Taimoor Malik vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 1073 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.

Taimoor Malik VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-F---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Failure to produce evidence---Right of evidence to be closed by the Trial Court---Scope---During the trial, the examination-in-chief of complainant and his two witnesses were recorded---However, on the same day, cross-examination could not be conducted as the defence sought an adjournment in that regard---However, the three witnesses did not appear before the Trial Court on two different dates---However, later on, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court in the morning but thereafter did not appear neither the other two witnesses appeared, which led to the passing of the impugned order whereby the right of petitioner to produce evidence was closed---Validity---Record showed that after getting the examination-in-chief recorded on 24.05.2025, the witnesses did not appear before the Trial Court on 28.06.2025 and on 07.07.2025, due to which conduct, non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued with regard to the said witnesses---On 12.07.2025, only the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and that too, only in the morning and did not appear in the later part of the day, which constrained the Trial Court to pass the impugned order dated 12.07.2025 but the order which was passed by the Trial Court and which had been assailed was that the right of the petitioner to produce himself and two witnesses was "closed", which order of the Trial Court had no foundation under the law itself---Procedure provided for holding of a trial with regard to the offence made punishable under S.302, P.P.C, did not recognize any authority of the Trial Court to pass an order whereby the right of the complainant to produce his witnesses was closed, especially in the circumstances where the examination-in-chief of the said witnesses had been recorded---Law itself provided the procedure for compelling the appearance of the witnesses before the Court and procedure to be followed in case of their failure to appear---However, that procedure also did not allow the Trial Court to close any such right of a complainant to produce his witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination---Error with the order dated 12.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court was that the Trial Court had ordered the closure of the right of the petitioner to produce his witnesses despite the fact that he already had recorded the examination-in-chief of the said three witnesses and subsequent to that, there was no need for passing of an order that the petitioner could not produce his witnesses for the simple reason that already the said witnesses had been produced and their examination-in-chief had been recorded, therefore, the only course which could have been adopted by the Trial Court was the procedure provided under the law for compelling the presence of a witness therefore, the order dated 12.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court was untenable---With regard to the order dated 15.07.2025, whereby the right of the petitioner to produce the documentary evidence was closed, it was observed that it had been provided under S.265-F, Cr.P.C, that the Court shall proceed to hear the complainant and take all such evidence as intended to be produced in support the prosecution---Court has been given discretion to refuse to summon any such witness, if it is of the opinion that such witness is being called for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice---Such grounds are to be recorded in writing---While passing the order dated 15.07.2025, the Trial Court did not observe that it was closing the right of the complainant to produce the documentary evidence for the reason that the purpose of producing the said documentary evidence was to cause delay or defeat the ends of justice and for that fact that the Trial Court did not observe that production of the said documentary evidence would cause delay or defeat the ends of justice, therefore, the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Trial Court also became untenable---Petition was allowed, accordingly.

Taimoor Malik vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 1073 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR