Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Jail Petition No. 14‑R(S) of 1985, decided on 8th October,1985.
‑‑‑Art. 203‑F‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.154 a, 342‑‑First Information Report‑‑Delay. in lodging‑‑Delay attributed to fact that accused were desperate criminals involved in several cases and that due to their threat/fear complainant could not lodge report immediately after occurrence‑‑Accused while being examined under S. 342, Criminal Procedure Code, not put questions about his antecedents, his involvement in other cases, his conviction in one case and of his being of a desperate character‑‑Leave granted to examine question whether such opinion of witnesses or material could be so strongly utilised for appraising evidence itself.
The trial Court in evaluating the reason advanced for explaining the delay of 9/10 days in lodging the F.I.R. remarked:‑
"Keeping in view the antecedents of the under trial accused persons who are desperate criminals and involved in several other cases of identical nature, the explanation offered by the complainant is quite understandable."
The Federal Shariat Court in dismissing the appeal observed as follows: ‑
"According to the learned State counsel the accused persons were desperate criminals and were already involved in several cases. It was due to their threat/fear that the complainant did not lodge the report immediately after the occurrence. I find that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been satisfactorily explained.".... Another argument advanced by the learned defence Counsel is that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. Since the accused persons were notorious and desperate persons, an ordinary person would not dare to give statement against such people. Hummayyun accused is said to be a previous convict and is involved in several other cases."
The petitioner, while being examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. was put no question about his antecedents his involvement in other cases, his conviction in one case, his being of a desperate character. It requires examination whether such opinion of witnesses or material could be so strongly utilized for appraising the evidence itself.
I consider it a fit case for leave to appeal.
‑‑I agree.
I agree.
Leave granted.
M. Y. H Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer