Find a Lawyer

KARAM HUSSAIN versus THE STATE

Section 24 (2) (as amended) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Contempt Laws (Enforcement) Act 1974 (XLV of 1860), Section 302, before the accused for non-availability of the required number of eyewitnesses. Was sent to prosecute. The judge, where the majority of the prosecution's witnesses were examined, removed the case of subsection (2) of section 24 of Act IX of 1974, and the sessions judge transferred the case to the District Criminal Court for the assumption that the session after the amendment The judge was unable to continue the trial. The defendant applied before the District Criminal Court for a new nine-day trial that was stopped, amended in section 24, not only because of its nature, but also because it affected the basic provisions of the law. The prejudicial operational impact was pending before the session. Therefore, the judge was not affected where he was to continue and the transfer of the order by the session judge was against the law. W and the District Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. immigration advocates phone number from Kashmore lawyer