1999 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. RACHEL JOSEPH‑‑‑Applicant Versus AFTABUDDIN QURESHI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar, J |
| Parties | Mst. RACHEL JOSEPH‑‑‑Applicant Versus AFTABUDDIN QURESHI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 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 1999 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. RACHEL JOSEPH‑‑‑Applicant Versus AFTABUDDIN QURESHI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Latif Channa for Respondents Nos. l and 2.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 428 & 439‑‑‑Additional evidence‑‑‑Powers of Appellate Court to' record additional evidence‑‑‑Application for recording additional evidence filed by respondent under S.428, Cr.P.C. neither was allowed by Court nor was dismissed but Court had simply observed that requisite documents which respondent wanted to produce as additional evidence be filed alongwith statement and same could be considered at time of final hearing of appeal‑‑ Legality‑‑‑Provisions laid down under 5.428, Cr.P.C. had stipulated that if Appellate Court would come to conclusion that it would be just and proper to adduce additional evidence at appellate stage, reasons to that effect were to be recorded by Court but said provision of law had not been complied with‑‑‑High Court in revisional jurisdiction had observed that Appellate Court below would dispose of application filed by respondent under S.428, Cr.P.C. strictly according to law and after giving opportunities to complainant as well as accused of full hearing. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicant. Ashiq Hussain Mehar for A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Revision No.81 of 1997, decided on 15th December, 1997. ‑‑‑‑Ss. 428 & 439‑‑‑Additional evidence‑‑‑Powers of Appellate Court to' record additional evidence‑‑‑Application for recording additional evidence filed by respondent under S.428, Cr.P.C. neither was allowed by Court nor was dismissed but Court had simply observed that requisite documents which respondent wanted to produce as additional evidence be filed alongwith statement and same could be considered at time of final hearing of appeal‑‑ Legality‑‑‑Provisions laid down under 5.428, Cr.P.C. had stipulated that if Appellate Court would come to conclusion that it would be just and proper to adduce additional evidence at appellate stage, reasons to that effect were to be recorded by Court but said provision of law had not been complied with‑‑‑High Court in revisional jurisdiction had observed that Appellate Court below would dispose of application filed by respondent under S.428, Cr.P.C. strictly according to law and after giving opportunities to complainant as well as accused of full hearing. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Applicant. Abdul Latif Channa for Respondents Nos. l and
2. Ashiq Hussain Mehar for A.‑G. for the State. From the impugned order, it transpires that neither application under section 428, Cr.P.C. preferred by respondents is allowed nor is dismissed, but it is simply observed that the requisite documents which respondent wants to produce as additional evidence be filed alongwith the statement and the same may be considered at the time of final hearing of appeal. The provisions laid down under section 428, Cr.P.C. stipulates that if Appellate Court comes to a conclusion that it will be just and proper to adduce additional evidence at the A appellate stage then such reasons are to be recorded. In this case apparently this provision of law has not been complied with directly. This revision is being disposed of alongwith Miscellaneous Applications with the observation that the learned Appellate Court would dispose of application under section 428, Cr.P.C. strictly according to law and after giving opportunities to the complainant as well as accused of full hearing. The Appellate Court should take I~ efforts to dispose of appeal as early as possible. H.B.T./R‑55/K Order accordingly.