| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 278 2020 SLD 278 2020 MLD 62 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2019, decision & hearing Dated: 27-08-2019.
FAROOQ HAIDER, JUSTICE ASIM HAFEEZ, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Hafiz Muhammad Abu Bakar Ansari
Respondent(s) by: Mrs. Humaira Naheed Khand, Special Prosecutor for ANF
Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2019, decision & hearing Dated: 27-08-2019.
FAROOQ HAIDER, JUSTICE ASIM HAFEEZ, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Hafiz Muhammad Abu Bakar Ansari
Respondent(s) by: Mrs. Humaira Naheed Khand, Special Prosecutor for ANF
MUHAMMAD TANVEER
VS
THE STATE AND OTHERS
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 94,161,164,265-C,265-E,265-F(7),342
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 9(c)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 10A
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 265-F(7) & 94---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Defence evidence---Issuance of process---Summons to produce document or other thing---Right of fair trial---Scope---Accused assailed order of Trial Court whereby his application for summoning the Register maintained for mentioning rent deeds in the police station along with Moharir was dismissed---Validity---Accused, in support of his defence plea, could get process issued for summoning evidence through court---Section 265-F(7), Cr.P.C. provided that court could only refuse to issue process for compelling the attendance of any witness for examination or the production of any document or other thing, on the request of accused, if it considered that application was made for the purpose of vexation, delay or defeating the ends of justice---Where such application was not hit by said conditions, then court had to issue the process for summoning of witness or production of any document or other thing---Accused under S. 265-F(7), Cr.P.C., had to show that evidence sought to be summoned was admissible and had some relevance---Degree of relevance was immaterial for the purpose of exercising powers under S. 265-F(7), Cr.P.C.---Piece of evidence having prima facie even the slightest degree of relevance had to be summoned, if it was not otherwise hit by the exceptions mentioned in S. 265-F(7), Cr.P.C.---Refusal to issue process for summoning evidence on the application of accused in his defence was unfair in view of Art. 10-A of the Constitution---Impugned order was not only against the express provisions of law i.e. Ss.94 & 265-F(7), Cr.P.C. but was also in direct conflict with Art. 10-A of the Constitution---Appeal was allowed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 265-C & 265-E---Supply of statements and documents to accused---Plea of accused---Scope---Prosecution is bound to disclose its case against accused and court has to provide relevant documents including statements of witnesses to accused, free of cost not later than seven days before commencement of the trial---Accused, on the other hand, is not bound to disclose details of his…
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