2006 PLP 3021 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SALEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 3021 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SALEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 3021 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 3021 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 3021 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SALEEM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muzaffar Ahmed for Petitioner.
- Masood Abid Naqvi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 540
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324 & 34
Application for re-summoning defence witness for re examination
Petitioners/accused filed application under S.540, Cr.P.C. for re-summoning their defence witness on the ground that said witness was examined in the absence of counsel for defence
Said application was dismissed
Witness sought to be re-summoned, had already been examined by the Trial Court
Certified copy of statement of said witness, had revealed that while deposing before the Trial Court, he had specifically admitted that during investigation conducted by him, he recorded statement of witnesses from both sides
Statements of the witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr. P. C. by said witness (Investigating Officer) had also been placed on record by the Trial Court
Said witnesses were also confronted by defence counsel with their such statements
Contentions of defence counsel had no force, in circumstances
Application seemed to have been filed with the intention to prolong proceedings which were pending before the Trial Court and the matter had been fixed for pronouncement of the judgment
Revision petition was dismissed. Muhammad Akbar Tarar, Addl.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM -UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Petitioners are facing trial in case F.I.R. No.198 of 1999, dated 25-12-1999 for the offence under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Ganda Singh Wala, District Kasur. Application of the petitioners under section 540, Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for re summoning/re-examination of their defence witness namely Azmat Bari, D.S.P. was dismissed vide order dated 4-3-2006 and through this criminal revision legality of the said order has been challenged, on the grounds that the said witness was examined in the absence of counsel for the defence; the witness was summoned for the purpose of proving the statements of witnesses recorded by him during the investigation and that unless the said statements are duly proved by the witness, the same cannot be read in evidence and that the impugned order has caused great prejudice to the case of the petitioners. Conversely learned law officer as well as counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners.
2. Heard. File perused. I have observed that Azmat Bari has already been examined by the trial Court as defence witness. Certified copy of his statement has been placed on record which reveals that while deposing before the trial Court he had specifically admitted that during the investigation conducted by him he recorded the statements of the witnesses from both sides. Statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. by the said Investigating Officer have also been placed on record by the trial Court as Exh.D.E. and Exh.D.F, while recording the statements of the witnesses namely Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Umer. These witnesses were also confronted by the learned defence counsel with their said statements. In the said circumstances, the contentions of learned counsel have no force. This petition seems to have been filed with the intention to prolong the proceedings which are pending before the trial Court since 1999 and admittedly the matter has been fixed for pronouncement of the judgment. This petition having no force stands dismissed. H.B.T./M-464/L Petition dismissed.