Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 635 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IKRAM vs State S

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

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 635 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IKRAM VS State S. 9(d)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A---Inherent powers of High Court---Quashing of order---Application for sending samples to Forensic Science Laboratory was turned down, whereas the application for summoning of prosecution witnesses for re-examination was allowed---Scope---Record showed that samples sent to the Forensic Science Agency for chemical analysis by the prosecution had already been examined and in that regard Forensic Science Agency Report was available on the file---Request of defence qua sending of samples from some five packets which according to its observation resembled with opium, was not tenable at that belated stage on the ground that on one hand, the defence was not an expert, while on the other hand, such exercise might prejudice the case of either side---Trial Court had rightly turned down the request of defence. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 635 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IKRAM VS State S. 9(d)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A & 540---Inherent powers of High Court---Quashing of order---Summoning of witnesses for re-examination--- Application of the prosecution for summoning the witnesses for re-examination was allowed---Scope---As per S. 540, Cr.P.C., the Trial Court had ample power to summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or re-call and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence appeared to it essential to the just decision of the case---Intent of the legislature was very much clear from the language of the entire Section that the Court could examine any person who was acquainted with the facts of the case, therefore, the Court was not bound to record the statements of only those witnesses who were listed in the calendar of witnesses only, but in order to arrive at a just conclusion, the Court could call any person likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case after ascertaining it from the Public Prosecutor or the complainant subject to the general provisions that summoning of any such witness did not cause delay or defeat the ends of justice---Prosecution had filed application for summoning Constable/witness on the ground that he had taken samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory from the Police Station---Statement of said witness was recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. but inadvertently, his name was not mentioned in the column of challan---Similar was the case of two other witnesses, who had registered FIR and submitted challan but inadvertently, their names had not been mentioned in the column of witnesses---Another witness had been examined, but the prosecution was seeking his re-examination to the extent that he had taken Murasila to the Police Station and to that extent he had not been examined---Reasons furnished by the prosecution were plausible and convincing, therefore, the Trial Court was justified to allow the applications of prosecution---Criminal Miscellaneous Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 635 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IKRAM vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 635 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ