Sections 6, 7 and 23 of the Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Sections 324, 353 and 216 commit a murder, assault or criminal force for discharging a public servant from his duty, abstaining from a robbery or terrorist robbery act. Appeal for Attempt The transfer of the case from the Anti-Terrorism Court to the General Court was justified and the decision on whether to decide a crime should be scheduled or not, as two separate proceedings. Cannot be considered, which must be done by the court at different times in the court. We will review a given offense only if it has jurisdiction over it suspected to have committed the offense by examining the material presented in accordance with the provisions of Section 737373. An exception was made that the magistrate accepted it. Specifically, the offense is competent to be heard by the sessions court, without a record of the evidence, the trial court may send the session to the trial court under the section of to Section (); Failure to consider the design under section 193, the CCPC Court was convinced that the offense was fixed at the time of admitting the offense on the basis of material presented in the challan or no. The court decided in the affirmative, that it would proceed with the law in accordance with the law and thereafter would not restrict the jurisdiction of the court at any other stage, but the jurisdiction to move the matter to a regular court. Can be resorted to. By the court under section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
