Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ILYAS versus THE STATE

References to Sections 377 and 374 of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 302 (b) to confirm the death sentence. Tales or limitations, or where the Shariah Court may have approved one of these sentences as a new sentence. The hearing of the case and the decision were required by at least two judges of the Shariah Court. In the present case, a sentence was sent by the Reference District Criminal Court to confirm the death, which was heard and stayed by a single judge in the Shariat Court. The Shariah court did not maintain that the Shariah court had pronounced the verdict and the Shariah court was remanded for judgment by a bench on the matter. Under the circumstances, no less than two judges

Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• ABIDA PARVEEN v. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY (FEMALE) MIRPUR 2014 PLC(CS) 999
• Ch. ALLAH DITTA v. MUHAMMAD AZEEM BHATTI 2014 CLC 1051
• SECRETARY FINANCE, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD v. KHALIL AHMED SEHRAI 2014 PLC(CS) 1145
• IFFAT BIBI v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 PLC(CS) 1160
• AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR v. MUHAMMAD QADIR JAVID 2014 PLC(CS) 1334
• KAMRAN SHEHZAD v. SIKANDER LATIF 2014 YLR 1500
• ZAFFAR MEHMOOD v. MUZAFFAR 2014 PCrLJ 1512
• MUHAMMAD TARIQ v. Syed ALAM SHAH 2014 MLD 1519

All Supreme Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

power of attorney advocate Manga Mandi lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes