MUHAMMAD IMRAN ALIAS SAWAN versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, MULTAN
Section 23 Constitutional Code (XLV of 1860), 5302 Offenses of Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Section 10 (7) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Jurisdiction Transfer of High Court Scope to the General Court ? The question is whether or not to prosecute the applicant / accused by the Anti-Terrorism Court, initially sitting in the constitutional jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court and the High Court, in the absence of the Anti-Terrorism Court. Could not interfere with the discretion of. Holding a High Court in a constitutional jurisdiction does not require any material that can neither function as an appellate authority nor find such findings by a competent court / tribunal established under a special court. It was to see if the decision was made. The defective order in the constitutional petition was with or without judicial verdicts, recorded by the judge, the Anti-Terrorism Court, deciding the trial. Inner was declared competent by the Anti-Terrorism Court and said that after the Judge recorded the Anti-Terrorism Court in the jurisdiction granted under the Special Act, the High Court intervened and the Judge countered. There was no jurisdiction to sit on the terror investigation.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
