| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 2984 2007 SLD 2984 2007 PLD 328 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. S-96 of 2005, decided on 4th December, 2006.
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J
A. R. Farooque Pirzada Malik for Applicant. Habibur Rehman Shaikh, A.A.G. for the State.
Criminal Revision Application No. S-96 of 2005, decided on 4th December, 2006.
NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J
A. R. Farooque Pirzada Malik for Applicant. Habibur Rehman Shaikh, A.A.G. for the State.
DHOLAN--Applicant
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)--- ----S. 13(d)---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution witness had clearly stated that accused being armed with rifle was going near Jamia Mosque and complainant/prosecution witness arrested accused in his presence---Rifle was loaded with bullets, but complainant/police officer unloaded it from which three live bullets were secured---Accused, on inquiry disclosed that rifle in question was unlicensed---Evidence of prosecution witness had gone unchallenged and unrebutted in the cross-examination---Complainant had stated that accused was arrested by him along with the rifle and defence could not controvert the evidence---Cross-examination of the witnesses confirmed the recovery of weapon---Every case was to be decided on the basis of evidence available on record and deposition recorded in other case could not be considered---No violation of S.103, Cr.P.C. was noticed as prosecution witness was a private witness whose evidence was inspiring confidence and Trial Court on the basis of said evidence had rightly convicted the accused---In absence of any illegality or irregularity in the orders of the courts below, there was no justification to interfere with the same. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 439---Revision---Scope of revision was limited---Order could only be disturbed in revision, if it suffered from illegality or perversity and the revisional jurisdiction was to be exercised only in exceptional cases---Where the interest of justice required interference for the removal of illegality or perversity or gross miscarriage of justice, revisional jurisdiction could be invoked---Said jurisdiction could not be invoked, if from the reading of the evidence some other view was possible. Muhammad Azeem v. The State 1977 PCr.LJ 671 ref. ORDER NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---By filing this Revision Application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 26-10-2005 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, whereby the appeal filed by the applicant against Ids conviction and sentence recorded by the learned II Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Sukkur, dated 17-3-2004 in Crime No.166 of 1996 for…
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