Find a Lawyer

AMANUL MULK versus THE STATE

Section 9 Customs Act (IV of 1969), Section 156 (1) (89) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 13 (a) and 199 Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), Sections 403 and 561 alleged that a constitutional petition It is alleged that after hearing them convicted by a special court under section 156 (1) (89) of the Customs Act, 1969, a special court established under the Narcotic Substances Act 1997 I was asked for To prevent a second trial based on the double risk rule contained in section 3 Cr3, CR PC or Article 13 (a) of the Constitution in section idity double of the aforesaid Act, the court first authorized the trial There should be a court of law. The customs of the special court were not capable of prosecuting the accused in this case, but in this case the accused could only be tried against the drug-related offense under the provisions of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 of 1997, under which the court I was excluded. Under any other law, the accused against the accused for printing is proceeding under section 9 of the Code of Conduct Act, 1997, which gives the court special jurisdiction over the matter, therefore, a double jeopardy sentence by the judge. And was not affected by the conviction. As a result, the customs of the special court were dismissed for any reason, without any offense, since the accused had already been sentenced to more than five years, so the special court was instructed that If a case has been filed against them, it should also be considered. The request was dealt with accordingly immigration advocate from Killa Saifullah lawyer