Criminal

Additional Evidence

96 PCrLJ 757, Additional prosecution evidence ---No material can be allowed to be placed on record against accused subsequent to the framing of the charge.

 

Add or Delete Section

NLR 06 Cr. 345, 22A, Additional Sessions Judge has power to add or delete sections.

S.249-A/561A

Sec. 379 92PCrLJ 2054 (Sec.249-A, 379PPC) 07PcrLJ 1623 (Sec.249-A, 379PPC)

03YLR 2749

95MLD 511, 567

95PCrLJ 874, (Trial Court should be moved first)

94SCMR 798 (Sec 561) *Can be moved at any stage.

93NLR CrLJ 204

92PCrLJ 2054 (Even before framing of charge)

Sec440 85PCrLJ 929  Preliminary inquiry

Sec.420, 468, 471. P04 SC 364 Court can acquit at any stage. Accused had filed a civil suit, element of fraud was to be ascertained.

P 09 SC 102, Groundless charge.

89 PCrLJ 1366, No hardship when accused is on bail.

06 NLR Cr 104 Pesh, Non availing of remedy under 249A would not refuse him relief under 561A.

Bail Before Arrest

10 MLD 63, 06 MLD 215, Malafide

08PCrR Lah 33, 04MLD 1095, 1506 (No malafide alleged)

07 PCrLJ 604, 95 PCrLJ 1635 (Accused absented on day of arguments)

10PLJ CR.C Pesh 867 (Cross version)

337A(ii) Refused, 10PCrLJ 8, 03YLR 2323

337 F(I, ii, v) 10 PLJ Cr.C. 287 Confirmed

302/324 10PLJ Cr.C 402 Nominated but no role assigned, Confirmed.

10 PLJ Cr.C. 387, Dismissal of certain pre arrest bail application due to non-appearance would not disentitle him to concession of pre arrest bail.

75 PCrLJ 628 Previous conviction

10YLR 2183, Failure of accused to appear in court. Explanation that I.O had given him assurance that he would be disposing of the case in C class and under that impression he never appeared before trial court. Explanation plausible.

489F, 10 YLR 2179, Refused

489F, 10 YLR 2110, Granted.

Bail After Arrest

08PCrR Lah 1415 (Previously nominated)

92NLR Cr. 166 Police opinion of no importance

09MLD 1106, 10 YLR 2176, Fugitive has no concession of bail,

337 A(i,ii)F(ii) Granted, 10PLJ Cr.C Lah 550

337 A(ii) 88PCrLJ 1245, 94PLR 696 (337Aii Refused) 10PLJ Cr.C Lah 865 (337Aii Confirmed)

95NLR Cr. 664 Cooling Period

Benefit of Doubt

10PLJ CrC Lah 524

09SCMR 230

CNSA

09PLD Lah 362, Sec. 9A, 9B, 9C. Schedule of punishments.

97SCMR 947 Requirements of 103 Cr.P.C. not complied with, entitled for bail

05MLD 386 Sample sent for chemical examination from only one pack, case to fall under 9a.

02 MLD 44, Lab report not brought on record.

07 CrLJ 913, Conviction can only be under 9A when sample made from only one piece.

09 NLR Cr. 126, S.103, Non compliance fatal for prosecution.

Charge

09 YLR 507, Purpose of charge.

 

Child Witness

10PLJ SC 1133

Civil and Criminal Litigation

06 CLC 289, judgment of criminal court does not influence case in civil court.

07 CrLJ 143, 08 CrLJ 1, Civil and criminal litigation can go side by side.

Compromise on Bail stage

02PCrlJ 1003

05SCMR 1342

Complaint S.200

94 PCrLJ 430 (Complaint to be recorded by Magistrate himself)

Dismissal of complaint in cognizable and non-compoundable case is void ab initio 03SCMR 59

Cross Examination

02 ylr 2362, No cross-examination means statement to that extent stands admitted.

91 SCMR 2300, Omission to cross-examine-- However was rebutted by making suggestions and denying the same in evidence.

10 PCrLJ 1253, Cross-examination of a witness is not just a formality, but is a valuable right of accused and best method to ascertain forensic truth---Where defence counsel is not available at the relevant time, court is under obligation to cross-examine the witnesses in order to ascertain the truth.

10 PCrLJ 812, Cross Examination by accused himself.

Defence Plea

08 YLR 2910, Defence plea---Law required that if accused had a defence plea, same should have been put up to the witnesses inCross-examination and then put up the same at the time of recording the statement under S.342, Cr.P. C.

Discharge Report

Court not bound to agree, 03PCrLJ 244(a), 1500. 04YLR Lah 836(b) Prof Nawaz case.

Double Jeopardy

S.403 10SCMR 861

Double Presumption of Truth

10PLJ SC 513

Finger Print

10 PLJ SC 575 Non appearance of finger print expert in support. Of no help

FIR

PJ 10 Cr.C. 466, Accused was not mentioned in FIR. If prosecution witnesses had identified the unknown person as accused then the name of the accused must have been mentioned in the FIR.

PJ 10 SC 986, Contents of FIR revealed that witnesses had seem the accused for the first time. If accused were not named in FIR then identification parade becomes necessary.

Habeas Corpus

10PLJ Lah 396 Habeas Corpus against father is not competent. REF 01SCMR 1782

Interim Bail

03PCrLJ 409

Injured Witness-Truthful Witness

07SCMR 670 (Only affirmative of his presence at the spot but not of his credibility)

Interested Witness

10PLJ Cr.C Lah 554

07PLJ SC 226

PJ 10 SC AJ&K, Witness made improvement in his statement, could not be considered as independent witness.

06 NLR Cr. 184, Conduct of eye witness unnatural.

Investigation

07 PSC Supreme Court 182, Investigation, defect in---Effect---Such defect might not be a valid ground for discharge d of an accused, but insufficiency in evidence would definitely be a strong ground to discharge him.

I.O

03PCrLJ 244(a), 1500, Discharge report, court not bound to agree

Japha

10PLJCr.C Lah 318

Judge and Law

07 NLR Cr. 217, Law is sometimes called an ass but judge should as far as it is possible, try not to become one.

337F(v)04PLD SC 477, 05MLD 454, 09 PCrLJ 75

489-F Granted. Behind the bars for the last five months, had admitted liability to extent of Rs400,000, 10PLJSC 1085?1087 (Sec.489-F) Bail granted where suit for recovery had been instituted. 06 CrLJ 77, 39 (Sec.489-F)

11MLD 311 Refused.

S.452 PPC

09 PCrLJ 1259 Previous litigation, 452 not attracted

08 PCrLJ 915, Injured not examined, fatal for prosecution case.

NLR 98 Cr Lah 10, FIR not lodged by owner of house, not competent.

Minor Discrepancies, Minor Contradictions

68 PCrLJ 1273,

02 ylr 3620, When a witness was subjected to a lengthy Cross-examination , it was very natural that some discrepancies would crop up and in such situation minor discrepancies should be ignored.

06 NLR Cr. 28, Minor contradictions in statements of PWs as to venue of occurrence would be hardly of any consequence.

06 NLR Cr. 184, Statements of PWs in contradictions with each other, no evidentiary value.

No one is to be vexed twice for same cause

95 SCMR 626, 02 PCrLJ 1712, P 97 L 680, 95 MLD 1563, 81 SCMR 1008,

Prevention of Corruption

P04 SC 364 Sec.420, 468, 471. Court can acquit at any stage. Accused had filed a civil suit, element of fraud was to be ascertained.

Polygamy, Sec.6

80PCrLJ 122 Complaint by wife

2000KLR CC 24

Recovery

Sec.103 10 PLJ Cr.C. 448 Strict compliance of Sec.103 was not required.

 

Recovery Witness

94 PCrLJ 475 (P.O. Recovery Witness)

93SCMR 1608, 04MLD 1253(b), 2000PCrLJ 340(b) (Police witnesses are competent witness as any other in absence of material to indicate that they were biased)

99 PCrLJ 356, Recovery ---witness who was accused in a criminal case and was under the influence and pressure of concerned police official could not be associated as a witness in Recovery proceedings.

Recovery Memo

10 PLJ SC 513 Over writing, cutting, highly doubtful.

Sole Witness

10PLJ Cr.C. 311, 06 NLR Cr. 270, Quality of evidence. Even in murder case testimony of single reliable witness is enough to base conviction.

Sec. 22A Cr.P.C.

11 MLD 223, Instead of filing constitution petition, petitioner could file private complaint.

10PLJ Lah 699, 309, Without going into veracity of information, without going into investigation. REF P07SC 539

10PLJ Pesh 52 (Cognizable Offence, case to be registered)

PJ 10 L 465, justice of peace can direct police to do the needful in accordance with law but not the procedure or give the direction to do a certain act.

S. 340(2)

91 PCrLJ Note 65 page 46, Question not put in interrogative form, prejudicial.

S. 342

99 MLD 2168, Mandatory

2000 MLD 370 Incriminating material not put to accused.

11 MLD 239 Failure to put any piece of evidence, HELD recovery could not be used as evidence.

NLR 06 Cr, 236 Lah, Failure by accused to take before trial court to point out non putting of incriminating material, would show no prejudice caused.

S.540 Cr.P.C

P 11 FSC 114, Technicalities should not stand in way of judge.