1987 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AZAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AZAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- R.A. Awan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 11th March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 265‑C & 439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 109, 302, 307 & 353/34‑ ‑Accused refusing to accept copies of various documents offered by trial Judge and also to sign order‑sheet stating their refusal‑‑Latter accused filing application for supply of copies to him‑‑Trial Court refusing to deliver same on ground of delay‑‑Copies of documents required to be supplied to accused under S. 265‑C, Cr.P.C., held, should be supplied to accused in interest of justice. Rehmat Khan Awan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is a revision petition filed by Muhammad Azam, petitioner, against the order of a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Lahore, dated 9‑ 3‑1987.
2. On my request, Mr. Rehmat Khan Awan, Advocate, whose name appears on the State penal, has entered appearance in this case. With his assistance, the case has been examined. Since arguments have been heard in detail, I would admit this petition and dispose of this revision petition as a notice case.
3. The brief facts leading to this petition are that Muhammad Azam, petitioner, who is an accused in a murder case, was offered copies of various documents as required by section 265‑C, Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 5‑1‑1987. However, Muhammad Azam, petitioner, and Javed alias Jaida, co‑accused, refused to accept the copies and also refused to sign the order‑sheet stating that they were not prepared to receive the same. Later, Muhammad Azam, petitioner, filed an application for being given copies of the said documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order, dated 9‑3‑1987, refused to deliver the same, as the application was made after a delay of two months with a view to prolonging the case and he had received special instructions from the learned Chief Justice of this Court to try the case day to day. The learned trial Judge also noted certain other attempts made by the petitioner to prolong the case.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that initially he wanted an adjournment to engage a counsel, so that the counsel could receive the copies being delivered by the Judge and also make sure that what would be received was what the law required. Since the petitioner was an illiterate person, he refused to receive the copies, not being certain whether they were in order. However, without giving any finding as regards the conduct of the petitioner, I would submit that it would be in the interest of justice that copies, as required by section 265‑C, Cr.P.C., be' supplied to the petitioner.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, dated 9‑3‑1987, is set aside. The learned trial Judge shall deliver to Muhammad Azam, petitioner, and Javed alias Jaida, co‑accused, copies of all the documents as are required by section 265‑C, Cr.P.C.
6. The Superintendent (Criminal) shall telephonically communicate this order to the trial Judge. S.A./M‑108/L Petition accepted.