EX-GUNNER MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ versus SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Section 59 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 302 Constitution of Pakistan, Arts 10 (1) and 199 (5) The conviction for selection of the defendants of Marshall Defense of the Qualcomm Field General Court convicted on the basis of the conviction by Field General Court Marshal Listen. The assassination of his colleagues in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction denied the interference in the conviction and sentence given by the Field General Court Marshal Pilia that the accused had given him during his trial. Was not allowed to consult Therefore, the Armed Forces could not issue a writ against the Field General Court Marshal or by the High Court against the Appellate Authority, which affirmed the sentence or sentence in accordance with Article 199 (5) of the Field General Court Martial of the Constitution. Article 199 (1) (i) of the Constitution High Court rightly refuses to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction. The CT accused, who were found guilty by a competent forum, did not find any misconduct by the prosecution or authority, nor any evidence passed by the Field General Court Marshal nor the prosecution. The evidence presented was insufficient evidence. Was available to prove the guilt of the accused, the Field General Court Marshal can seal the accused without the prosecution's conviction, guilt and any absence of crime, and the defendants defended. It was specifically stated in the petition filed by defense officers and a constitutionally charged suspect before the High Court that he could not afford to engage with a lawyer due to his poverty. Supreme Court approves High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction
