2000 PLP 244 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 244 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 244 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 244 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 244 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Anwarul Haq Pannu for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Bashir, A.A. ‑G. for the State.
- Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.540‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302‑‑‑Summoning and examination of witness‑‑‑Wife of deceased was interrogated during course of investigation, but her statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. which was essential for just decision of the case, was not recorded separately and application for calling wife of deceased was dismissed by Trial Court‑‑‑High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, directed Trial Court to look into the case diaries and to see whether wife of deceased was examined during course of investigation and her statement though was not recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., but was written in case diary then wife of deceased be summoned as Court‑witness in the interest of justice.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Anwarul Haq Pannu for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Bashir, A.A. ‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 22nd June, 1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of Zahida Parveen was murdered and the real brother of her husband had lodged the F.I.R. against him. The case is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal. That Mst. Zahida Parveen wife of the deceased was also interrogated during the course of investigation. Although, her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., was not recorded separately, that statement of Mst. Zahida Parveen is essential for the just decision of the case. He further submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the application filed by the complainant for calling Zahida Parveen under section 540, Cr.P.C. as court‑witness.
2. On the other hand learned A.A.‑G. submits that there are two eye witnesses of last seen namely, Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Bashir. Muhammad Bashir was given up by the prosecution while the other was examined as P.W.2 and prosecution in order to fill up their lacuna, has given the application for the said purpose.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case the learned Trial Court is directed to look into the case diaries and to see whether Mst. Zahida Parveen was examined during the course of investigation and her statement although was not recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. but was written in the case of diary, then she should be summoned as court‑witness in the interest of justice. With these observations this petition stands disposed of. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial within one month from today. H.B.T./M‑1244/L Order accordingly.