2010 PLP 641 (YLR)
SHAH MURAD BROHI — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMED and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 641 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | SHAH MURAD BROHI — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMED and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 641 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 641 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Khadim Hussain M. Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 641 (YLR) (SHAH MURAD BROHI — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMED and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khair Muhammad for respondent No.3.
- I have heard counsel for the applicant, the State Counsel and the respondent No.3 in person and have gone through the material placed before the Court in connected Crl. Miscellaneous Application No.7 of 2009 re: Shah Murad v. The State, which has been decided by this Court today. I find that amended charge was framed on 24-2-2005 and thereafter only two prosecution witnesses namely Tapedar and complainant Shah Murad were examined on 12-2-2006 and 16-6-2006 respectively., Thereafter, there is no progress of the trial. Accordingly, the above Sessions Case is hereby withdrawn from the file the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana and is made over to the learned Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. This is an old case pertaining to the year 2003 and it needs to be disposed of expeditiously in view of the National judicial policy. The learned Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana is directed to examine all the remaining prosecution witnesses as early as possible and to conclude the trial expeditiously by procuring the attendance of the said prosecution witnesses even through coercive process, if needed. Learned advocate for complainant undertakes to produce all the prosecution witnesses under the control of complainant on the next date of hearing. With the above observation, this application is allowed.
Headnotes / Summary
S.526
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Application for
Applicant/complainant filed application for transfer of case from the file of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, at place to any other court having jurisdiction only on the ground that the court was lying vacant since last one year
State Counsel and respondent had raised no objection
Amended charge was framed and thereafter only two prosecution witnesses were examined; thereafter no progress was made in the trial
Accordingly, sessions case was withdrawn from the file of court of Additional Sessions Judge and was made over to the court of another Additional Sessions Judge
Case was an old one pertaining to the year 2003 which needed to be disposed of expeditiously in view of National Judicial Policy
Transferee Court was directed to examine all the remaining prosecution witnesses at the earliest and to conclude the trial expeditiously. Ahsaan Ahmed Qureshi for the Applicant. Naimatullah Bhurgari, State Counsel.
Judgment & Decree
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.
Through this application complainant/ applicant Shah Murad Brohi seeks transfer of the sessions Case No.229/of 2003 re: Bashir Ahmed and others v. The State based on Crime No.32/2003 of Police Station Hyderi, for offences under sections 302, 34, P.P.C. from the file of Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana to any other Court having jurisdiction only on the ground that the Court is lying vacant since last one year. . The learned State Counsel raises no objection. The respondent No.3 also rises no objection. I have heard counsel for the applicant, the State Counsel and the respondent No.3 in person and have gone through the material placed before the Court in connected Crl. Miscellaneous Application No.7 of 2009 re: Shah Murad v. The State, which has been decided by this Court today. I find that amended charge was framed on 24-2-2005 and thereafter only two prosecution witnesses namely Tapedar and complainant Shah Murad were examined on 12-2-2006 and 16-6-2006 respectively., Thereafter, there is no progress of the trial. Accordingly, the above Sessions Case is hereby withdrawn from the file the Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana and is made over to the learned Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana. This is an old case pertaining to the year 2003 and it needs to be disposed of expeditiously in view of the National judicial policy. The learned Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana is directed to examine all the remaining prosecution witnesses as early as possible and to conclude the trial expeditiously by procuring the attendance of the said prosecution witnesses even through coercive process, if needed. Learned advocate for complainant undertakes to produce all the prosecution witnesses under the control of complainant on the next date of hearing. With the above observation, this application is allowed. H.B.T./S-90/K Application allowed.