Meeran Shah vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 722 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Meeran Shah VS State S.11(c)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 150---Declaration of a witness as hostile---Powers of the Trial Court---Scope---Petitioner was charged for having 20000-grams of Ice---Challan was submitted, petitioner was charged and he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial---At the trial, Seizing Officer, during the course of his examination-in-chief, remained stitched to his version, which he had given in the FIR while during cross-examination, he allegedly deviated from the contents of the FIR as well as examination-in-chief---At that particular juncture, a request was made by the prosecution through Prosecutor to the Trial Court to declare Seizing Officer as hostile witness and the prosecution be allowed to cross-examine him---Such request was allowed---Validity---At the time of recording the examination-in-chief, a prosecution witness was always at the hands of the prosecution, however, once such examination-in-chief was completed, then, he would go into the hands of the defence for cross-examination---Given that, in terms of Art.150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the prosecution could request the Trial Court to declare a witness as hostile if he resiled from his previous statement but simultaneously, the Court before acceding to such request was to satisfy itself with respect to availability of the elements of hostility and un-truthfulness after applying its judicial conscious/mind to the facts and circumstances of the case---Court believed that hostility was a term which was relevant to the statement in examination-in-chief and if a witness was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution after the cross-examination by the defence, the whole purpose of right of cross-examination of defence in the concept of criminal administration of justice and law of evidence would be defeated---In the case in hand, the Seizing Officer during the course of cross-examination in response to certain questions had given some answers which raised queries upon the mode and manner of the occurrence but the same was not in manner which called for declaring him as hostile, hence, the Trial Court had not properly appreciated the entire material available on the record in its true perspective and also not applied its judicial mind while handing down the impugned findings---Being so, the petitioner had succeeded in making out a case for the interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction---Petition was allowed, accordingly, and impugned findings were set-aside.

Meeran Shah vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 722 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ