Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SAEED versus GHULAM QADIR

The trial magistrate convicted the defendant on the basis of this confessional statement, appreciating the evidence of the trial of the case by Sections 242424, 7 337A (ii) and 34 Criminal Code (v. 1898), sections 242 and 243. Upon filing a review against the trial magistrate's decision, the sessions court upheld the defendant's conviction that the accused was responsible for the payment of 1/3 part of the debt and directed the accused to deposit the money. The victim, who filed the Sessions Court order, had filed several petitions, the provisions of Chap XX of Sessions PC were ignored because neither the statements of the prosecution witness nor any other documents were provided to the accused, There is no charge under section 342 against. The CCP was charged against the accused, and when confessional statements were made, they were immediately called. The conviction was also avoided under Article 243, CCPC's prosecution. It was not known which culprit had been regularly charged by the magistrate under the Crimes Act and then when the accused confessed. Did the magistrate need to issue a show cause notice? To allege that they should not be punished for the offenses which were charged to the Sessions Court, this aspect of the matter was not pointed out because the petitioner / accused and his accomplices were convicted. Was listed in violation of the law, both orders passed through sessions. The court and the magistrate were left with the direction that the sessions court would submit the trial to another judicial magistrate. \ r \ n registration advocate from Malakwal lawyer