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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 18 of 1985, decided on 28th May, 1985.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court. Lahore, dated 12‑12‑1984, passed in Criminal Revision No. 86 of 1983).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Criminal trial‑‑High Court's order allowing re‑calling of Court witness for further cross‑examination, impugned‑‑There being no flaw in said order, Supreme Court declined to interfere‑‑Petition dismissed.
Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Ziaullah Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Complainant.
S.M. Zubair, Assistant Advocate‑General for the State.
Date of hearing: 28th May, 1985.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 12‑12‑1984, dismissing his criminal revision.
2. The facts, briefly, are that on reports made by Mr. M.A. Lone, Khair Din petitioner was facing trial in 5 different criminal cases in the Court of Mr. Sardar Ali Gorsi, Magistrate Section 30, prosecution evidence was recorded in one of these and even the statements of the accused was recorded, when he made a transfer application for transfer of the case: The case has since been transferred to two different Courts and is now pending in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Zawar Ali, Magistrate Section 30. Before each Magistrate the petitioner applied for de novo trial but his applications were dismissed each time. On two occasions he also filed criminal revisions before the Additional Sessions Judge which were dismissed. On the third occasion he filed a criminal revision before the High Court which too was dismissed. A prayer was also made for re‑calling Abdul Aziz C.W. for further cross‑examination. This was, however, allowed by the High Court vide the impugned order.
3. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at length and gone through the impugned order.
After careful consideration of the matter we feel that there is no flaw in the impugn order of the High Court and does not merit interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M.I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer