| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2833 2004 SLD 2833 2004 PLD 298 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 535-L of 2001, decided on 4th April, 2003.
TANVIR AHMED KHAN AND KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JJ
Hasnat Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ghulam Hadier AlGhani Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 535-L of 2001, decided on 4th April, 2003.
TANVIR AHMED KHAN AND KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JJ
Hasnat Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ghulam Hadier AlGhani Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents
BASHIR AHMAD
VS
ZAFAR-ULISLAM and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.561-A---Quashing of proceedings---Scope---Crucial questions which were required to be decided and determined before a final verdict of guilt or innocence of the accused persons in the present case could be pronounced---Such questions were never attended to by the High Court and understandably so because the same could not have been done unless the witnesses were examined and permitted to be cross-examined under S.342, Cr.P.C. or under S.340(2), Cr.P.C., if the accused persons had elected to make statements on oath---High Court had proceeded to pronounce the innocence of the accused persons on mere conjectures and surmises and that too founded on incorrect facts---Prosecution had been stifled and the matter had been decided without permitting the relevant acts to come on record in accordance with law---Errors had crept into the proceedings because the normal course of trial had been unduly disrupted---Held, such was never the result designed to be achieved by the provisions of S.561-A, Cr.P.C.---High Court had fallen into error in basing its decision on factually incorrect foundations which error had crept into the decision mainly on account of the departure made from the normal course of law---Decision of the High Court had also guillotined the prosecution which led to unjustifiable conclusions---Judgment of the High Court could had not mentioned any extraordinary deviation from the normal procedure prescribed by law and on that account also the use of power under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. could not be sustained. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.561-A---Legislative history and purpose which was sought to be secured through incorporation of S.561-A, Cr.P.C. in the Code and its true import---Provision of S.561.-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be used to override express provisions of law to offer just another remedy where a remedy already exists or to circumvent the normal course of law--Jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary one preserved only for extraordinary situations which power must be exercised sparingly with utmost caution only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of routine---Principles.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492