Find a Lawyer

THE STATE versus HUSSAIN

Sections 4 and 4 of a Penal Code (XLV of 1860) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, Section 302/324/34 to strengthen two counter-cases for transfer of a case from the Sessions Court to the Special Court. Referring to the High Court to the same incident was registered by the Counter FI at the police station, one of the accused parties of the FIR was alleged to have used 12 bore guns, one hatchet and one dagger, The second case was presented in the Sessions Court challan. The accused party allegedly used symmetrical rifles in addition to other weapons, obtained in a special court established under the Pressure of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1976, the special court adjourned the case before the sessions court itself. Refused to move On the basis that the crimes involved in the aforementioned criminal case were not included in the schedules combined with the said act, therefore, it could not be prosecuted. In this regard, guidance was not obtained through the present reference from the High Court; the special court constituted under the Special Activities of Terrorism Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, tried to commit any offense on the basis of its section 4. That didn't have a schedule. According to the provisions of Section 4A of the said Act, the High Court, even though it had the jurisdiction to move the criminal case from one special court to another, had the power to transfer any matter from the sessions court. Was not an option Special court rule that two or more cases are related to the same incident but different cases law firms from Khangarh lawyer