Find a Lawyer

ADAM KHAN versus STATE

Section 516 of a Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 395 Superior Revision was directed against the trial court's decision to acquit property on trial, under which all four accused were convicted of robbery for property in this case. Namely gold jewelry, cash and watches, etc. The arrest and trial of the detained criminals remained intact. The applicant stated that during the trial, during the trial, the trial court should have returned the same, the applicant acknowledged that during the trial, the application for submission was made by him. , But after that he withdrew it and after that he did not approach the trial court, ordering the detention of the trial property and the detention of the accused until trial. , And in fact it delayed the property settlement decision. Therefore, because there was no claimant in the relevant time before the petition for property custody was filed on the subpoena filed by the perpetuity, but was not withdrawn, the trial court certainly passed a separate judgment thereafter. Deciding whether or not to adjudicate separately because the case was ultimately not adjudicated against procla and proclaimed offenders, the trial court's jurisdiction to their extent was intact. With the case, the ensues had to be examined not only the culprits but also the end criminals. If the case was decided by a particular accused, then it could not be said that the court ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter. Remaining famous supreme court advocate from Rashidabad lawyer