1986 P Cr (PLP)
SAID SHAH Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | SAID SHAH Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (SAID SHAH Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Sheikh for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 15th April, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑
S. 540‑‑Rebuttal of defence evidence‑‑Statement of accused and defence evidence recorded‑‑Prosecution seeking opportunity to rebut defence evidence‑‑After conclusion of trial, held, there was no justification to permit prosecution to produce additional evidence‑ Application under S. 540, Cr.P.C. found misconceived‑‑Order of dismissal of application under S. 540, Cr.P.C. maintained. Malik Muhammad Ramzan Khalid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Revision No. 165 of 1984 decided on 15th April, 1985. ‑
S. 540‑‑Rebuttal of defence evidence‑‑Statement of accused and defence evidence recorded‑‑Prosecution seeking opportunity to rebut defence evidence‑‑After conclusion of trial, held, there was no justification to permit prosecution to produce additional evidence‑ Application under S. 540, Cr.P.C. found misconceived‑‑Order of dismissal of application under S. 540, Cr.P.C. maintained. Muhammad Akram Sheikh for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Ramzan Khalid for the State. Date of hearing: 15th April, 1985. In a murder case the statement of the accused had been recorded and the defence evidence also was recorded. A Warabandi was produced by the defence. The prosecution wanted to have an opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by the defence. The learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 12th July, 1984 observed that if there was ambiguity, it could be got clarified in re‑examination conducted by the learned P.P. Otherwise too, there appears no justification to permit the prosecution to produce another Warabandi after the conclusion of the trial. The application under section 540, Cr.P.C. was misconceived. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed. S.A. Revision petition dismissed.