Sections 302 (b) / 34 and 324/34 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXI7 of 2000), sections 5 and 6, defining evidence, sentencing, reduction of the accused after being declared underage separately from his adult co-accused As was done by the trial court. The procedure adopted by the trial court was a violation of sections 5 and 6 (4) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, but the adverse effect, if any, was due to a violation of the relevant provisions of the law, at an irreversible stage. Had reached, the accused could have already grown up, there would be no motive for his special trial to be remanded, except that the accused along with the co-accused, Is heard on the same date, or by retaliating with oral transcripts of the testimony of witnesses from the adult co-accused's file to his file. , Did not have all the adverse effects on the defendant's defense, especially when the adult co-accused's lawyer was also representing the president. It is not appropriate for the trial court to remand the trial court approximately eight years after its establishment, especially when the trial court had devised and adopted the procedure with the consent of the parties. Irregularities with the consent of the parties can be considered curable. The purpose of the incident was to prove that the witnesses had no deep animosity with the accused on the false charge. Police were immediately notified when the witness of the prosecution witness at the scene of the incident and injured at the scene cannot be suspected. Ocular testimony was based on medical evidence at the time the defendant was located
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
