2003 PLP 492 (SCMR)
N/A
| Citation | 2003 PLP 492 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Tnavir Ahtned Khan and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 492 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 492 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Tnavir Ahtned Khan and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 492 (SCMR) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Haroon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th June, 2002.
- 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner to involve him in the commission of crime. On our query, he pointed out that after passing of order of the High Court dated 14th November, 2001 statement of the complainant Rana Irshad Ahmed has been recorded. Therefore, in such view of the matter we are of the opinion that as now the trial has commenced and statement of one of the witnesses has also been recorded on oath, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to interference in the proceedings which are pending on the file of the Court having jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence so produced before it.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 14‑11‑2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No.307 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑S.423 (1) (b)‑‑‑Remand of the case of accused to Trial Court by the High Court was challenged on the ground that no incriminating evidence was available against the accused to involve him in the commission of crime‑‑ Since the trial had commenced and statement of one of the witnesses had also been recorded on oath, therefore, it was not in the interest of justice to interfere in the proceedings which were pending on the tile of the Court having jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence so produced before it.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S.423 (1) (b)‑‑‑Remand of the case of accused to Trial Court by the High Court was challenged on the ground that no incriminating evidence was available against the accused to involve him in the commission of crime‑‑ Since the trial had commenced and statement of one of the witnesses had also been recorded on oath, therefore, it was not in the interest of justice to interfere in the proceedings which were pending on the tile of the Court having jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence so produced before it. Shaukat Haroon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th June, 2002. IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14th November, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court. Lahore whereby criminal appeal filed by respondent No. l was allowed and case has been remanded to the trial Court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner to involve him in the commission of crime. On our query, he pointed out that after passing of order of the High Court dated 14th November, 2001 statement of the complainant Rana Irshad Ahmed has been recorded. Therefore, in such view of the matter we are of the opinion that as now the trial has commenced and statement of one of the witnesses has also been recorded on oath, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to interference in the proceedings which are pending on the file of the Court having jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence so produced before it. Thus for the foregoing reason, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference by this Court with the impugned judgment. Thus petition is dismissed and leave declined. However, trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Leave declined.