STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR versus WAHID
Section 417 Fraudulent Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 420, 468 and 471 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 5 Fraud. Fraud for fraudulent purposes. And has been appealed against the passage of the delayed bill related to using the original as a forged document. The demand has been raised by the authorities that delays due to the long process of approval from the respective constituencies, the common law prevailing in the special code of law prevails in the criminal code of conduct. 1898, after granting the limits, under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908, the appeal filed after the expiry of 30 days could not be banned and the time was restricted and there was no justification. That the state court of law should be gentle on the appeal filed. Do not take a separate route to the state, appeal was restricted in the case of limitation and no delay was granted by the state for the delay, a court of competent jurisdiction and extraordinary cases Decree of acquittal is considered double, where the decision was found to be misleading, shocking or in error of jurisdiction, the Appellate E Court may intervene. The appeal is dismissed in circumstances.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2014
