Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 1313 2015 SLD 1313 2015 PLD 470
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No.230 of 2014, decided on 28th October, 2014.
AMER RAZA NAQVI, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

AKRAM

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 540---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-A---Calling witnesses for cross-examination, application for---Out of four witnesses examined by the prosecution, only one witness, who was complainant, was cross-examined by the defence---Applicant/accused alleged that fair opportunity was not extended to him by the Trial Court for cross-examination of remaining witnesses---Application for calling witnesses for cross-examination was dismissed instantly by only one word "rejected"---Trial Court proceeded with the case and convicted applicant through impugned ---Validity---Due process of law, and fair opportunity of being defended, was a right of every accused of any offence---Said right had been recognized under Art.10-A of the Constitution---Even if Trial Court thought that application moved by accused could not be granted for any reason, such reason should have been incorporated in the order---Dismissal of the application by single word 'rejected' could not be appreciated---Impugned was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Trial Court, with direction to decide the application under S.540, Cr.P.C., for re-calling the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination strictly in accordance with law. ORDER AMER RAZA NAQVI, J.---Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case before the trial Court prosecution has examined four witnesses out of these four witnesses only one witness, who was complainant namely ASI Mukhtar Ali was cross-examined by the learned defence counsel, whereas, other three witnesses were not cross-examined by the counsel and per learned counsel fair opportunity was not extended to the appellant by the trial Court as when the learned counsel filed Vakalalnama on behalf of the appellant before the trial Court and moved an application for recalling the P.Ws for cross-examination by the counsel, such application was dismissed by only one word…
πŸ”’
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