1989 N C M R 1257 (PLP)
GAWA and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 N C M R 1257 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | GAWA and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 N C M R 1257 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 N C M R 1257 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 N C M R 1257 (PLP) (GAWA and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Advpcate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th March,
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 18‑4‑1988 in Criminal Revision No.55 of 1983). ‑‑‑S.302‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265‑K‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑No maternal on record was available to show that witnesses deliberately avoided to appeal in the Court‑‑High Court perused the entire record, summons, warrants and reports and then came to the conclusion that there was no material justifying the action of Sessions Judge under S.265‑K, Cr .P.C.‑‑Complainant was In jail at the relevant time as under trial prisoner and Sessions Judge ought to have seen the difficulties in the way of prosecution to produce evidence‑‑Disposal of murder case in such a slipshod manner was not warranted by law‑‑Remand of case by High Court thus was justified‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Gawa and three others are aggrieved by the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 18‑4‑88 whereby the acquittal of the petitioners under section 265‑K, CrP.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur in a murder case was set aside and the case was remanded to the' Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, to hold the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months. Learned counsel appearing support of this petition for special. leave to appeal made a futile attempt to support the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge and submitted that there was no legal justification for remitting the case because the Additional Sessions Judge had taken all the necessary steps to secure presence of the witnesses a‑d gave sufficient opportunity to the A prosecution to produce evidence in sup but of its case. As the prosecution failed to do so the Additional Sessions Judge, therefore acted in accordance with law, proceeding under section 265‑K, Cr.P.C. We don't think the submission has any force because when the matter came before the High Court the learned Judge perused the entire record, summons, warrants and reports and then came to the conclusion, "...Unfortunately, there is no, raptorial justifying the findings arrived at by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It is further noteworthy to mention that the complainant was also in jail at the relevant time as under trial prisoner. The learned Add Sessions Judge ought to have seen the difficulties in the way of the prosecution to produce the evidence. Disposal of murder cases in such a slipshod manner is not warranted by law". The learned Judge further observed that there was no material on record to hold that the witnesses deliberately avoided to appear in Court. In the light of the above finding of the High Court, the only legal and proper course open was to remand the case. We, therefore, don't think that the impugned judgment of the High Court calls for any interference. Leave is refused. M.B.A./G‑192/S Leave refused.