2025 P Cr (PLP)
Ali Zain — Petitioner Versus The State and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ali Zain — Petitioner Versus The State and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898 ) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898 ) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 P Cr (PLP) (Ali Zain — Petitioner Versus The State and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 439 & 435
Qanun-e-Shahadat ( 10 of 1984 ), Chap. III
Draftsman-Relevancy of site plan
Putting questions to the draftsman
Denial of
Petitioner prayed for setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby he (petitioner) was not allowed to put question to prosecution witness/ draftsman regarding the relevancy of site plan of place of recovery of weapon of offence
Contention of the petitioner was that the draftsman as Prosecution Witness (PW) was questioned about the site plan prepared by him, and the Trial court had not allowed putting the question to the said witness as a non relevant question
Examination-in-chief as well as cross- examination conducted by the defence on draftsman (PW) revealed that during cross- examination, the defence put the question about the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence prepared by the investigating officer to the said witness
Admittedly, draftsman (PW) was not the author of the site plan nor the witness on whosepointing site plan was prepared, and that the petitioner/defence just wanted to verify the place of occurrence from the prosecution witness
For said reason, the petitioner referred to the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence
Petitioner admitted that the draftsman (PW) had not prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of the offence, nor did he remain a witness, nor under his instructions, had the site plan been prepared
Said witness (draftsman/ PW) was not a scriber of the site plan nor could be considered an attesting witness
Thus, ground(s) mentioned in the impugned order were sound and reasonable
Petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge), warranting interference by the High Court
Criminal revision petition, being without any substance, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Aalia Neelum, J.
Through instant criminal revision under section 439 of Cr.P.C. read with section 435 Cr.P.C., Ali Zain, the petitioner, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 11.03.2024 (wrongly mentioned as 06.03.2024 in prayer) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby the petitioner was not allowed to put question to Syed Muhammad Younus Bukhari draftsman (PW-1) regarding the relevancy of site plan of place of recovery of weapon of offence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during cross-examination, Muhammad Younus Bukhari, draftsman (PW-1), was questioned about the site plan prepared by him, and the trial court has not allowed putting the question to the said witness as a not relevant question. The petitioner be allowed to put the question on the witness about the site plan he prepared and order dated 11.03.2024 to the extent of disallowing the petitioner to be set aside.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. On perusal of the examination in chief as well as cross-examination conducted by the defence on Muhammad Younus Bukhari draftsman (PW-1), it reveals that during cross-examination, the defence put the question about the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence prepared by the investigating officer to the above said, witness. It is admitted that Muhammad Younus Bukhari, draftsman (PW-1), is not the author of the site plan nor the witness on whose pointing site plan was prepared. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner just wanted to verify the place of occurrence from the prosecution witness. For this reason, he referred to the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the draftsman/petitioner had not prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of the offence, nor did he remain a witness or, under his instructions, have the site plan prepared. Muhammad Younus Bukhari, draftsman (PW-1), is not a scriber of the site plan or cannot be considered an attesting witness. Thus, the totality of what has been detailed and discussed in the order impugned before this Court is sound and reasonable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, warranting interference by this Court.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant petition is without any substance, which is hereby dismissed. MQ/A-41/L Revision dismissed.