Find a Lawyer

ATTAULLAH versus ABDUR RAZAQ AN ANOTHER

Pakistan Penal Code Section 302/34 Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VI 1979), 5 17 (4) (5) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) The accused earlier accepted two contradictory petitions. Could not In respect of the merits and retention of its appeal filed by it in the High Court and the Supreme Court wits = the High Court. The defendant objected to the initial objection raised by the defendant regarding the merits of the appeal in the High Court. The murder reference was officially filed in the High Court because it was acquitted under section 17 (4) of the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Jewish) Ordinance, 1979, the accused took a turn in the Supreme Court and argued. Whether the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and to confirm its death sentence as it was initially charged under Section 17 (4) of the said ordinance and only appealed to the Federal Shariat Court. Had the jurisdiction to listen. The accused could not take two different standings on the same matter before the two courts, and under the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Jewish) Ordinance 1979, the accused was not punished, and he was acquitted of the above charges. Ordinance, he could not have earlier appealed that the Federal Shariat Court accused by the Sessions Court were convicted and sentenced to death under Section 2302/34 34, PPC, which affirmed the death sentence. Was obliged by law to send a reference to the High Court, thus, he had rightly appealed to the High Court against his conviction and conviction, the prosecution proved his case especially by the testimony of the accused employee. What was that? famous supreme court advocate from Rawalpindi lawyer