Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1982, decided on 18th May, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 3‑2‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Criminal Appeal No.1149 of 1978 and Murder Reference No.282 of 1978) .

‑‑‑Art, 185‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161 & 241‑A Supreme Court, coming across a police statement of complainant while appeal was being argued‑‑Copy of such statement apparently not supplied to accused‑‑Accused, held, was denied the right to cross‑examine complainant with regard‑to his previous statement which was a gross violation of law and prejudice must be presumed to have been caused to accused‑‑Order of High Court was set aside and case was remanded for enabling accused to cross‑examine complainant with regard to hi: statement‑‑Accused was also ordered to be given opportunity to lead defence if any and case then to be decided afresh on merits.

Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Ch. Ghulam Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for the Advocate -General, Punjab and Rao Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.

Dates of hearing: 27th March; 12th and 18th May, 1985.

While the case was being argued, we came across a police statement of complainant Muhammad Aslam Sethi (P.W.5) which was allegedly recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Lahore, on 21st of March, 1977, a copy of which apparently had not been supplied to the appellant as required under the law. The learned counsel for the appellant was also not in a position to affirm or deny its non‑supply to the appellant.

The complainant was cross‑examined with reference to some police statement, but the trial Court mistook it to be the F.I.R. Accordingly, we summoned the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, and examined him today and he confirmed having correctly recorded the; statement There is no gainsaying that the appellant has been denied) the right to cross‑examine the complainant with regard to his previous statement. This is a gross violation of the law and prejudice must be presumed to have been caused.

Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court and remand the case for enabling the appellant to cross‑examine the complainant with regard to his statement, and for examining the Deputy Superintendent of Police, if necessary, for proving the correctness or otherwise of its contents. After this exercise the accused should be examined and an opportunity should be given to him to lead defence, if any, and then to decide the case afresh on merits. Copy of the statement has been supplied to the appellant's counsel. As the case is old, it would be worthwhile for the High Court to consider its expeditious disposal.

M.B.A. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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