Syariah Courts Criminal Procedure Code · s 103

Suggest a correction

Tell us what is wrong in this text. We check every suggestion against the official version before we change anything.

What is wrong?Wrong or mistyped wordsWrong structure or numberingWrong title or detailsText that appears twice

What should change, and whyUp to 2,000 characters.The text as it should read (optional)

103.
Effect of errors
No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or the particulars.
shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission.
Illustrations
(a) A is charged with committing ghasab against Johan Samad on 12th February 2012.
In fact the name of the person subjected to ghasub was Jihan Samad, and the date ghasab was commited was on 1 1 th February 20 12. A was never charged with committing any ghasab but one, and had heard the proceedings before the Syar'ie Judge which referred exclusively to the case of Jihan Samad. The Syariah Court may infer from these facts that A was not misled, and that the error in the charge was immaterial.
(b) B was charged with committing ghasab against Jihan Samad on I 1  th February 2012
and committing ghasab against Johan Samad on 12th February 20 12. When B was charged with committing ghasab against Jihan Samad, he was tried for committing ghasab against
Johan Samad. The witnesses present in his defence were witnesses in the case of Jil~an
Samad. The Syariah Court may infer from this that B was misled and that the error was material.

Edit the text above. Up to 20,000 characters.Where you checked it (optional)A link to the official version, if you have one.

The text as we hold it

Open the official text

s 103Effect of errors

No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or the particulars.

shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission.

Illustrations

(a)

A is charged with committing ghasab against Johan Samad on 12th February 2012.

In fact the name of the person subjected to ghasub was Jihan Samad, and the date ghasab was commited was on 1 1 th February 20 12. A was never charged with committing any ghasab but one, and had heard the proceedings before the Syar'ie Judge which referred exclusively to the case of Jihan Samad. The Syariah Court may infer from these facts that A was not misled, and that the error in the charge was immaterial.

(b)

B was charged with committing ghasab against Jihan Samad on I 1 th February 2012

and committing ghasab against Johan Samad on 12th February 20 12. When B was charged with committing ghasab against Jihan Samad, he was tried for committing ghasab against

Johan Samad. The witnesses present in his defence were witnesses in the case of Jil~an

Samad. The Syariah Court may infer from this that B was misled and that the error was material.