| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 500 2022 SLD 500 2022 YLR 478 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No. 2280 of 2021, decided on 20th October, 2021.
TARIQ MEHMOOD, JAHANGIRI, JUSTICE
Ch. Naeem Ali Gujjar for Petitioner. Ali Hussain Bhatti for
Respondents Nos.4 and 5.
Writ Petition No. 2280 of 2021, decided on 20th October, 2021.
TARIQ MEHMOOD, JAHANGIRI, JUSTICE
Ch. Naeem Ali Gujjar for Petitioner. Ali Hussain Bhatti for
Respondents Nos.4 and 5.
MUHAMMAD MAROOF
VS
THE STATE AND 2 OTHErs
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 540
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---- S. 540--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 379, 427, 452, 506 (ii), 148 149---Theft, mischief causing damage, house trespass with preparation to cause hurt, criminal intimidation and rioting armed with deadly weapons---Additional evidence, recording of---Principle/complainant intended to producing additional evidence on the plea that proposed witnesses were eye-witnesses nominated in FIR but police did not record their statements---Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court dismissed application and revision petition filed by complainant---Validity---Trial Court could not summarily dismiss application for additional evidence in terms of S.540, Cr.P.C. by merely holding that either proposed witnesses were not mentioned in challan or that it was belated application or that it was filed to fill up lacunas in prosecution case, unless totality of material placed before it was considered to find out whether examination of the witnesses was essential for a just decision of the case--- Names of persons mentioned in application under S.540, Cr.P.C. were already mentioned in FIR as eye-witnesses, if their statements were recorded by Trial Court, no prejudice would be caused but if their statements were not allowed to be recorded, petitioner / complainant could suffer from such act and could not get proper justice from Court of law/Trial Court---High Court set aside orders passed by two Courts below and remanded the matter to Trial Court for affording one opportunity to petitioner/complainant produce witnesses mentioned in application---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. 2019 MLD 2048; 2021 PCr.LJ 417; 2018 YLR 2490; 2020 MLD 942; Jamatraj Kewalfi Govani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 178; Iddar and others v. Aabida and another AIR 2007 SC 3029; Ansar Mehmood v. Abdul Khaliq 2011 SCMR 713 and Shahbaz Masih v. The State 2007 SCMR 1631 ref. ORDER TARIQ MEHMOOD JAHANGIRI, J.--- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned order dated 07.06.2021, passed by learned Sessions Judge (West), Islamabad and order dated 27.01.2021, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad,…
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