1994 PLP 1289 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1289 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1289 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1289 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1289 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AKBAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Ali Chaudhary for Petitioner.
- It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that examination of the said doctor was absolutely essential for the just decision of the case. If the said doctor was not examined the case of the petitioner would 'be highly prejudiced. Argued that there would not be any delay in the conclusion of the trial because the said doctor is available at Kasur and within one day his statement can be concluded. Petition was resisted by learned Assistant Advocate-General.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 540 .& 439
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Case had been fixed for final arguments after the close of prosecution evidence as well as defence evidence
Accused thereafter had been getting adjournments on one pretext or the other and ultimately filed an application under S.540, Cr.P.C. for summoning the Medical Officer as a Court-witness without having explained such a delay in filing the same
No illegality or impropriety had been pointed out in the finding of Trial Court that the evidence of the said Medical Officer as Court-witness did not appear to be essential for the just decision of the case
Revision petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that petitioner is facing trial alongwith another for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. The case is pending before Sessions Judge, Kasur. Petitioner had moved an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. for the summoning of Dr. Noman Shah, Medical Officer District Jail, Kasur, as a Court-witness but the same was dismissed on 3-1-1994. Present revision is against the said order. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that examination of the said doctor was absolutely essential for the just decision of the case. If the said doctor was not examined the case of the petitioner would 'be highly prejudiced. Argued that there would not be any delay in the conclusion of the trial because the said doctor is available at Kasur and within one day his statement can be concluded. Petition was resisted by learned Assistant Advocate-General.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. Challan against the accused was submitted and charge was framed on 16-11-1992. Thereafter prosecution examined 14 witnesses and closed its case on 19-4-1993. The statement of the petitioner and his/co-accused alongwith 2 D.Ws. was recorded on 23-8-1993. Thereafter the case was fixed for arguments. On each date the accused persons would get adjournments on one pretext or the other till 9-12-1993. They filed an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. No explanation has been given why the application was filed with such a delay. After going through the order I find cogent reasons have been given. The trial Court also came to the conclusion that the evidence of doctor Noman Shah as Court-witness, does not appear to be essential for the just decision of the case. Neither any illegality nor impropriety has been -pointed out by learned counsel to warrant interference by this Court. Petition fails which is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-1508/L Petition dismissed