| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 2230 2014 SLD 2230 2014 PCRLJ 1496 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. S-41 of 2013, decided on 12th July, 2013
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J
Ishrat Ali Lohar for Applicant. Hidayatullah A. Abbasi for
Respondent No. 1. Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G. for the State
Criminal Revision Application No. S-41 of 2013, decided on 12th July, 2013
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J
Ishrat Ali Lohar for Applicant. Hidayatullah A. Abbasi for
Respondent No. 1. Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G. for the State
Malik NASEER
VS
WISHNO MAL and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 265-F---Defence witnesses, summoning of---Procedure---Complete procedure has been provided in provision of S. 265-F, Cr.P.C. for both prosecution and accused to examine witnesses and to produce documents---Procedure has made it clear that accused may adduce his evidence after conclusion of prosecution evidence---If accused wants Court to summon any person to give evidence or to produce any document, he has to wait till conclusion of prosecution evidence. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 540---Material witness, summoning of---Power of Court---Scope---While exercising vested powers, Court can summon, examine or re-examine any person, if just decision of the case so demands, which is the prime object of criminal administration of justice. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 540---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.324---Attempt to commit Qatl-e-amd---Additional evidence---Summoning of material witness---Object and scope---Accused filed application for summoning of a person as Court witness to prove his plea of alibi---Application filed by accused was dismissed by Trial Court---Validity---Provision of S.540, Cr.P.C. was not meant to allow any of the parties to fill up lacunas of their respective cases but it could only be insisted when exercise of jurisdiction was required for just decision of the case---Jurisdiction and power under S. 540, Cr.P.C. could be exercised where Court, having taken into consideration totality of material placed before it had found any examination of any person or production of any document, essential for just decision of the case which too, where such examination or production could not be done otherwise---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court as the same was legal and proper---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Molvi Muhammad Yousif v. The State 2011 YLR 1499; The State v. Muhammad Yaqoob 2001 SCMR 308; Ansar Mehmood v. Abdul Khaliq 2011 SCMR 713; Shah Zain Bugti v. The State PLD 2013 SC 160 and Muhammad Ashraf v. The State PLD 2011 FSC 114 distinguished. Sahib Khan v. The State 2008 SCMR 1049; Muhammad Aslam v. The State 2003…
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