Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3156 = 1981 SLD 3156 = 1981 PLD 106                                  
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for special Leave to Appeal No. 591 of 1980, decided on 24th November, 1980. (On appeal against the order dated 10-11-1980 in Cr. Misc. No. 903-M of 1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore).
Presented By:  Mushtaq Hussain and Shafi-ur-Rehman JJ
Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State

PROF. MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR-Petitioner                                    

VERSUS

  The STATE-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 350

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S--.350 [as amended by Criminal Procedure Code (Second Amendment) Ordinance (VIII of 1980]-No principle of law enjoins hearing of a case only by such Court as has taken down evidence-Even if any principle existed to contrary same taken away by amendment in S. 350-Successor Court even though not having taken down evidence, held, now per mitted to proceed with case without recording fresh evidence and it makes no difference whether immediate successor or successor of immediate successor howlowsoever disposes of case. Counsel based his submission upon the amendment in section 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Criminal Procedure Code Second Amendment Ordinance No. VIII of 1980 and submitted that the principle of law is that the judicial officer by whom evidence has been recorded and who has thus seen the demeanour of the witnesses is the only person capable of valuing the evidence correctly and disposing of the case. Held: There is no principle of law that a person who has taken down the evidence alone is competent to hear the case. Anyway, the provisions in section 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code are to the contrary. In any case if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument that there is such a principle, the same has been revoked by permitting the successor, who has not taken down the evidence, to proceed with the case without recording fresh evidence. Once it has been so revoked it makes none the difference whether the immediate successor or the successor of the im mediate successor howlowsoever disposes of that case. Link (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 350 [as amended by Criminal Procedure Code (Second Amendment) Ordinance (VIII of 1980)) read with General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 13-Interpretation of statutes-Words and phrases-Word "sin gular" having to be read as including "plural" word "successor" in S. 350, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898,, held, to be read as "successors" whenever necessary-Successor after successor of an officer having recorded evidence thus given jurisdiction to start case from stage left by predecessor of predecessor. Link Date of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register