1989 PLP 4074 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD INAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4074 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majid Tiwana, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD INAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4074 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4074 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Majid Tiwana, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4074 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD INAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Nadeem Saqlain for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 1st August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 354‑‑Non‑production of Investigating officer by prosecution‑‑Effect‑ Prejudice is caused to accused by such failure‑‑Investigating Officer was not produced by prosecution‑‑Ordinarily non‑production of Investigating Officer, held, would cause prejudice to accused and the case should be remanded but considering that the accused would inevitably suffer rigors of retrial the counsel for accused requested that case might not be remanded‑‑Sentence of one year R.I. reduced to six months' R.I. in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Nadeem Saqlain for Appellant. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 1st August, 1989. Muhammad Inayat petitioner was tried by Ilaqa Magistrate, Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din, and vide his order, dated 30‑8‑1987, he was convicted under section 354, P.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. for having outraged the modesty of Mst. Maqsooda Bibi on 11‑9‑1984 at about 6 p.m. in the area of village Khutiala Syedan, when she had gone out to the field to make water. His appeal was rejected by Sardar Khan Chaudhary, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, on 19‑4‑1989 and he came up in revision to this Court.
2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Investigating Officer in this case was not produced by the prosecution and the prosecution case on that account has a major procedural defect as his non‑production has caused prejudice to the petitioner. He, however, submits that if on account of the non‑appearance of the Investigating Officer the case is to be remanded then the conviction of the petitioner may be maintained and his sentence may be reduced.
3. The non‑appearance of the Investigating Officer as a prosecution witness ordinarily results in prejudice to the accused and the case needs to be remanded but in view of the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner the appropriate course appears to be to avoid the remand of the case as by this process the petitioner would inevitably suffer rigors of retrial. Therefore, where his conviction under section 354, P.P.C. is maintained, his sentence is reduced from one year's R.I. to six months' R.I. The revision petition is accepted only to this extent. S.A./M‑1567/L Sentence reduced.