| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 1130 2012 SLD 1130 2012 PLD 179 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No.267 of 2011, decision dated: 18-10-2011. (Against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh Karachi dated 1-6-2011 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.152 of 2010).
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Petition No.267 of 2011, decision dated: 18-10-2011. (Against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh Karachi dated 1-6-2011 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.152 of 2010).
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SHER MUHAMMAD UNAR and others
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 193, 403 & 173---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13---Double jeopardy, principle of---Applicability---Innocence during investigation--Accused persons were declared innocent during investigation but Trial Court summoned them to face the trial---Plea raised by accused persons was that summoning them by Trial Court to face trial had attracted principle of double jeopardy---Validity---Finding of guilt or innocence by police at investigation stage was not a finding in trial culminating in conviction or acquittal and principle of double jeopardy could not be invoked by accused---Even if when an accused was discharged by Magistrate/Trial Court, the consequence was that he was discharged from his bond at a stage when his custody was no longer required by investigating agency---Such order was only an executive order passed at investigating stage when the case had yet to go for trial--- Court could still try the accused, if some fresh material was brought before it---Accused were not discharged by Trial Court and order of their discharge was based on police report and the same could not be equated with acquittal---Trial Court was not bound by such finding of innocence reflected in final report submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C. and it could still summon the accused---Trial Court having assessed the evidence, came to prima facie conclusion that a case was made out against accused persons and summoned them, which order was upheld by High Court---Prima facie concurrent assessment of evidence (which was preliminary in nature) led by complainant was neither arbitrary nor against the record to warrant interference---Trial Court was to assess evidence which was finally recorded in presence of all accused and consider defence plea, strictly in the light of principles laid down by Supreme Court for safe administration of justice--- Supreme Court declined to interfere in the orders passed by Trial Court as well by High Court---Appeal was dismissed. Nasrullah v. the State 1997 MLD 1430; Arshad Ali Shah v. Saeed Ahmed Ashraf 1996 PCr.LJ 1673; Ghulam Hussain v. State 2001 YLR 387; Alamdar Hussain Shah v. Abdul Baseer Qureshi PLD 1978 SC…
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