Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 5463 = 2026 SLD 5463 = 2026 SCP
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 251-P of 2026 (Against the judgment dated 16.07.2026 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Cr.Misc. (Q) No. 23-P/2026)
Presented By: Mr. Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Syed Bilal Jan, Spl. PG, ANF.

The State through Special Prosecutor, Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) ... Petitioner

VERSUS

Kamil Shah & another ... Respondents

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 132, 133(1), 133(2),133(3)

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 540

Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 10A, 185(3)

Summary The Supreme Court refused the ANF’s leave to appeal and upheld the Peshawar High Court’s decision: a party that fails to re-examine its witness under Article 133 QSO immediately after cross-examination cannot later claim recall as of right under Section 540 Cr.P.C.; recall is permitted only where the Court independently finds the further evidence essential to a just decision. Core points PW-03 Muhammad Ashraf was examined-in-chief on 04.09.2025 and cross-examined on 10.06.2026; the prosecution did not seek re-examination under Article 133 QSO at that point. Instead, the prosecution filed a Section 540 Cr.P.C. application the same day seeking recall and re-examination; the Special Court allowed it, but the High Court set that order aside. Article 133 QSO gives the party calling a witness the ordinary right to re-examine that witness, limited to matters arising in cross-examination; new matters require the Court’s permission and expose the witness to further cross-examination Re-examination is not limited merely to resolving ambiguities: it may seek explanation or elucidation of any matter referred to in cross-examination, subject to the Court’s control. Section 540 Cr.P.C. is a distinct, exceptional judicial power: the Court may recall or re-examine a witness only when it is satisfied that the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. It cannot be used as a routine substitute for Article 133, to strengthen a party’s case, or to cure an inherent evidentiary weakness. Failure to use Article 133 does not extinguish the Court’s Section 540 jurisdiction, but the party cannot claim recall as a matter of right. Because the record did not show that re-examining PW-03 was essential to a just decision, the Supreme Court found the High Court’s interference justified and dismissed the ANF petition. Legal framework Law / provision Core rule Effect in this case Article 132, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 Recognizes examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination as the three stages of examining a witness. PW-03 had completed the first two stages. Article 133(1), QSO After cross-examination, the party…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register