Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 2472 2016 SLD 2472 2016 SCMR 2084
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 198 of 2016, decided on 29th August, 2016. Date of hearing: 29th August, 2016. (On appeal against the order Dated 09.02.2016 passed by Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench in Cr. M./Q.P. No. 58-B of 2015)
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE AND SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE
Liaqat Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record (Absent) for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.

ASFANDYAR AND another

VS

KAMRAN AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 539-B---Power of local inspection---Scope---Section 539-B, Cr.P.C. gave power to a trial Judge or a Magistrate to visit and inspect the place of occurrence or any other place after due notice to the parties, if necessary for properly appreciating the evidence given during the trial---Such power could not be delegated by the trial Judge to any other subordinate or even a subordinate judicial officer to visit the place of occurrence as a Commission. During cross-examination upon the investigating officer, in order to rebut the site plan, the trial Court on a request by the defence side, under section 539-B, Cr.P.C. appointed a Magistrate as a Commission to visit the place of occurrence in order to ascertain the authenticity of the site plan. Section 539-B, Cr.P.C. gave power to a Judge or a Magistrate to visit and inspect the place of occurrence or any other place after due notice to the parties, if necessary in the opinion of the trial Court, for properly appreciating the evidence given during the trial. He was also required to record a memorandum without unnecessary delay regarding his observation at such inspection but this power could not be delegated by the trial Judge to any other subordinate or even a subordinate judicial officer. Under section 539-B, Cr.P.C., the trial Judge had no power to appoint another person to visit the place of occurrence as a Commission because the report submitted by a local Commission could not be equated with the memorandum mentioned in section 539-B(1), Cr.P.C. The trial Judge could inspect the place of occurrence but alone and he cannot delegate his powers under section 539-B, Cr.P.C. Trial Judge, in the present case, assumed the jurisdiction of an investigating officer and impugned order passed by him would amount to favour one party and prejudice the case of other party. Power under section 539-B, Cr.P.C. could not be a substitute for collection of evidence. Power of inspection under section 539-B, Cr.P.C could not be interchanged for investigation. Impugned order by trial court was not only prejudicial to the other party but also detrimental to the fairness of the procedure…
🔒
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