Find a Lawyer

KARAMAT KHAN versus THE STATE

Section 365/392/401 Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901), Sections 11 and 12 of Pakistan (1973), Article 203 DD Amendment jurisdiction Federal Shariat Court and High Court Scope accused the petitioners that they were charged with robbery and crime. Were charged with. Under the definition of robbery tactic, stolen imports were sued under the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement) Ordinance, 1979. The trial run by the Assistant Political Agent / Additional District Magistrate, South Waziristan Agency, as well as under the provisions of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, was entirely illegal and since the crime against the property was enforced by Hoden Hods. 1979 was an extension of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a trial should be held to maintain the accuracy of this ordinance because no criminal case was registered against the property under the provisions of the Ordinance 1979. Nor were they charged. Under this, reviewing was not preferred prior to the forum proposed by the Order / Decision of the Crimes Against Property (Enforcement Hoodoo) Ordinance, 1979, in addition to prosecuting or convicting a court of competent litigation, Although passed without any jurisdiction, Article 203 DD (1973) of the Constitution of Pakistan authorized the High Court - c by any criminal court under any law enforced by the Hoodoo. The record of any case relating to recording or approving the authenticity, sentence or order of a decision, sentence or order for the purpose of satisfying itself. Checks were testing, but that was not. As long as the Constitution is clear Pakistan, top advocate family court from Naukot lawyer