The accused was convicted on section 71 of the Conduct Code (XLV of 1860), sections 324, 334, 336 and 452 on charges of crime in the home and injuring the acid on the complainant's body and all such They were sentenced separately for the offenses. One transaction was made, therefore, the sentence imposed on him was not legal. There was nothing available on the record of justification to show that the accused had any intention of injuring I Amd, but rather that the accused intended to commit any offense under Sections 343 & 6 336. , PPC was provided under Punishment Sections & 34 & and provided 336, PPC was the same and in effect it could affect the alliance which included the provisions of Sections 334 & 6 336. Yes, the PPC did not authorize the court as the perpetrator could be punished under Section 242424, PPC. For both offenses, which may become a crime under section 242424, PPC, in the case of a commission of a crime under two different laws or under the same Act, the offense falls under two. Or, following further definitions of the law, the accused did not face separate penalties for each such sentence, though he could be sentenced to the same offense for the imposition of two separate sentences. Was made to run simultaneously, but will be understood. Illegally, the High Court has set aside undesirable convictions under the circumstances
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
