| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2301 2013 SLD 2301 2013 PLD 214 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. S-78 of 2012, decided on 4th December, 2012
FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, J
Zuber Ahmed Rajput For Applicant/Complainant. Sardar Ali Shah, A.P.G
Criminal Revision Application No. S-78 of 2012, decided on 4th December, 2012
FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, J
Zuber Ahmed Rajput For Applicant/Complainant. Sardar Ali Shah, A.P.G
GHULAM RASOOLComplainant
VS
THE STATE
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 342,493
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 342 & 493---Power of Trial Court to examine accused--- Complainant proposing question to be asked from the accused in terms of S.342, Cr.P.C---Scope---Counsel privately instructed to be under direction of Public Prosecutor---Scope---Complainant/applicant filed application before Trial Court proposing a question to be put to accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C, as in the opinion of complainant proposed question was essential to confront the accused with incriminating piece of evidence against him---Trial Court declined said application of complainant after concluding that questions put up to the accused during his examination under S.342, Cr.P.C covered the question proposed by the complainant---Validity---Under S.342, Cr.P.C it was for the Trial Court to put such questions, while examining the accused, which it considered necessary---Question proposed by complainant could not be put to the accused, if the Trial Court considered the same to be unnecessary---Trial Court had considered the question proposed by complainant and came to the conclusion that same was covered by the questions put up to accused during his examination under S.342, Cr.P.C---Even otherwise application moved before Trial Court for adding proposed question in statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C was moved by the counsel for complainant without consent of Public Prosecutor, who in terms of S.493, Cr.P.C was in charge of the case---By-passing authority of Public Prosecutor was against the spirit of S.493, Cr.P.C---Revision application was dismissed in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 493---Counsel privately instructed to be under direction of Public Prosecutor---Scope---Any private counsel engaged (by complainant) could only assist the Public Prosecutor, thus filing of any application, by-passing/without the authority of Public Prosecutor was against the spirit of section 493, Cr.P.C. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 342---Power of Trial Court to examine accused---Complainant proposing question to be asked from the accused in terms of S.342, Cr.P.C---Scope---Under S.342, Cr.P.C…
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