| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 550 2018 SLD 550 2018 MLD 489 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 718 of 2016, hearing Date : 21-2-2017.
TARIQ SALEEM SHEIKH, JUSTICE
Rana Shaukat Hayat Noon for Petitioner. Muhammad Ashraf Qureshi for
Respondents Nos.2 to 9. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan Khichi, D.D.P.P. for the State.
Criminal Revision No. 718 of 2016, hearing Date : 21-2-2017.
TARIQ SALEEM SHEIKH, JUSTICE
Rana Shaukat Hayat Noon for Petitioner. Muhammad Ashraf Qureshi for
Respondents Nos.2 to 9. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan Khichi, D.D.P.P. for the State.
ALLAH WASAYA
VS
THE STATE AND 8 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ----S. 540---Summoning of witness---Scope---Law empowered the court to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in the attendance even if he had not been summoned as a witness---Court could recall and examine any person already examined---Said powers could be exercised at any stage of an inquiry, trial or proceedings under the Cr.P.C.---Courts was to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if it appeared that his evidence was imperative for a just decision of the case. Maulvi Hazoor Baksh v. The State PLD 1985 SC 233; Abdul Salam v. The State 2000 SCMR 102; The State v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others 2001 SCMR 308; Muhammad Murad Abro v. The State through A.G. Balochistan 2004 SCMR 966; Shahbaz Masih v. The State 2007 SCMR 1631 and Nawabzada Shah Zain Bugti and others v. The State PLD 2013 SC 160 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 540---Words 'shall' and 'may, used in S.540, Cr. P.C.---Scope---Word "may" was used in first part of the section and word "shall" was used in second part of the said section---Word "may" was used for discretionary purpose and word "shall" was used for obligatory purpose. Mehrzad Khan v. The State PLD 1991 SC 430; Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others PLD 1984 SC 95 and The State v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others 2001 SCMR 308 rel. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 265-A, 493 & 540---Authorised person to conduct trial on behalf of prosecution before Court---Scope---Complainant was a necessary party in cases involving murder and hurt to body, which fact did not make him incharge of the prosecution---Section 265-A, Cr.P.C. carried a specific stipulation that in every sessions trial initiated upon a police report, the prosecution was to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor---Section 493, Cr.P.C. laid down that the Public Prosecutor would plead in all cases under his charge before any court and the pleaders privately instructed were to act under his direction---Public Prosecutor had the authority to give up any witness in the case, though he was to consult the complainant/petitioner and his counsel in that regard---Statement…
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