LIAQUAT ALI CHANNA versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GAMBAT, DISTRICT KHAIRPUR
Section 526 of the Code of Conduct (XLV of 1860), Section 302 / 337H (2) / 34 Qatl e amd, rash or negligence act, application for transfer of a joint intention case to prosecution by the prosecution. Irrelevant questions placed before witnesses were not allowed. The jurisdiction of the defendant (applicant) from the task judge's degree to decide on the trial judge's duty to transfer the case was that the trial judge denied critical questions during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. That was necessary for the mere verdict of the case, and that the trial judge filed the evidence in his own version, causing the defendant to face serious prejudice. The Weldetty trial judge denied all allegations made by the accused in his remarks and said that unrelated questions were not allowed. Every question put to him and the defense lawyer, which was found to be relevant, was properly written and decided, and that was sought by 95 Silenan defense lawyers who delayed the recording of the evidence. Caused The trial judge's statements made it clear that irrelevant questions were not allowed in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is the responsibility of the trial judge to decide on the relevant, irrelevant, confession. Or the negligence of the questions placed before the prosecution witnesses at the time of the recording of the evidence was neither charged nor prejudiced in the mind of the trial judge, nor any objection to the proceedings. Has been identified which simply refuses to answer the irrelevant questions presented. M
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
