MUHAMMAD AYUB versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, HAFIZABAD
Sections 4040, 265A, 493 and 439 of the Conduct Rule (XLV of 1860), Section 302/34 murder convicts were primarily acquitted by the trial court under section 265K, the CCPC filed a complaint with the complainant High Court. On appeal, the case was remanded at trial by the court with the direction of proceeding with the next witness, which included the investigating officer, on the request of the complainant filed under section 5540, the PC trial court The witnesses were also called as prosecution witnesses, whom the prosecution had called. The trial court passed contradictory orders and did not disclose that he was reading the record correctly, even while approving the disapproval order. Otherwise, the application under Section 5540, CRPC, was not legally forwarded by the prosecutor, CRPC prosecution had to take place. In each case by a public prosecutor, the Sessions Court prosecuted the police report under Section 493 before being prosecuted under section 493, the CRPC prosecutor will prosecute and a y applicant will proceed under his direction. Of The petition on which the witnesses were sought by the trial court was not filed by a suitable person, consequently the decision was left with the instruction that if under section 40 any40, the CRP An application will be made under c. Filed by an appropriate person, the decision will be taken strictly on the merits of the trial court in keeping with the entire record under which the revision request was accepted.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
