Skip to main content

Recording of Evidence is mandatory in certain cases

By

 PLJ 2024 Lahore (Note) 130

[Multan Bench, Multan]

Present: Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J.

MUHAMMAD SAEED--Petitioner

versus

STATE--Respondent

W.P. No. 19020 of 2023, decided on 19.1.2024.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 249-A--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Maintainability--Writ petition--Application acquittal--Dismissed--Complainant directly leveled allegation against petitioner that he was main culprit of case. He prepared forged and fabricated agreement to sell of property of complainant with connivance of co-accused--Revisional Court observed that controversy was essentially of facts, which could only be decided after recording of evidence of both parties--Both fora below had passed well-reasoned orders--Petition dismissed            .

                                                                   [Para 1, 3 & 5] A, B, C & E

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--

----Art. 199--Criminal Revision--Writ petition--Maintainability--Writ petition was not maintainable under article 199 of Constitution against order passed by Additional Session Judge in criminal revision.           [Para 4] D

M/s. Mehr Khalil-ur-Rehman and Rana Muhammad Ibrahim, Advocates for Petitioner.

Mr. Sanam Farid Khan Baloch, AAG for State.

Complainant in person.

Date of hearing: 19.1.2024.

Judgment

Through this petition the petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 11-05-2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Multan whereby, an application under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for his acquittal in the case was dismissed.

Aggrieved from the order of the learned trial Court, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, whereby the learned Revisional Court vide his order dated 04-10-2023, has also dismissed the same.

2. Arguments heard. Record annexed with this petition perused.

3. Perusal of the record reflects that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. was declined by the learned trial Court with the observation that complainant directly leveled allegation against the petitioner that he is the main culprit of the case. He prepared forged and fabricated agreement to sell of property of the complainant with connivance of his other co-accused. Record of the learned trial Court reveals that the charge was framed against the accused persons. Furthermore, the learned Revisional Court observed that the controversy is essentially of facts, which can only be decided after recording of the evidence of both the parties. The complainant is vehemently contesting the case and that the complainant/respondent No. 3 certainly had the evidence to prove the charge against the petitioner thus, the observation of the learned Revisional Court is in accordance with law.

4. I have further noted that the writ petition was not maintainable under article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate Section 30, Multan as well as the learned Revisional Court. Both fora below have passed well-reasoned orders and I see no legitimate exception to interfere in the same. Consequently this petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed in limine.

(K.Q.B.)          Petition dismissed

Labels:
Location: Office No. F-16, 1st Floor, Afzal Center, near Family Courts, G-10/1 Courts, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Co-sharer

By
Possession of one co-sharer in possession of all . 1998 MLD 857, 1857; 2006 YLR 831; 2008 SCMR 661, 616; 2008 SCMR 905. Co-sharer to establish right of co-heirship . 2008 MLD 278.  For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006
Post a Comment
Read more

2013 S C M R 587

By
Rule that no limitation ran against a void order was not an inflexible rule --- Party could not sleep over to challenge a void order and it was bound to challenge the same within the stipulated/Prescribed time period of limitation from the date of knowledge before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings --- Appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal was admittedly time-barred, and was rightly dismissed as being hit by limitation and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was found --- High Court agreed with the order of Appellate Tribunal --- Supreme Court had affirmed concurrent findings recorded by fora below --- Review petition was dismissed in circumstances. For  more , you can consult omara.khan789@gmail.com or call +923123450006
Post a Comment
Read more

When an application for restoration of suit is allowed, all interim orders passed prior to dismissal of suit for non-prosecution, stand revived

By
PLJ 2018 Islamabad 276 Present :  Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J. M/s. PANTHER DEVELOPERS--Petitioner versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (ADJ), WEST, ISLAMABAD and 2 others--Respondents W.P. No. 977 of 2018, decided on 10.4.2018. Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (IV of 2001)-- ----S. 17(9)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Execution of lease agreement--Default in payment of rent--Violation of terms and Conditions--Eviction Petition--Dismissed for non prosecution--Application for restoration--Allowed--Tentative order--Struck off right of defence--Eviction Petition allowed--Appeal was dismissed--Determination--Direction to--It is well settled that when a suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, and an application for restoration is filed, Court/Tribunal can, while said application is pending, pass interim orders--It is also well settled that when an application for restoration of suit is allowed, all interim orders passed prior to dismissal of suit for non...
Post a Comment
Read more