MUHAMMAD HANEEF SHAH versus MUHAMMAD KHALIL AHMAD SHAH
Section 337A (i) / 337A (ii) / 337L (ii) / 337F (i) / 148/149 Punjab Government Notification No SO (H&D) 6/90, dated 12 2 1990 Notification of Punjab Government No SO (H&D) 6/90, Dated 8 2 1992 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitution Petition Magistrate allowed the accused witness to re-examine the injured witness, which was ordered by the sessions court on this basis. Was put aside in the review. The medical board could not be formed even 21 days after the first medical examination of the injured, as the injuries are healed within 5 to 7 days, the Department of Health's SO (H&D) 6 1/90, dated 12 2 1990. It was ordered that the order to examine the injured should be approved within three weeks. Another notification No. SO (H&D) 6 1/90, dated 8 2 1992 made it clear that if there was an order of re-examination, the proceedings passed by the District Magistrate in judicial capacity even after three weeks of the first judge. , The same will revoke the notification, on August 12, 1990, the magistrate ordered a re-examination of the injured after a period of six months of his first examination, which was not much in the pursuit of justice in such a delayed phase. Even the sessions court did not comply. 8 1992 Notification of the history of 1992 appears until the injuries have been re-examined and the wounds must be treated and the medical board will consider any Topsy Troy approach which may lead to misconduct. Consequently, the sessions court upheld the High Court for its reasons. The constitutional application was dismissed accordingly
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
