Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 133(3)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 265-A,493

Law: Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006

Section: 9

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 133(3)---Re-examination of witness---Scope --Petitioner assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby his application for re-examination of medical officer was dismissed---Medical officer had suggested in his examination-in-chief that the duration of all the injuries at the time of death of deceased was six hours but during cross-examination he deposed that the duration of perianal injuries might be three to four hours---Time difference raised many a questions which needed an answer s case would be prejudiced if medical officer was not re-examined and his explanation on the issue was not sought---Petition was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 265-A 493--- Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006), S. 9---Trial before Court of Session to be conducted by Public Prosecutor---Public Prosecutor may plead in all Courts in cases under his charge---Conduct of Prosecution---Scope-- Petitioner assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby his application under Art. 133(3) of Qanun-c-Shahadat, 1984 was dismissed---Contention of respondents was that the public prosecutor was in-charge of the prosecutions case, as such, the petitioner had no locus standi to file such application---Validity---Section 265-A, Cr.P.C., ordained that the public prosecutor would conduct every trial before a court of Sessions initiated upon a police report---Section 9 of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Services (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, stipulated that the prosecutors appointed thereunder would be responsible for the conduct of prosecution on behalf of the Government---Words police report and Government were significant as they made a trenchant distinction between State cases and those initiated on private complaints--- Public prosecutor was in-charge of only the first category  contended that the above interpretation was consistent with S. 493, Cr.P.C., which made the Public Prosecutor in-charge of all cases and declared that privately instructed counsel would be subordinate to him---Words any case of which he has charge clearly showed…

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