MUHAMMAD JAMIL versus STATE
The accused accused of defrauding section 10 (3) of the evidence did not file an appeal against the order of his conviction and sentencing by the trial court, but for this reason he requested reduction of the imprisonment. Was that he was guilty before. He belonged to the poor family and deserved mercy. The accused further submitted that he had been fined, under section 10 (3) of the Crimes of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance 1979. Was not legally required under the law, which could be separated from the state attorney. The accused pleaded guilty, given the facts, circumstances and material available on record, that the conviction imposed by the trial court could impose a sentence of up to 10 years in the interest of justice. He was also sentenced to years and RI, as he was not legally required. \ R \ n \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
top civil advocates from Mastoi lawyer
