Section 9 (c) Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Section 11 Examination of Drug Trafficking Evidence Testimony of presence of bus suspects at the time of arrest of release of child suspect, Prohibition of confidentiality with secret cavities Franz Science Laboratory In the CUS bus and affirmative report, it was clearly established that the allegation was committed by the accused, the prosecution was, in the circumstances, successful in prosecuting the accused, under the circumstances, the accused persons. There was no legal basis for imposing the sentence. And they were convicted by the trial court, however, it was recognized by all parties that at the time of the commission of the crime, the two suspects were "juveniles", on the issue of the release of a commissioner in a court of law under the Legislature. The decision was at its discretion. The young court has also been given the final authority of the same decision, but it would prove disastrous for the T-law's order, without explicit adjudication or proceedings of the Juvenile Court, in the present case under section 11 of the Judicial Justice System Ordinance 2000. It did not use discretion; in doing so, the court had indeed declared the accused as prejudicial and took illegal action, which was required under section 11 of the Judicial Justice System Ordinance 2000. The trial court, after keeping the accused in jail and maintaining the conviction, Been. \ R \ n Release of the accused at trial and its terms
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
