NASEER AHMED vs State Ss — 2022 MLD 1570 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

NASEER AHMED VS State Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Examination of accused---Scope---Application by accused for amending his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., was rejected---Scope---Record transpired that after closure of prosecution witnesses, the accused were examined under Ss. 342 & 340(2), Cr.P.C. and defence witnesses produced by them were also examined---Complainant, thereafter filed an application under S.540, Cr.P.C. for calling inquiry report, which was allowed and the court witness produced the inquiry report---Complainant filed another application for amendment in the statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. of accused, which was rejected---Validity---Record revealed that the complainant, after recording of the statements of accused under Ss. 342 & 340(2), Cr.P.C and defence witnesses, filed an application under S.540, Cr.P.C, for calling inquiry report, which was allowed---Statement of the representative of the concerned Department was recorded, who produced inquiry report---Court had power under S.540, Cr.P.C to summon material witnesses at any stage of proceeding, examine any person or recall or re-examine any person already examined---Trial Court had examined Section Officer, PHE Department, who produced the inquiry report---Said witness appeared and recorded his statement as witness---Order of accepting the application under S.540, Cr.P.C, for producing the inquiry report by the representative of PHE Department had not been challenged---Purpose of examining of accused was to enable him/them to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him---On allowing the application under S.540, Cr.P.C, the witness was examined, who produced certain documents---Under S. 342, Cr.P.C, the accused was allowed to explain his position in regard of evidence produced after recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Plain reading of S.342, Cr.P.C, showed no restriction to record the statement of accused after producing defence evidence---Even after closing the prosecution and defence side, the accused had a right to explain his position---Petition was allowed by setting aside impugned order and Trial Court was directed to re-examine the accused under S.342, Cr.P.C., by making question in respect of inquiry report. Head NotesCase Description

NASEER AHMED vs State Ss — 2022 MLD 1570 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD