Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUNIS LAKHANI versus STATE

Appeals against sections 156 and 420 of the General Clause Act (X of 1897), Section 24A Criminal Procedure Code (V9 1898), Sections 249A, 367 and 417 (2A) of the British Trial Court under section 249A, CR PC The accused was acquitted. After examining the six witnesses' testimony and discussing their statements and without giving any reason why the investigating officer was not called to record his testimony, the Judicial Magistrate ordered the eviction order to dismiss his judicial function. What was the reason for this must be for these reasons. Also, under the definition of evidence available on record Section 249A, CCPC, under which this unwanted order was made, it was specifically provided that the magistrate passed the order under section 24A of the General Clause Act 1897. Will record the reasons for doing bad. It is also provided that any authority, officer or person authorized to pass an order or issue a directive under any law shall give reasons for doing so. Accordingly, every order passed under the provisions of any constitution, in judicial or semi-judicial capacity or even in administrative capacity, must be in breach of the reasons, not an order of the Department, merely an order in nature to support this order. Cannot be held that the order passed for the reasons was not a judicial order, and in particular section 249A, CR PC As well as Section 367, CR was a violation of the mandatory provisions read with Section 24A of the PC. The General Clauses Act, 1897, stated that the order was bad and disobedient and was passed in slip, but the law was not upheld and it list of supreme court advocates from Kotli lawyer