HAQ NAWAZ versus SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.II, MULTAN
The applicant / complainant, passed by Special Judge, Counter-Terrorism, to record evidence of absence of Article 3 Prevention Code (XLV of 1860), Section 365 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) The injunction was suspended, whereby the witness / alleged kidnapper / minor of the prosecution was disqualified for recording evidence due to its majesty The witness was presented before the trial court and There were some questions to be decided at its intellectual level. He answered the question about his sisters, friends, and chips that he liked to eat, however, he could not tell the telephone number of his home and telephone. The witness can not properly distinguish between ana dana and ana nana under Article 3 of the law. The testimony, 1984, was a test of a witness's ability to understand questions and give rational answers. It was not necessary to answer all the questions correctly. The witness, who was quite intelligent in this case and answered the trial court's questions rationally, could not be considered ignorant of the house number or telephone number. In its inability to be a competent witness, even an elder is not remembering his home or telephone number, and more important than being able to accurately distinguish the witness between Da'ana and Nana. And cannot be declared an ineligible witness. The trial court's ground supervision was not correct and the unclean order was not sustained in law. The unidentified order was set in the direction that the alleged kidnapper / prosecution
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
