Find a Lawyer

FIDA HUSSAIN versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, JAMPUR, DISTRICT RAJANPUR

The Penal Code of Sections 190 and 265 (XLV of 1860) Sections 365A, 337A (i), 506 (II), 148 and 149 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 6, 7 and 23 of Pakistan (1973) ), Article 199 Constitutional Petition In this case the charge of transferring a complaint to the Anti-Terrorism Court was filed directly against the accused / applicant under section 9090, CCP, because in the general case the private complaint Has the ability to entertain and release directly in person. Following the preliminary inquiry into the case, proceeding against the accused under section 9090, CRPC, filing a complaint before the magistrate in a specially competent trial, and then by a magistrate to the trial court for trial. Sending was not required. The need to file a private complaint before the special court, even before the magistrate, was neither legal nor a legal requirement in the present case. The action taken by the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge in the complaint of abduction allegations was a foolish act, however, the defect of such a procedure was neither fatal nor, on the basis of the said defect, the petitioner. / The accused may be acquitted on terms. In section 265, according to the CRPC, in the case of sending a case to the Anti-Terrorism Court, the claim was made by the order of the accused sent by the Additional Sessions Judge, neither having legal authority. Nor was there any legal jurisdiction in the anti-terrorism court under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. Have a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction female advocates from Bhalwal lawyer