Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Criminal Code (v. 1898), the owner or occupier of the 200 abusive words, section 3, the Definitive Trial Court in the Defamation Act 2005 The complaint was upheld but the High Court stayed the order. Since the procedure provided under section 200 can be taken solely by the trial court, the CRPC Validity High Court erred in recording the findings that the complaint of the complainant under section 200, CRPC. Under the Illegal Disposition Act 2005 it was necessary to take it seriously. The High Court was in breach of the language of Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Unlawful Disposal Act, 2005; the High Court erred in stating that the owner or occupier of the word in the Unlawful Disposition Act, 2005, I did not include more than one owner and / or occupier, which means that if the property is jointly owned or jointly owned by the complainants, they cannot refer to the trial court by F. ? Filing a complaint under Section 5 of the Unlawful Settlement Act, 2005, filing a case through trial was under the parameters of the Court Unlawful Settlement Act, 2005, and after the complainant was examined under Section 200, a private complaint The procedure for proceeding was to be introduced under the Criminal Code of Conduct, 1898. The CCP was unlawful that the Unlawful Settlement Act, 2005 was out of language, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and remanded the case to the trial court for a decision according to the law. Was allowed
