Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 241-A,265-C,439

Law: Official Secrets Act, 1923

Section: 5,9

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10-A

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 241-A & 265-C---Supply of documents---Signatures of accused on Order Sheet---Object, purpose and scope---Purpose of law is that copies of documents appended with report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. are to be provided so that accused knows case against him---Acknowledgment, by way of signatures on the order sheet, is only a proof that compliance was made of S. 265-C, or 241-A, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Azam v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 1534 rel. (b) Official Secrets Act (XIX of 1923)--- ----Ss.5 & 9---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 241-A & 439---Wrongful communication, etc., of information and incitements---Fair trial and due process of law---Supply of statements and documents to accused---Principle---Accused was aggrieved of non-supply of copy of cypher which he asserted to be a fundamental document of the prosecution case against him---Validity---It is right of an accused to receive copies of all statements made under Ss. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C. and inspection notes recorded by investigating officer and other documents---Such right is not absolute and is subject to proviso that where disclosure of any information is inexpedient in public interest, such part of statement can be excluded from copy of statement furnished to accused---All documents, which were part of report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. were supplied to accused---If any document was not part of challan/report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., which according to accused, was a fundamental document, the effect thereof would be examined by Trial Court subsequently---Accused could also request for summoning of a particular document, if he felt that such document was a fundamental document---High Court directed Trial Court to ensure due compliance of Art. 10-A of the Constitution and declined to interfere in the matter---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Sikandar Ali Lashari v. The State and another 2016 YLR 62; The State v. Chaudhry Muhammad Usman 2023 SCMR 1676 and Hussain Naqi and 2 others v. Special Judge (Central), Lahore and another 1986 MLD 1107 ref. Fayyaz Hussain v. Akbar Hussain and others 2004 SCMR 964; Ghulam Muhammad v. Malik…

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