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. 165 of 1984 decided on 15th April, 1985.
‑---S. 540‑‑Rebuttal of defence evidence‑‑Statement of accused and defence evidence recorded‑‑Prosecution seeking opportunity to rebut defence evidence‑‑After conclusion of trial, held, there was no justification to permit prosecution to produce additional evidence‑ Application under S. 540, Cr.P.C. found misconceived‑‑Order of dismissal of application under S. 540, Cr.P.C. maintained.
Muhammad Akram Sheikh for Petitioner.
Malik Muhammad Ramzan Khalid for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th April, 1985.
In a murder case the statement of the accused had been recorded and the defence evidence also was recorded. A Warabandi was produced by the defence. The prosecution wanted to have an opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by the defence. The learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 12th July, 1984 observed that if there was ambiguity, it could be got clarified in re‑examination conducted by the learned P.P. Otherwise too, there appears no justification to permit the prosecution to produce another Warabandi after the conclusion of the trial. The application under section 540, Cr.P.C. was misconceived. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
S.A. Revision petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer