MST. SHAMIM AKHTAR versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW
Section 17 and 18 (g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (v. 1898), Section 173 High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Volume V, Chapter 4, Part H, Rule 5 Letter Patent (Lahore), C1 26 Case Reference Re- Investigations. The Division Bench of Public opinion canceled the reference against the accused, but one judge allowed a re-investigation of the case, while another judge disagreed with such an observation. Request, therefore, there was no reason. Such witnessing by one of two judges can provide authorities with a premium for independent remission and a trial for their own mistakes, and better chances of being accused of abuse after a thirteen-year hiatus. Are provided. This was not valid in the law. Both judges rightly canceled the reference. However, the observation was put aside, the referee judge agreed with the judge who did not agree. Re-investigation permission The reference request was not sent to the Division Bench of the High Court, which originally heard the matter because the decision would not be majority, it was the referee judge's decision. There was influence and it was binding and judgment. Reference was made to deal with such an opinion
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
