2003 PLP 937 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD NAZIR — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHER and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 937 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAZIR — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHER and 4 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 937 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 937 (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: 2003 PLP 937 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD NAZIR — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHER and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 417
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(ii),(iii)/337-L-B/34-- Appeal against acquittal
While the case was under trial, appellant had himself filed application before High Court and got directions that Trial Court should conclude the trial within six months
Trial Court, a Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Cr.P.C. was under legal obligation to comply with order of High Court
Many opportunities were granted to the prosecution to produce evidence, but prosecution failed to produce witnesses in the Court after direction of High Court obtained by appellant himself, and accused was acquitted; no case for interference by the High Court was made out
Appeal, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
C.M. Latif Rawn for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl for Respondents. Mrs. Irum Sajjad Gul for the State. In support of this appeal against acquittal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondents were specifically named in the F.I.R. that injured eye-witness received injury with hatchet on his head but in spite of that learned trial Court acquitted the respondents, that learned trial Court was under legal obligation to procure the attendance of the P.Ws, while using all coercive measures which has not been done and that order of trial Court is illegal in these circumstances of the case.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that p resent appellant had himself filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.788 of Crl/2002 which was disposed of by my learned brother Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J. On 21-2-2002 directing the trial Court to conclude the trial in this case within six months, that trial Court adopted all legal possible measures for the attendance of the prosecution witnesses, even non-bailable warrants of arrest of witnesses were also issued but they were not produced before the trial Court, so trial Court was duty bound to have acquitted the accused respondents.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State also concedes the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents and supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, it seems that appellant was too clever. The case was registered against the accused-respondents on 12-10-2001 and when the case was under trial he himself filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.788/Crl/2002 before this Court and got directions that trial Court should conclude the trial within six months. The trial Court is a Judicial Magistrate Section 30, and he was under legal obligations to comply with the order of this Court passed in the above noted Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Many opportunities were granted to the prosecution to produce the evidence and the file shows that non-bailable warrants of arrest were also issued against the P.Ws. but the prosecution failed to produce the witnesses in Court. Speedy trial is a right of an accused and moreover, after the direction of this Court obtained by the appellant himself, no case for interference is made out and even the learned State Counsel has also supported the judgment of the trial Court and the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents. Resultantly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M-1745/L Appeal dismissed.