Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2107 2013 SLD 2107 2013 PCRLJ 147
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2012, decided on 6th September, 2012. DATE of hearing: 3rd August, 2012
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J
Muhammad Wassay Tareen, Prosecutor-General and Ms. Sarwat Hina Additional Prosecutor-General for Petitioner.W.N. Kohli, Sohail Rajput and Jameel Ramzan for
Respondents

The STATE through Additional Prosecutor GENERAL

VS

NAWABZADA SHAH ZAIN BUGTI and 4 others

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------S. 540---Application for summoning and producing witnesses as additional evidence---Prosecution in its application filed under S.540, Cr.P.C. requested that prosecution witness, who was Police Officer, having since died, other two eye-witnesses, who were Army Officers, could be allowed to be produced as additional evidence---Trial Court vide impugned order declined that request, holding, firstly, that summoning of intended witnesses, did not seem essential as such kind of evidence was already available on the record and; secondly that if statements of said intended witnesses were so necessary, why prosecution failed to associate them as witnesses in calendar of witnesses---Validity---Section 540, Cr.P.C., empowered a court to call for any person as witness, who appeared to be essential to just decision of the case---Said power/descretion was to be exercised by the court judiciously, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case---Solitary eye-witness of the prosecution, having died, it would be just and appropriate to allow the prosecution to produce remaining eye-witnesses---Prosecution though was negligent but for the purpose to arrive at just decision of the case some evidence must come on record, which would be helpful for both the parties---Impugned order was set aside and prosecution was allowed to produce intended witnesses, with direction to produce said witnesses before the Trial Court without any delay. Mst. Munawar Sultana v. Muhammad Shafique alias Mithu 2008 PCr.LJ 1749; 2006 YLR 3107; 1998 SCMR 325; Dildar v. The State PLD 2001 SC 384 and Painda Gul v. State 1987 SCMR 886 ref. JUDGMENT MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.---Through instant petition order dated 15th June, 2012 of Additional Sessions Judge-V, Quetta, was questioned on grounds that the two persons namely Colonel Faisal, and Major Tariq Mahmood, who were intended to be produced as witnesses in additional evidence, were eye-witnesses of the occasion. Further, both of them participated in the process of effecting recoveries of the alleged arms, and ammunition from possession of the accused persons. Despite the fact that their names were not…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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