On the basis of the legal delay in hearing the accused, for the second time, on the basis of section 426 (1A) (E) and 439 Sentencing Regulation (XLV of 1860), section 302 (b), ? His appeal, but the High Court had originally dismissed on the ground that the complainant had filed a criminal amendment to increase the accused's sentence and that the notice was issued, whether the affirmative question was High. The court's order passed in the criminal review, which stated that the criminal appeal of the accused should be reviewed as soon as possible, a notice was issued to the accused under section 439, CCP C was only an order passed by the High Court in the criminal review that the amendment was to be heard as well. The defendant's appeal, which could not be equivalent to the notice of the accused to extend the sentence, was not shown on the record that the defendant was responsible for the delay in the appeal hearing. The statements made by the trial court showed that the accused was not harsh or severely punished or suspended under the circumstances and released on bail.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
