| Case ID |
2bf2f89c-2bef-4482-978c-7646b2ed9825 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Revision Petition No. 8 and Criminal Misc |
| Decision Date |
Sep 27, 2019 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 19, 2019 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused-petitioner against the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court. The Court found that the trial court had properly exercised its discretion under Section 539-B of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding local inspection. The reasoning provided by the trial court was deemed well-reasoned, and the High Court's affirmation was consistent with legal standards. The court emphasized that local inspection is a matter of discretion for the court and is only permitted for proper appreciation of the evidence. The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition. |
| Summary |
In the Supreme Court case of Criminal Revision Petition No. 8 and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 48 of 2019, the court addressed the validity of a trial court's decision to deny a request for local inspection under Section 539-B of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners sought local inspection to aid in the appreciation of evidence concerning serious charges under the Penal Code, including murder and rioting. The trial court's order was upheld by the High Court and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the trial court had acted within its discretion, supported by the fact that significant time had elapsed since the occurrence, which would have altered the relevant locale. The court concluded that the existing evidence provided by witnesses present at the scene was sufficient for a fair trial and did not warrant local inspection at this late stage. This case illustrates the importance of judicial discretion in evidentiary matters within criminal proceedings. |
| Court |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN,
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Hazoor Imam Kazmi,
Raja Ayaz Ahmed,
Ch. Shaukat Aziz
|
| Petitioners |
IRSHAD AHMED
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE THROUGH POLICE STATION CITY, MUZAFFARABAD AND 2 OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2020 SLD 1357,
2020 YLR 938
|
| Other Citations |
State through the Advocate-General of Baluchistan, Quetta v. Jamil Iqbal PLD 1974 Quetta 28,
Mir Zakam and another v. The State and another 1999 PCr.LJ 927,
Mukhtar Ali and 3 others v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 372,
Asfandyar and another v. Kamran and another 2016 SCMR 2084
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
|
| Sections |
539-B,
302(b),
147,
148,
149
|