in the Criminal Code and second, because the offense of offense under Section 9 of the said Ordinance is more severe. ? The accused accused of a minor offense could not be convicted of a major offense even if the case was found to be punishable under the Property (Law Enforcement) Ordinance 1979 and the trial court erroneously jobs for advocates from Malakand lawyer