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. 138 of 1985 heard on 15th June, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 540 & 439‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34‑‑Trial Court allowing two applications for additional evidence one by complainant and other by Public Prosecutor, by one and same order‑‑Application filed by Public Prosecutor was decided without any notice to accused and without hearing his counsel‑‑Accused filing revision petition against said order‑‑Prayer for setting aside of said order and for remand of case to trial Court for decision of two applications afresh after hearing counsel for parties not opposed by state and complainant counsel‑‑Said prayer allowed and case remanded accordingly.
Kh. Sultan Ahmad for Appellant.
Farooq Bedar. Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Sh. Khalil‑ ur‑Rahman for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 15th June, 1985.
A case re‑State v. Sarfraz etc. under section 302/34, P.P.C. is pending in the Court of Rai Muhammad Zafar Bhatti, Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkat. Ashfaq Ahmad, petitioner is one of the accused. He has filed this revision petition assailing the validity of an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 5th of March, 1985 whereby he allowed two applications filed under section 540, Cr.P.C. one by the complainant for re‑summoning Muhammad Riaz P.W. 12 and summoning Mian Saeed Akhtar, Magistrate 1st Class, Sialkot as a Court witness and the other by the Special Public Prosecutor for summoning as Court witnesses Moharrir Liaqat Ali of Police Station Saddar and Ahmad of the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Police Station City, Sialkot alongwith certain record.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second applications moved by the Special Public Prosecutor was decided without any notice to him and hearing his counsel. Kh. Sultan Ahmad, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that on 4th of March, 1985 he had addressed his arguments only on the application which had been filed by the complainant as at that time he was not aware of any application having been filed by the Special Public Prosecutor and the observation of the learned trial Court that he had argued the second application also is based on misunderstanding. Sh. Khalil‑ ur‑Rehman, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Assistant Advocate‑General for the State do not controvert the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the case remanded to the trial Court for the decision of the two applications afresh in accordance with law after hearing counsel for the parties. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 support the prayer. Therefore, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the case remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction to decide the applications under section 540, Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor afresh in accordance with law after hearing learned counsel for the parties.
3. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on 23rd of June, 1985 which is reported to have already been fixed by it.
H.A.K. Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer