| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 480 1983 SLD 480 1983 PLD 612 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 89 of 1983, decided on 28th June, 1983
SARDAR MUHAMMAD, J
Rana Ijaz Ahmad Khan and ljaz Anwar for Petitioners. S. M. Zubair Asst. A.G. assisted by Sardar A. Khalid for the State.
Criminal Revision No. 89 of 1983, decided on 28th June, 1983
SARDAR MUHAMMAD, J
Rana Ijaz Ahmad Khan and ljaz Anwar for Petitioners. S. M. Zubair Asst. A.G. assisted by Sardar A. Khalid for the State.
MAHMOOD AHMAD AND 3 others
VS
THE STATE--Respondent
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898). S. 353-Evidence to be taken in presence of accused-Accused being absconding not present on day when statements of witnesses recorded nor on day of their cross-examination---On joining proceedings by accused such witnesses never summoned again for recording of evidence and for cross-examination-Trial, held, conducted in violation of S. 353Conviction and sentence set aside-Case remanded for recording of statements of witnesses in. presence of accused and giving fresh opportunity of producing defence. JUDGMENT The revision petition is directed against the order dated -the 5th February, 1983, of Malik Nazir Hussain Awan, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by .the petitioners against the order dated 14th November, 1981 of Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore whereof the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioners under section 325/34, P. P. C. and sentenced them to various imprisonments. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners apart from arguing the case on merits, challenged the legality of the trial. It has been pointed out that the statements of Muhammad Sharif complainant (P. W. 1) Fiaz Ahmad. (P. W. 2) and Khushi Muhammad (P. W. 3) who were eye-witnesses of the occurrence and also witnesses of recovery of weapons of offence, at the instance of the petitioners, were recorded in the absence of Maqsud Ahmad petitioner, who -had absented during the trial and against whom proceedings under section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure tad been ordered by the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 19-12-1979. 3. The contention is borne out from the record. Maqsud Ahmad petitioner was not present either on the day when the statements of the three witnesses were recorded or on the day when they were cross-examined. He joined the proceedings later on. In this regard the interim orders are confusing. In the interim order dated 9-9-1980 it is recorded JUMLA MULZMAN BAR-ZAMANAT HAZIR HAIN Same has been repeated on 229-1930 but in the interim order dated I1-10-1980, Maqsud Ahmad again has beenβ¦
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