1989 PLP 741 (MLD)
NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 741 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 741 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 741 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 741 (MLD) (NAZIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Masood Mirza for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 324 & 354‑A‑‑Nature of injury‑‑Doctor stating that injury may be grievous‑ No definite opinion available on record as to nature of injury‑‑Application for re -examination of doctor refused by Trial Court‑‑Held, it was incumbent upon Trial Court to elicit definite opinion as to nature of injury‑‑Trial Court was directed to re‑summon doctor with a view to obtain positive opinion from him. Ijaz Ahmad, AA: G. for the State'
Judgment & Decree
Masood Mirza for Petitioner. Ijaz Ahmad, AA: G. for the State' Date of hearing: 11th February, 1989. During the' trial of this petition, a doctor entered the witness‑box, 'and while deposing in Court, he stated that the injury received by one of the witnesses could be grievous. Precisely, the doctor stated that the injury on the person of Mst. Surrrya Azeem may be grievous.
2. The petitioner/complainant moved an application before the learned trial Magistrate praying that the doctor be re‑examined, so that, a definite opinion is elicited from him. Said application was rejected, vide judgment dated 26th of October, 1988.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this revision petition has been filed. This Court had directed the learned Assistant Advocate‑General to appear in this Court. Accordingly, Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, AA: G. has appeared today. The learned AA.‑G. submits that the accused ought to have been unpleaded as party, because in case this revision petition is accepted, his case will be prejudiced. I am afraid that this contention has no force, because in any event if this revision petition is allowed, and the doctor is examined again, the accused will be entitled to cross examine him.
4. Adverting to the merits of the case, it is obvious that no definite opinion exists on the record to find out the nature of the injury. It is well‑known that if there are two views, then the one in the favour of the accused is to be adopted. In the circumstances of the case, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to A have elicited the correct opinion. In this view of the matter, I find force in this revision petition, and thus, I set aside the judgment of the trial Court with the direction that the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall summon the doctor again with a view to have positive opinion about the nature of the injury. With these observations, this petition is disposed of. SA./N‑207/LAccepted.