1999 PLP 2435 (YLR)
NAJAM SAQIB ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2435 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | NAJAM SAQIB ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2435 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2435 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2435 (YLR) (NAJAM SAQIB ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate,
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.540 & 439‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/148/149‑‑‑Summoning of material, witnesses by Trial Court‑‑‑Trial Court had powers under S.540, Cr. P. C., to summon the witnesses if in its view their evidence was essential for just decision of the case‑‑‑High Court could not possibly record the finding before the examination of the witnesses that their statements likely to be made would not be essential as it would amount to putting a cart before the horse‑‑ Impugned order of Trial Court summoning the witnesses for examination was not shown to be perverse, arbitrary, illegal or without lawful authority‑‑‑Revision petition was misconceived and dismissed accordingly. 1998 PCr.IJ 2059; 1997 PCr.LJ 1553; 1997 PCr.IJ 1727; 1995 SCMR 821 and 1994 SCMR 550 ref. Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate,
Judgment & Decree
Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate, The order, dated 1‑4‑1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge has been assailed through this Criminal Revision, inter alia on the ground that the witnesses summoned by the learned Trial Judge under section 540, Cr.P.C. are not essential for just decision of the case.
2. Detailed arguments have been addressed with an attempt to show that that the statements likely to be made by these witnesses would not in any manner render any help to arrive at some just conclusion. In support of his contention the learned counsel has cited the following authorities:‑‑‑ (i) 1998 PCr.LJ 2059. (ii) 1997 PCr.LJ 1553. (iii) 1997 PCr.LJ 1727. (iv) 1995 SCMR 821, and (v) 1994 SCMR
550. There is no cavil with the proposition that any witness who is essential to the just decision of the case can be summoned under section 540, Cr.P.C. This power has been conferred on the trial Court to ascertain true facts and thereafter to render just and proper decision. It is not possible for this Court to record the findings even before the witnesses are examined, that their statements likely to be made, would not be essential. It amounts to putting a cart before the horse. The learned trial Judge has powers under section 540, Cr.P.C., to summon any witness if in his judgment he considers that the statement of the witness is essential. The order may be interfered with if it is found to be perverse, arbitrary, totally illegal or without lawful authority. Nothing as such has been pointed out. This revision petition, therefore, is misconceived and same is dismissed. N.H.Q./N‑155/L