1998 PLP 643 (SCMR)
Sufi MUKHTAR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 643 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | AV mal Mian, Actg. C3., Mamoon Kazi and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | Sufi MUKHTAR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 643 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 643 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: AV mal Mian, Actg. C3., Mamoon Kazi and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 643 (SCMR) (Sufi MUKHTAR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Petitioner in person. Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th December, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24‑11‑1996 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, passed in Criminal Appeal No.200 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 337‑A(ii)/337‑A(iii)/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to the complainant to consider whether a police challan case can be finalized in favour of the accused simply on the ground that evidence had not been produced in its entirety without even noticing that the Trial Court was under the law required to secure the attendance of prosecution witnesses by resorting to coercive measures in that regard.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J. ‑‑‑Petitioner, who is first informant in case F. I. R. No. 116 of 1991 dated 27‑3‑1991 registered under section 337 A(ii)/337‑A(iii)/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Jhelum, has sought leave to appeal against judgment dated 24‑11‑1996 of a learned Judge of Lahore High Court, ‑Rawalpindi Bench, declining to set aide the acquittal of the accused directed by the Trial Magistrate vide order dated 4‑6‑1995.
2. The case of the petitioner is that after submission of the challan by the prosecution the matter remained under trial ever since 27‑3‑1991 and except for recording the statements of only three witnesses by it, no other effort whatsoever was made to produce other evidence and the same was closed without even so much so resorting to coercive measures in this regard.
3. After hearing the petitioner in person, we are inclined to grant leave to consider the question whether in a police‑challan case, the same can be finalized in favour of the accused simply on the ground that evidence has not been produced in its entirety without even so much as noticing that the Trial Court was under the dictate of law required to secure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses by resorting to coercive measures in that regard? Order accordingly. N.H.Q./M‑73/S Leave granted.