Lawyers Directory Listing
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.
Criminal Revision No. 30 of 1979, decided on 12th November, 1979.
--‑‑S. 72‑Service of summons‑Government servants‑‑Prosecution witnesses Government servants‑Proper procedure to serve process through their respective officers‑Trial Court while issuing process to such witnesses not following. such procedure but ordering prosecution to produce them on its own responsibility‑Impugned order set aside and trial Court directed to issue summonses through officers concerned.
Complainant in person.
Ch. Muhammad Riaz for Respondents.
Date of institution :2nd August, 1979.
This revision petition is directed against an order dated 9th July,. 1979 by which the remaining evidence of the Prosecution was closed on the ground that as a number of opportunities afforded to the Prosecution to produce the witnesses, namely, Muhammad Azeem Patwari and Sabir Hussain, S. I. Police, were not availed of by the Prosecution, their evidence was closed.
The complainant and the counsel for the respondents were heard and the perusal of the interlocutory orders of the trial Court was also accordingly made. Evidently, Muhammad Azeem, Patwari and Sabir Hussdin, S. I. who investigated the case are the employees of the Govern ment. The proper procedure to serve the process issued by the Court for their attendance‑ before the Court to give evidence, was through their respective officers to whom they were subordinate. It seems that nothing of the sort was done by the trial Court while issuing the process to these witnesses. The Patwari was to be served through the Tehsildar concerned and the S. I. was to be served through the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned. It is also the duty of the Court to summon the witnesses who are the Government employees through the immediate Heads of the Departments concerned as pointed out earlier. This method for service of the process issued by the Court was not followed by the trial Court and the Prosecution was ordered to produce these witnesses to their own responsibility. This responsibility, without issue of process o Summoning the witnesses could not be forced upon the Prosecution. However the Court could have asked the prosecuting Agency to get the service of the summonses issued by the Court effected through the Officers concerned, otherwise their evidence would be closed by the trial Court.
Therefore, for the reasons above, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order. is set aside 'and the parties are directed to appeal before the trial Court on the 22nd of November, 1979 when the present addresses of the remaining witnesses shall be furnished to the trial Court so as to issue summonses to be served upon them through the Officer concerned.
Revision accepted,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer