RUSTAM KHAN And Others vs The STATE
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld their conviction under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly forging and registering a sale-deed. The trial court had convicted the petitioners, while acquitting their co-accused, and the Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed their subsequent appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction could be sustained when it was mainly based on the report of a finger-print expert who was not examined during the trial, thereby depriving the petitioners of the opportunity to cross-examine him. The Supreme Court held that a re-appraisal of the evidence was necessary under these circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the conviction based on an unexamined expert's report.
- Can a conviction be lawfully based on the report of a finger-print expert who was not examined by the trial court?
- Whether the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a finger-print expert warrants the grant of leave to appeal?
- Does the re-appraisal of evidence become necessary when crucial expert reports are relied upon without formal examination of the expert?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The petitioners alongwith one Muhammad Ilyas` (since acquitted by the trial Court) were tried for having allegedly forged and got registered a sale-deed, dated 20-2-1975 purportedly executed by the complainant Shamsuddin son of Qamru and his brother Muhammad Ilyas son of Haji Khawasi Khan. On trial the learned Magistrate found the petitioners guilty and convicted them of the offence under sections 420/468 and 471, P.P.C. While Muhammad Ilyas Khan was given benefit of doubt and acquitted. The petitioners filed an appeal against their co nviction which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur and their revision petition to the Lahore High Court was also dismissed as per impugned judgment, dated 23-2-1985.
2. It was contended, inter alia, by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the conviction was mainly based on the report of the finger-print expert who was not examined by the trial Court and the petitioners were thus given no opportunity of cross-examining him.
3. The re-appraisal of evidence in the circumstances of the case seems necessary. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted.