1999 PLP 1157 (YLR)
AKHLAQUE MUHAMMAD‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1157 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Dr. Ghous Muhammad, J |
| Parties | AKHLAQUE MUHAMMAD‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1157 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1157 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Dr. Ghous Muhammad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1157 (YLR) (AKHLAQUE MUHAMMAD‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shoukat Hayat for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.364(2)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑ Case property was not produced in the Court at the time of recording evidence of the concerned prosecution witness‑‑‑Report of the expert witness was vague‑‑‑Trial Court had failed to append the necessary certificate under S.364(2), Cr P. C. which was a mandatory requirement of law‑‑‑Matter being pending for the last twelve years, case was not fit for remand‑‑‑Accused was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances. Mushir Alam, Standing Counsel.
Judgment & Decree
The appellant was convicted by the learned trial Court on 17‑10‑1993. He preferred Criminal appeal No.234 of 1991 which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court on 17‑10‑1993 for recording the testimony cal the expert witness. Accordingly the learned trial Court examined the expert witness and thereafter passed the impugned judgment resulting in conviction of the appellant. I have heard Mr. Shoukat Hayat learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mushir Alam learned standing counsel and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Muhammad Aslam who was the main witness in this case was examined but the case property was not produced so that he could say whether those were the same stamps or not. Moreover the report of the expert witness is vague as he was not specifically stated that the case property was a forged documents. However, learned Standing counsel submits that there is ample evidence in support of the main charge. Be that as it may he frankly concedes that the learned trial Court failed to append certificate under S.364 Cr.P.C. which is a mandatory requirement of law. This matter is pending since 1986 therefore keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case in my humble view it is not a fit case for remand. Accordingly the appellant is given the benefit of doubt and for detailed reasons to be recorded later‑on this appeal is allowed and he is acquitted. N.H.Q./A‑306/K Appeal allowed.