1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zahoor‑ul‑Haq for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 15th February, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379/411‑‑Legal infirmity‑ Witnesses examined‑‑Cross‑examination reserved‑‑No further opportunity afforded to cross‑examine witnesses‑‑Matter not considered by appellate Court‑‑Trial Court, held, could not reserve cross‑examination and very order of reserving cross‑examination was illegal‑‑Re‑trial was ordered in circumstances. Ch. Imtiaz for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379/411‑‑Legal infirmity‑ Witnesses examined‑‑Cross‑examination reserved‑‑No further opportunity afforded to cross‑examine witnesses‑‑Matter not considered by appellate Court‑‑Trial Court, held, could not reserve cross‑examination and very order of reserving cross‑examination was illegal‑‑Re‑trial was ordered in circumstances. Muhammad Zahoor‑ul‑Haq for Petitioners. Ch. Imtiaz for the State. Date of hearing: 15th February, 1986. The facts leading up to these two Criminal Revision Nos. 589 of 1984 and 596 of 1984, in brief, are that Muhammad Shafi and others, the petitioners were tried by Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore under section 379/411 P.P.C and were convicted and sentenced on 31‑1‑1983. The appeal filed by them failed on 4‑11‑1984, hence these revisions. 1 propose to dispose of them through Single Judgment.
2. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners on account of legal infirmity in recording the statements of the witnesses therefore, I need not set out the facts in detail and enter into the a merits of the case. I find that Inayat and Iqbal Masih P.Ws. had given evidence on 30‑11‑1981 and cross‑examination was reserved without affording further opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses, the trial Court decided the case. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the Appellate Court. I am of the view that under the of the relevant law, the learned trial Court could not have reserved the examination and the very order whereby he reserved the examination was illegal. Furthermore, the witnesses were not summoned again for cross‑examination. That being the position, there is no option but to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners. The cases are sent back to the trial Court for retrial in accordance with law. S.A Cases remanded.