Case Details

Citation(s)
1971 SLG 3141 1971 SLD 3141 = 1971 PLD 169
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 41 of 1970, decided on 9th March 1970.
Presented By: Mushtaq Hussain Munir, J
Bashir Zafar for Petitioner. N. A. Shami for
Respondents.

KHUSHI MOHAMMAD-Petitioner

VERSUS

MOHAMMAD YAUSAF AND 6 OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 540

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 540-Witness, sum moning of-Court empowered to summon any witness, at any stage of inquiry, "if his evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case"-Witnesses summoned at accused's instance as Court witnesses, without assigning any reason, while prosecution evidence had not concluded and two out of summoned witnesses were to appear as prosecution witnesses-Prosecution neither given notice thereof nor heard before passing such order-Order set aside in circumstances.   ORDER This is a revision petition by Khushi Muhammad against the order of Mr. Gul Hassan Bokhari, Magistrate Ist Class, Sheikhupura, dated 9th January 1970, whereby he summoned Sub-Inspector Mirza Izat Beg, Khan 1jaz Ahmad Khan, Magistrate Ist Class, Gujranwala, Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad, Assistant Commissioner, Muzafargarh, Mr. Abdul Shakoor Qureshi, Section 30 Magistrate, Sheikhupura, and Inspector Police Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Niazi as Court witnesses under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the instance of the accused, in a case under section 302 read with section 149 and section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code. 2. Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 were sent up for the murder of one Mahboob Ali and are facing commitment proceed ings in the Court of Mr. Gul Hassan Bokhari. First infor mation report in the case was lodged by the petitioner. The prosecution has already examined its witnesses with the exception of two police officers, namely, Mirza Izat Beg and Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Niazi and the Forensic Expert. 3. On 9th January 1970, Mirza Izat Beg was present, but his statement was not recorded, for the defence wanted the daily diary of the police station to cross-examine him. The prosecution evidence, however, was not yet over on that very day. The accused made an application before the Magistrate for the summoning of the Court witnesses, who were summon ed as indicated above. 4. The order of the learned Magistrate has been challenged on grounds inter alia :- (a) That though he had wide powers under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon any person at any stage of the inquiry or trial, his order must show on…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register