1982 0 Cr (PLP)
KHAIR DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE- Respondent
| Citation | 1982 0 Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | KHAIR DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE- Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 0 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 1982 0 Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 0 Cr (PLP) (KHAIR DIN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE- Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 28th November, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 526-Transfer of criminal case-Trial Magistrate disallowing petitioner to put questions to a prosecution witness with a view to impeach his veracity and credit-Petitioner, held, given reasonable apprehension in mind that he would not get justice from Magistrate-Cases transferred, for trial by some other Court, in circumstances. M. D. Chaudhary for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This is a petition under section 526, Cr. P. C. by Khair Din, petitioner, for the transfer of four criminal cases which are pending against him in the Court of Mr. Sardar Ali Gorsi, Judicial Magistrate, Lahore and one other which is pending against Yousuf Gil, which is also pending in the same Court (and which five cases are being heard together on the same day by virtue of an order passed by this High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 66-T/81, to some other Court.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Mr. M. A., Lone was a witness in the four cases which are pending against the petitioner and when he was put questions to impeach his veracity and credit, the trial Magistrate disallowed the said questions in each case and thus debarred the petitioner from proving that the testimony of the said witness could not be relied upon.
3. The report of the learned trial Magistrate, which has been received, shows that the said allegation has been admitted as correct. At this stage, I would not like to state whether the said questions put to Mr, M. A. Lone, witness, to impeach his veracity and credit, were im properly disallowed, and, if so, what is its effect, for that is a matter which must be left to the trial Magistrate to decide, but the refusal of the trial Magistrate to allow the petitioner to put questions to M. A. Lone to im peach his veracity and credit has given a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he will not get justice from the trial Magistrate. In these circumstances, I would transfer all these five cases presently pending in the Court of Mr. Sardar Ali Gorsi, Judicial Magistrate, Lahore, to some other competent Magistrate at Lahore, to be nominated by the Sessions Judge, Lahore, for disposal in accordance with the earlier direction of this Court given in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 66-T/81. Petition allowed.