1989 PLP 397 (SCMR)
EHSAN SABRI — Petitioner Versus THF STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 397 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | EHSAN SABRI — Petitioner Versus THF STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 397 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 397 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 397 (SCMR) (EHSAN SABRI — Petitioner Versus THF STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th October, 1988.
- Sh. Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 21-9-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore to Criminal Revision No. 447'of 1988). __S. 540--Penal Code (XLV of 1840)), Ss. -(X), 409, 171 & 411/1(y)--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)--Witness, re-calling of--Petitioner was desirous to have a witness re-called for further cross-examination after once haying availed of the opportunity--Trial Court and High Court rejected the request on grounds of its being frivolous and made only with a view to prolong the trial--Petition was, held, misconceived and not at all a fit matter to be brought before Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
__S. 540‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1840)), Ss. ‑(X), 409, 171 & 411/1(y)‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Witness, re‑calling of‑‑Petitioner was desirous to have a witness re‑called for further cross‑examination after once haying availed of the opportunity‑‑Trial Court and High Court rejected the request on grounds of its being frivolous and made only with a view to prolong the trial‑‑Petition was, held, misconceived and not at all a fit matter to be brought before Supreme Court. Sh. Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 16th October, 1988. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner in this case is desirous to have a witness, Abdul Majid P.W. 31, recalled for further cross‑examination after once having availed of an opportunity to cross‑examine him. The petitioner is facing a trial for offences under sections 41x), 4(10, 471 and 41 I/1tf1, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, before the learned Special Judge and the said learned trial Court rejected the above request observing that the same was frivolous and made only with a view to prolong the trial. The High Court on a revision, has agreed with this view and dismissed his revision petition. He has now come to this Court. This is totally a misconceived petition and not at all a fit matter to be brought before this Court. MA.K./E‑8/S Petition dismissed.