Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD TARIQUE versus STATE

Sections 7 (b), 17 (3) and 24 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 394 conviction for evidence, reduction of appeal, forum of accused, sentenced under section 394, PPC Went and sentenced, filed an appeal in the High Court. His conviction and conviction was pleaded by the State Counsel that the accused wrongly appealed to the High Court jurisdiction because he was charged under the Property Hood (Ordinance) Ordinance, 1979. Was a forum for appeal because of the special law, neither the Federal Shariat Court nor the High Court justified when the trial court heard a case that was punishable under two different laws, then the appeal. The forum was to be determined by the law under which the trial court sentenced the accused. In other words, where no crime was committed under a particular law, but was made under the common law, regardless of the law under which it was charged, then the appeal against such punishment was made public. There will be a forum provided by law. ; And not under the special law under which a person was actually charged under Sec. 24 of the Second Providence Crimes (Enforcement Hodg) Ordinance 1979, it became clear that the appeal in the Federal Shariat Court There will be times when the accused is convicted. In the present case, the trial court had held that the offense under section 9 and 17 of this ordinance could be punished under section 394; PPC appeal, in the circumstances rightly preferred before the High Court. Was gone, though he was charged with the crime. Upon committing under the Ordinance, this Ordinance registration advocate from Shujabad lawyer