Sections 435, 439 and 561 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 25, 31 and 32 of the Prevention Code (XLV of 1860), Section 365A / 337A (i) / 337F (v) / 382/420 / 468/471/148/149 Kidnapping or abduction for property, etc., to cause harm, theft after preparing to cause death, fraud, use of false documents, as a forged document, deadly weapons An improper order to uphold a riotous criminal amendment was passed through the Anti-Terrorism Court Anti Terrorism Act 1997, under section 435, 439, CCPC or 5 561A, CRPC section 25, 31 Look under any request under There was no provision to challenge the order of the Anti-Terrorism Court through the second. And 32 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which were to be read together, did not allow the special court-approved order to be challenged under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court review application, however, The trial court upheld the invalid order based on the preliminary statements of the complainant and its witnesses maintained under the law, and the applicant was right in the application, keeping copies of the Medico legal reports and checks on record. Was summoned because the private complaint contained the order of the accused. Well-versed in every angle and not subject to any legal weakness, the review request was dismissed for non-compliance with the law.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
