Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

GHAUS BAKHSH versus THE STATE


Evidence Act 1872 Section 136 The question of leading evidence relating to the absence of a prosecutor's witness at the place of inspection was put before the trial court for a defense witness to prove the facts, with the permission of the forced abortion of justice. Denied, Remand Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Section 302, for Investigation of the Question Question

1975 P Cr. L J 1280

[Lahore]

Before M. S. H. Qureshi and Abdul Ghafoor Khan, JJ

ABDUS SATTAR‑Appellant

Versus

THE STATE‑Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 52 and Murder Reference No. 21 of 1972, heard on 15th January 1974.

Evidence Act (I of 187)‑----

‑‑‑--S. 136‑Examination of witness‑Accused leading evidence re garding non‑presence of prosecution witness at place of occurrence Question put to defence witness to prove fact disallowed by trial Court‑Hell, great miscarriage of justice took place by disallow ing, question‑Case remanded for examination of witness on the point‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.

Qurban Sadiq 1kram for Appellant.

Naiwat Khan for A: G. for the State.

Dates of hearing : 14th and 15th January 1974.

JUDGMENT

ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN. J.‑

---The learned counsel for the appellant in the outset has pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge disallowed the examina tion of Abdul Qadeer D. W. 1 which the appellant wanted to examine in defence to show that Muhammad Ramzan P. W. was not present at the place of occurrence and was on duty in Koh‑i‑Noor Textile Mills. He has said that can account of this defect the case may be remanded. The State Counsel has conceded that the case be remanded.

2. The question put to Mr. Abdul Qadeer D. W, 1 by the learned defence counsel reads as under: ‑

Q. Where Vas the said Muhammad Ramzan on 21st November 1969 Was he not on duty in your Mils from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m,

Flt, it is clear from the above‑quoted question that the appellant wanted to show that Muhammad Ramzan P. W. was not present at the time of occurrence and was on duty in Koh‑i‑Noor Textile Mills from 6 am to 2 p.m. The appellant was entitled to prove that the eye‑witnesses did not see the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge erred in disallowing the question by which great miscarriage of justice alas taken place.

3. For the reasons given above the conviction and the sentence patter by the learned Sessions Judge are set aide and the case is remanded with the direction that Abdul Qadeer (D. W. I) Labour and Personnel Officer Koh‑i-Noor Textile Mills or any other witness knowing the facts if D.W.1 is not available now be examined on the point if Muhammad Ramzan P. W. was or was not on duty on 21st November 1969 from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. If the learned Sessions Judge who tried the case has been transferred away his successor will make trial de novo.

Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
advocate from Naukundi lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.