1973 P Cr (PLP)
AMIRZADA AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1973 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMIRZADA AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1973 P Cr (PLP) (AMIRZADA AND ANOTHER — Petitioners Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 561-A-Quashment of proceedings-Credebility of evidence-To be assessed by trial Court
Question cannot be dealt with in proceedings under S. 561-A-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 304 & 307/34.
S. 561-A-Quash ment of proceedings-Delay in disposal of criminal case-No ground for quashment of proceedings.
Judgment & Decree
S. 561-A-Quash ment of proceedings-Delay in disposal of criminal case-No ground for quashment of proceedings. M. Shah for Appellants. N. Murtaza Hussain for the State. Date of hearing: 18th July 1972. This is an application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings pending against the applicants under sections 304 and 307/34, P. P. C. in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate, Karachi. A case was instituted on a first report lodged by Ghiasuddin at Nazimabad Police Station on 8-7-1966. The police after investigation challaned the applicants. Some evidence has been recorded but the trial has not yet been concluded. The learned counsel for the applicants had raised two grounds before me. The first ground taken by him was that there were in all 16 witnesses; out of them 7 had been examined and they did not support the prosecution while two witnesses were untraceable and the remaining 7 were formal witnesses. I have gone through the evidence of the witnesses and I find no force in the contention that all the witnesses had not supported the prosecution. The evidence of Ghiasuddin and Amiruddin clearly shows that they had implicated the applicants for having participated in this crime. The question whether their evidence is worthy of credence or not is for the trial Court to assess and it cannot be dealt by this Court at this stage. The second ground which was pressed into service was the case was challaned in 1966 and it had not yet been concluded. It is suffice to say that delay in the disposal of a criminal ca cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings as has been held by the Supreme Court. Finding no force in the application, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.