| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3039 = 1980 SLD 3039 = 1980 PLD 131 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Criminal Suo Motu Revision Applications Nos. 201, 202, 204 to 206, 208 to 215, 218 to 223, 225, 226, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237, 240, 241, 244 and 245 of 1977, decided on 18th November 1978.
Presented By: Z. A. Channa, J
Ghulam Ali H., Agha for the State. S. Murtaza Hussain for
Respondents (in S. M. Revns. Nos. 201, 202, 20 to 206; 208 to 215, 218, 232 to 234, 236, 237, 240, 241, 244 and 245 of 1977).
Respondents (in S. M. Revns. Nos. 219 to 223, 225 and 226 of 1977) (Absent).
Criminal Suo Motu Revision Applications Nos. 201, 202, 204 to 206, 208 to 215, 218 to 223, 225, 226, 232, 233, 235, 236, 237, 240, 241, 244 and 245 of 1977, decided on 18th November 1978.
Presented By: Z. A. Channa, J
Ghulam Ali H., Agha for the State. S. Murtaza Hussain for
Respondents (in S. M. Revns. Nos. 201, 202, 20 to 206; 208 to 215, 218, 232 to 234, 236, 237, 240, 241, 244 and 245 of 1977).
Respondents (in S. M. Revns. Nos. 219 to 223, 225 and 226 of 1977) (Absent).
THE STATE-Complainant
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD SALEH AND ANOTHER-Accused
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 87, 88, 512
Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section: 33
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 87, 88 & 512 read with Federal Capital and Sind Courts Criminal Circulars, Ch. VI, Part FII, r. 3Case diary for every hearing containing direction for issuance of processes against absconding accused but no such processes or notices to surety of accused in fact ever issuedPresiding Officers directed to initiate necessary proceedings against such accused persons under S. 512, Cr. P. C., keeping in view procedure laid down in r. 3 of Federal Court and Sind Courts Criminal Circulars as well as compliance of provisions contained in Ss. 87 & 88 of Cr. P. C. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (. 439 read with S. 249ARevision, suo motuNot even a single witness produced though cases pending in Court for last 5 to 6 years and little prospect of securing attendance of witnesses in any of such casesAccused acquitted under S. 249A, Cr. P. C. in circumstances. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) S. 33 Evidence of material witnesses and statements of accused recorded before enforcement of Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) but later on accused remaining absent and presence of such witnesses not likely to be procuredEarlier evidence given by such witnesses before enforcement of law Reforms Ordinance, held, can be brought on file under S. 33, Evidence Act and relied for recording acquittal or conviction of accused.[WitnessEvidence]. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 439 read with S. 249ARevision, suo motuEvidence, appreciation ofEvidence on record, even if rebutted wholly insufficient for convicting accused and further no prospect of prosecution being able to muster further evidence against accusedAccused acquitted under S. 249A, Cr. P. C. in circumstances.[Evidence]. Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammil Khan P L D 1967 S C 317 ref. (s) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 439 read with S. 249ARevision, son motuDelay, in trial Evidence, appreciation ofOnly complainant examined in case and he too having no personal knowledge of theftRemaining prosecution witnesses failing to attend Court despite repeated issue of processes against themAccused acquitted under S. 249A, Cr. P. C., in circumstances.[DelayEvidence].…