Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ versus STATE

Complaint that allegedly was prosecuted under section 4 A&A and 2 Cri2 // 34 Criminal Code of Conduct (v. 1898), section 439 accused under section 364A and 302/34, PPC. The driver's 5/6 year old daughter was killed after she was subjected to it. During the hearing of the adulterous Bill Jabbar Additional Sessions Judge, the complainant's request came to the conclusion that a terrorist element was involved in the case and that he sent the file to the Sessions Judge for transfer to the Anti-Terrorism Court, but the session did not. The judge returned it with some observations. The Additional Sessions Judge has the Additional Sessions Judge to take action according to the law, after understanding the nature of terrorism and identifying it with the Anti-Terrorism Court, cannot review, recall or recall its own order. Could not be set aside, even the session judge could not hear the matter. An incident before the Additional Sessions Judge by an impugned order, which had already expressed an opinion on what would become the Finitex Office case, without a doubt, had the exclusive jurisdiction to enter the Federal Shariat Court, but this was not the nature of terrorism. Was an issue for which the Anti-Terrorism Court had exclusive jurisdiction, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain criminal review. The order of the petition was not challenged in the High Court by the Additional Sessions Judge deciding the nature of the trial by the Anti-Terrorism Court, but the said order of the Sessions Judge was challenged in the High Court, which was an administrative order. And maybe a writ petition has been officially challenged in the High Court, lawer from fb area from Garh Maharaja lawyer