Ali Zain vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 201 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Ali Zain VS State Ss. 439 & 435 --- Qanun-e-Shahadat ( 10 of 1984 ), Chap. III --- Relevancy of facts --- Draftsman-Relevancy of site plan---Putting questions to the draftsman---Denial of--- Petitioner prayed for setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby he (petitioner) was not allowed to put question to prosecution witness/ draftsman regarding the relevancy of site plan of place of recovery of weapon of offence--- Contention of the petitioner was that the draftsman as Prosecution Witness (PW) was questioned about the site plan prepared by him, and the Trial court had not allowed putting the question to the said witness as a non relevant question--- Validity ---Examination-in-chief as well as cross- examination conducted by the defence on draftsman (PW) revealed that during cross- examination, the defence put the question about the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence prepared by the investigating officer to the said witness---Admittedly, draftsman (PW) was not the author of the site plan nor the witness on whosepointing site plan was prepared, and that the petitioner/defence just wanted to verify the place of occurrence from the prosecution witness--- For said reason, the petitioner referred to the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence---Petitioner admitted that the draftsman (PW) had not prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of the offence, nor did he remain a witness, nor under his instructions, had the site plan been prepared---Said witness (draftsman/ PW) was not a scriber of the site plan nor could be considered an attesting witness---Thus, ground(s) mentioned in the impugned order were sound and reasonable ---Petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge), warranting interference by the High Court---Criminal revision petition, being without any substance, was dismissed.

Ali Zain vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 201 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ