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. 6 of 1983, decided on 25th January, 1983.
--S. 190-Accused, summoning of-Contention that petitioner being a witness in case trial Judge (Anti-Corruption) was not legally competent to summon him as an accused person without first obtaining necessary sanction for his prosecution from concerned authority-Repelled-Trial Judge, held, quite competent to take cognizance and summon petitioner upon information received from any witness or upon his own knowledge or suspicion that such offence committed by him.
Capt. M. A. Maiid for Petitioner.
This Criminal Revision arises from the order of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sahiwal, whereby he on 21st September, 1982 summoned Muhammad Hussain, petitioner, as an accused person to face trial in case under section 420/466/471/468/109, P. P. C. pending adjudication before him.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since Muhammad Hussain was a witness in that case the trial Court was not legally competent to summon him as an accused person without first having obtained necessary sanction for his prosecution from the concerned authority.
3. After hearing the learned counsel who has not been able to refer to any specific provision of law prohibiting the trial Court to summon witness as an accused person without first having obtained sanction fort prosecution, I am of the considered view that the trial Court while trying the case was quite competent to take cognizance and summon the peti tioner upon information received from any witness or upon his own knowledge or suspicion that such offence has been committed by the petitioner. I further find that the trial Court after having taken cognizance had informed the petitioner that he was entitled to have the case tried by another Court and it was on the choice of the petitioner that the case was transferred to learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan.
4. For what has been stated above there being no merit in this revi sion, the same is dismissed in limine.
S. G. D. Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer