Find a Lawyer

ABDUL MAJID versus STATE

On the basis of the fine imposed on the directions of Sections 561A, 35, 397 and 398, the Conduct Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 409, 468, 64 and 71 of the Corruption Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2). Imprisonment The applicant / accused was convicted and sentenced to three offenses for conducting simultaneous sentences in addition to the appropriate sentence and was directed to imprison and fined the sentence given to the applicant. Permanent sentences will run concurrently, the appeal against the trial court's decision was dismissed. With the request under Section 1 561A, CCPC, it is requested that instead of the penalty, each prisoner should be directed to serve two years imprisonment, besides hearing the plea of several convictions. Was done The simultaneous provisions, which, in view of section 71, PPC, would include imprisonment in default of payment of penalties and it had to last only two years in the DRI and six in fine. Not the year the prosecutor denied the applicant's claim, stating that in the context of section 398, CRPC and section 64, PPC, imprisonment could be punished if the penalty was paid. It cannot be directed to run concurrently, because in addition to these confinements, the plaintiffs also conceded the word 'imprisonment' in sections 35 and 397, in addition to the clear sentences imposed under different provisions of the law, CCP Was intended for imprisonment and not imprisonment. The person convicted of the penalty of fine was not imprisoned within the meaning of section 35, CRPC or section 397 of the penalty, CRPC and no court had the power to pay. family advocate from Chaman lawyer