Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1328 2021 SLD 1328 2021 PCRLJ 567
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 2929-P of 2019, decided on 21st November, 2019, Date of hearing: 21st November, 2019.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE, AHMAD ALI, JUSTICE
Amir Javed for Petitioners. Muhammad Riaz Momand for
Respondents.

QAZI LAIQUE AHMAD AND 3 OTHErs

VS

CHAIRMAN NAB AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 540

Law: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Section: 17(c)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 540---Material witness, summoning of---Principle---Court has discretion under first part of S. 540, Cr.P.C. to summon or recall any witness at any stage of the case. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 540---Material witness, summoning of---Duty of Court---Statutory duty has been imposed under second part of S. 540, Cr.P.C. on a Court to summon, examine, recall or re-examine any person if conditions are satisfied to the effect that (a) if evidence is essential and (b) it is essential to the just decision of the case--- Legislature by using word `essential and by qualifying the word decision by an adjective just in Cr.P.C. has indicated that the powers should be exercised very cautiously and only where Court thinks the evidence to be necessary for the interest of justice. (c) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----S. 17(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 540---Powers of court to take any evidence-- Scope---Interpretation and scope of words just decision occurring in S. 540, Cr.P.C.---Provisions of S. 17(c), National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and S. 540, Cr.P.C., armed the court with powers to take any evidence it likes---Words just decision used in S. 540, Cr.P.C., do not necessarily imply that the decision should be either in favour of the prosecution or defence---Principles. [p. 572] B (d) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)--- ----S. 17(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 540---Laches, principle of---Applicability---Essential evidence was facing trial before Accountability Court and during recording of evidence of investigating officer, he objected to de-exhibit certain documents---Validity---Discretion conferred on Accountability Court was not to enable one party or the other to fill up the gaps in his case and to improve it by new matter at a later stage but to enable the Court to act in the interest of justice, when it would consider such action necessary---Court could not come to rescue of persons who were not vigilant regarding their rights---High Court declined to give petitioners a remedy where, by their conduct, they had done which…
🔒
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