Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLG 250 1980 SLD 250 1980 SCMR 325
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K 51 of 1979, decision dated: 9-10-1979. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 8 8 1979 in Cr. Revision No. 17/79).
DORAB PATEL, G. SAFDAR SHAH AND SHAFI UR RAHMAN, JJ
Osman Ghani Rashid, Advocate General (Sind) for the State. Nemo.

THE STATE

VS

NAYYAR MIRZA AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973) --Art. 185 (3) Leave to appeal Submissions made by parties although important and intricate on academic plane and as abstract propositions of law requiring consideration by Supreme Court in a more appropriate case yet facts and circumstances and stage of proceedings of case in hand, held, not such as to justify interven¬tion Trial left to be concluded so that effect of action complained of can be reviewed, if necessary, in totality of facts of case and decision given therein. ORDER SHAFI UR REHMAN, J. This is a petition on behalf of the State seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Cr. Revision Petition by the High Court of Sindh on 8th August, 1979. . 2. The circumstances in which such a petition has arisen are, in brief, that a girl by the name of Tarranum Aziz, aged about 8 years, was kidnapped and later her dead body was found on 10th February, 1978 in Federal B Area, Karachi. A case was registered under sections 302/34, 364 A/376/34 and 377/34, P. P. C. and the respondents were put up as accused after the investigation in the case was completed. The trial of the case started in the Court of Mirza Arshad Beg, Sessions Judge. Karachi, and was in progress when he retired on 31st December, 1978. Till then out of 53 witnesses for the prosecution evidence of 41 witnesses had been examined, 5 witnesses were given up by the prosecution and there remained 7 witnesses more to be examined. He was succeeded, by another officer as Sessions Judge. An application was presented before him by the accused facing the trial requesting that they did not want de novo trial or recall of the witnesses already examined as the trial had already been inordinately delayed and that they were willing that the case be proceeded further by examining the remaining witnesses. This application was resisted by the State decision was invited. The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that in such a trial one of the considerations is that there should be no possibility of prejudice being caused to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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