Find a Lawyer

STATE versus HAJI NASIB KHAN

Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 188 of the Hazara Jungle Act (III of 1936), section 26 (3) of the appeal against the accused respondent / accused had already been acquitted in two cases on the basis of the same facts, and His order of victory was finalized. After considering the evidence in this case, the accused was acquitted for the third time, no fault was found after considering the evidence in this case, on which occasion the district judge reached through the complainant, Section 417 (2). ), Did not come forward for action under CRPC. Section 1717 (()), CCP was not applicable in this case \ In previous litigation the matter was factually proved or unproven, it cannot be allowed to be reopened for further evidence because finally It has been decided that the accused can be charged. Two different judicial constituencies for two different sets of cases under two different laws based on the same facts, but once a particular judicial forum was tried for one or more crimes, the facts, the same court, were the same facts. Cannot prosecute a single accused on the basis of For some other crimes arising out of the same facts, such a court may initially charge all such offenses, or add to the charge all or most of the crimes at any stage of the proceedings. Can change the charge when the court accepts it. The facts of a case, it was thought, were such that the Court applied its mind to all the facts of the case once after acquitting the defendant / accused in two separate cases for different offenses. On behalf of the prosecution divorce advocates from Pirpai lawyer