After examining the post-mortem of the victim inspecting the Medical Witness Medical Officer, Section 23040 Penn Code (60 1860 of XLV), section 2302, the report stated that the wrong date of 25, 2010 instead of 26 instead of 2010 was reported. The doctor was examined as the doctor was a witness in the case and was cross-examined by the defense lawyer after the complainant's lawyer submitted a request for a doctor's re-examination under section 404040, CRPC. Because post-mortem examination was done on 26 5 2010 according to the hospital records. Permitted by the trial court, under Section 540 of the Unlawful Order, the CCP not only authorized the court but also made it its duty to call or re-examine as a witness. The evidence of which was found only necessary for the decision to be made. The trial did not expect that criminal cases such as dummies should be conducted, as there should be no further motivation for prosecuting officers. Not only should the parties wish to make a decision and justice should be done in doing so, it should be done in the trial court as well, while passing the entire record, the complainant was properly authorized to examine the doctor. The entire witness will not have the full opportunity to investigate and will not suffer any prejudice, as will be re-examined according to the doctor's hospital records. The unauthorized injunction did not involve any unlawful action or injury, and accordingly the revision request was excluded to the same extent.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
