Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YOUSUF versus STATE

Section 561A Conventional Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 324, 147, 148 and 149 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Sections 13, 14 and 14 of the AJA and Kashmir Islamic Constitutional Law Enforcement Act (IX of 1974) ), Section 23 (5) of the proceedings sought to be terminated on the basis that a competent hearing by a first-party magistrate under section 14A of the Criminal Ordinance, subject to section 13 or 14 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 Punishment. The accused has been charged with the crime of murder, the accused said that the trial court has committed an unlawful crime while running all the cases simultaneously, its action has been reduced to the view of the law which was registered under the Mughal Pakistan Arms Ordinance. Is gone The first class magistrate was to be sent in 1965 for hearing and settlement, in which case the trial court had consolidated all three challans after the charges, but said that the order was not challenged. y The applicant had obtained final status before and during any forum within a specified period. Otherwise, the submission of a lawyer to the applicant is a misunderstanding and without any substance to the J&K Was not subject to the provisions of section 23 (5). The Law Enforcement Act, 1974, if, during an incident, an accused committed another crime which was not amenable to hearing by this court, the trial court, however, had tried all the offenses mentioned in the Challan District Criminal Court. And was given the option to settle. The law and trial court had the full power to resolve the case according to the trial court; no illegal activity was committed under the circumstances. immigration advocates email from Kohlu lawyer