2008 PLP 1690 (MLD)
FARMAN ALI — Applicant Versus TANDI BAKHT and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1690 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FARMAN ALI — Applicant Versus TANDI BAKHT and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1690 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1690 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1690 (MLD) (FARMAN ALI — Applicant Versus TANDI BAKHT and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 203 & 265-K
Plea of counsel for the applicant was that after taking cognizance of the matter and framing of charge, the Presiding Officer should have recorded the evidence in order to scrutinize the matter properly; that disposing of case under S.203, Cr.P.C. without recording statement of prosecution witness, was a miscarriage of justice
Counsel for State had argued that no prejudice was caused to applicant
Prima facie direct complaint lodged by applicant in 2002 for an alleged incident, which happened in January, 1998, appeared to be false and frivolous
Even if, as per applicant's own statement, in Jirga respondent had admitted her guilt and she was penalized by Jirga, no explanation was given by the applicant that despite admission of respondent why no complaint or F.I.R. was got lodged by the applicant earlier
No medical report had also been placed on record in proof of poisoning the applicant
State Counsel had stated that the Trial Court was justified in disposing of case as there was no probability of conviction of accused persons
No doubt arguments advanced by the State Counsel appealed to reason, but after taking cognizance and framing of charge, proper course would have been to record the statement of at least main prosecution witness before disposal of any application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.
Only four witnesses had been mentioned in the list of witnesses filed along with the complaint
Trial Court was directed to record evidence of said four prosecution witnesses within specified period.
Judgment & Decree
MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is argued by learned counsel for applicant that after taking cognizance of the matter by order, dated 24-10-2002 and framing of charge the learned Presiding Officer should have recorded the evidence in order to scrutinize the matter properly, without recording statement of prosecution witness, dispose of case under section 203, Cr.P.C. is miscarriage of justice. Conversely Ms. Afsheen Aman, learned counsel for the State argued that no prejudice has caused to applicant. Prima facie direct complaint lodged by applicant in 2002 for an alleged incident happened in January, 1998 appears to be false and frivolous. Even if as per applicant's own statement, in Jirga respondent No.1 had admitted her guilt and she was penalized by Jirga, no explanation is given by applicant that in spite of admission of respondent No.1, why no complaint or F.I.R. was got lodged by the applicant earlier to 19-7-2002. No medical report has also been placed on record in proof of poisoning to the applicant. Thus according to learned State counsel trial Court was justified in disposing of case as there was no probability of conviction of accused persons. No doubt argument advanced by learned State counsel appeals to reason, but after taking cognizance and framing of charge, proper course would have been to record the statement of at least main prosecution witness before disposal of any application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Only four witnesses have been mentioned in the list of witnesses filed along with the complaint. Learned trial Court is directed to record evidence of four prosecution witnesses within a period of two months. During pendency if applicant deems it proper to move any application for disposal of case under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. because of any progress, he is at liberty to do so. Criminal Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./F-43/K Order accordingly.