1997 PLP 1741 (MLD)
ALI NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Applicants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1741 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar, J |
| Parties | ALI NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Applicants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1741 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 1741 (MLD)?
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: 1997 PLP 1741 (MLD) (ALI NAWAZ and others‑‑‑Applicants Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑S. 307/368/344/147/148/149‑‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13‑D‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A‑‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑‑ Case was pending against the accused since 1989‑‑‑Witnesses cited in the case were police officials who, despite coercive process having been issued against them, did not appear even on a single date of hearing‑‑ Prosecution consequently closed its case‑‑‑Trial Court thereafter was not justified to issue bailable warrants for procuring the attendance of witnesses‑‑ Trial Court in circumstances was directed to record the statements of the accused under S.342, Cr.P.C. and to provide them an opportunity of examining themselves on oath under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. and to lead defence if so desired and thereafter to decide the case on merits‑‑‑Petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
Liaquat Ali Shar for Applicants. Khadim Ali Shoro for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Liaquat Ali Shar for Applicants. Khadim Ali Shoro for the State. Applicants in this application pray for quashment of proceedings of Sessions Case No. 43/89 pending against them in the Court of IIIrd Sessions Judge, Khairpur for an offence under sections 307, 368, 344, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. and 13‑D, Arms Ordinance. The main contention of the applicants as well as his counsel are that the case is pending since 1989 and up to 23‑1‑1996 not even a single witness has either appeared before the trial Court or was examined. He refers to the statement dated 23‑1‑1996 by which learned A.P.P. appearing for the prosecution has closed his side and the diary reveals that the coercive process was issued for procuring the attendance of the P.Ws. Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar submits that the learned trial Court in spite of side being closed by the prosecution ordered for issuance B. Ws. against the P. Ws. which is not warranted by law. He, however, concedes that he will be satisfied if directions be given to the trial Court to record statement of applicants/accused and decide the case on merits, after hearing the defence counsel as well as A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Mr. Khadim Ali Shoro appearing for the State after going through the diaries and the order of learned trial Court concedes and makes no objection if above directions are given to the trial Court. The order of learned trial Court and the diaries of the case shows that the case is pending since 1989 and all the witnesses cited therein are police officials, who are bound to attend the Court but in spite of coercive process have never appeared even on a single date of hearing resulting in that the learned prosecutor on 23‑1‑1996 closed his side. Thereafter, learned trial Court was not justified to direct B.Ws. for the procuring the attendance of the witnesses. What was to be done was to record the statement of the applicants/accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. and decide the matter after hearing the counsel of the parties. In any case the trial Court is directed to record statement of; applicants/accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. and they may be afforded an opportunity of examining themselves on Oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and to lead defence if they so desire and thereafter decide the matter on merits. With the above observations Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.337/96 stands disposed of. N.H.Q./A‑78/K Order accordingly.