2019 P Cr (PLP)
RASHID and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ALI ZAMAN and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RASHID and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ALI ZAMAN and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 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 2019 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 P Cr (PLP) (RASHID and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ALI ZAMAN and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Riaz for Petitioners.
- Wilayat Khan, AAG assisted by Aziz-ur-Rehman for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 356
Recording of evidence in absence of Presiding Officer of Court
Scope
Petitioner assailed order of Trial Court whereby it discarded the statement of complainant, which was recorded in the absence of Presiding Officer of Trial Court
Held; statement of complainant was not recorded by the Presiding Officer of Trial Court as he was not present in the Court at that time
Statement recorded in the absence of Presiding Officer of Trial Court, even in the presence of counsel for the complainant and Public Prosecutor would not be worth consideration under the law
Trial Court was perfectly justified in declining request of the petitioner to make statement of the complainant recorded in the absence of the Presiding Officer part of the record
Revision was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
QALANDAR ALI KHAN, J.
Rashid and two other petitioners are accused in the case lodged under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No.372 dated 26.07.2015 on the report of complainant/respondent No.1, Ali Zaman. Through the instant criminal revision petition under section 439, Cr.P.C., they assailed order of the learned trial Court/ASJ-II, Mardan, dated 24.05.2018, whereby the learned trial Court discarded statement of the complainant/respondent No.1; which, according to the petitioners, was recorded in the Court as PW.6 in the presence of counsel for complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. They prayed for making statement of the complainant recorded as PW.6 as part of record of the case.
2. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard; and record perused.
3. It is an admitted fact, not even denied by the petitioners, rather admitted by them even in the instant revision petition, that the so-called statement of the complainant was not recorded by the learned trial Court/ASJ-II, Mardan, as the learned ASJ was not present in the Court at that time and had rushed to the casualty of DHQ Hospital, Mardan, in a precarious condition, his BP ranging in 200/140. Therefore, the statement recorded in the absence of the learned presiding officer of the trial Court, even in the presence of counsel for the complainant and Public Prosecutor, would not be worth consideration under the law. The defence, by no stretch of imagination, can shift the burden of risk it took by opening its cross examination to the opposite side in the absence of learned Presiding Officer of the trial Court. The plea of the defence for making statement of the complainant so recorded as part of the record is not only unprecedented, but finds no support from any legal provision or precedent of the Courts. As such, the learned trial Court/ASJ-II, Mardan, was perfectly justified in declining request of the petitioners/ accused to make statement of the complainant, recorded in the absence of the learned Presiding Officer, as part of the record.
4. Consequently, the order dated 24.05.2018 of the learned trial Court is not open to exception, hence maintained; and the revision petition against the impugned order is dismissed for being without substance and merit. SA/342/P Revision dismissed.