1996 P Cr (PLP)
RASHID AHMAD — Petitioner Versus IBRAHIM and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1996 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RASHID AHMAD — Petitioner Versus IBRAHIM and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 P Cr (PLP) (RASHID AHMAD — Petitioner Versus IBRAHIM and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 540 & 439
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Resummoning of prosecution witness
Witness had appeared on oath and had been subjected to lengthy cross-examination
Two months thereafter said witness was required to be resummoned for further cross-examination which was allowed by Trial Court
Nothing new was introduced in the statement of the witness which required clarification or cross-examination
If such practice was adopted then a witness could be resummoned at any time to favour one party or the other
Impugned order passed by Trial Court being not in accordance with the established principles of Criminal Jurisprudence and the judgments of the Superior Courts on the point, was set aside
Revision petition was accepted accordingly.
[Witness].
Judgment & Decree
Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No.
1. Ch. Muhammad Siddiq for the State. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1995. Facts leading to filing of this revision are that the petitioner had got a case registered under section 302, P.P.C. against the respondent on 28-1-1995. After due investigation challan was submitted and trial commenced. Eye-witness Khair Din was produced as P.W.6, who gave his address as Shamkot, whereas in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he had stated that he was resident of village Dhola. The witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination consisting of three typed pages. His evidence was concluded on 25-6-1995. Thereafter on 8-8-1995 an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. was moved praying for resummoning of said Khair Din for purposes of re cross-examination on the ground that the witness could not be confronted with his earlier statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge vide order, dated 12-9-1995 accepted the application. In the present revision said order has been assailed.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that section 540, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked for filling in the lacunas. Argued that if a witness is thoroughly subjected to cross-examination, thereafter he cannot be resummoned simply on the ground that some questions could not be asked. Argued that if this principle was accepted: then the statement of any witness can never be concluded. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner because the witness appeared on oath and Was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. Thereafter with an interval of 2 months present application was given for resummoning the witness. It cannot be, allowed. Nothing new was introduced in the statement which required clarification or cross-examination. If this practice is adopted then a witness can be resummoned at any time to favour one party or the other. I, after going through the order impugned, am of the view that it is not in accordance with the established principles of Criminal Jurisprudence and the judgments of the superior Courts on the point. The order impugned is set aside. N.H.Q./R-8/L Revision accepted.