TAHIR SAEED and anothers vs MUHAMMAD IRSHAD RANA and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby a criminal appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial court. The core legal question concerned whether interference by the Supreme Court was warranted against the remand order when the trial had already progressed subsequent to that order. The Supreme Court held that since the trial has commenced and the statement of a prosecution witness has been recorded on oath, it would not be in the interest of justice to interfere in the pending proceedings before the competent trial court. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will decline to interfere with a remand order once the trial court has progressed significantly by recording evidence, leaving the matter for the trial court to conclude expeditiously.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court remand order after the trial has commenced and evidence has been recorded?
- Is it in the interest of justice to stall proceedings once a witness statement has been recorded on oath?
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14th November, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby criminal appeal filed by respondent No,1 was allowed and case has been remanded to the trial Court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner to involve him in the commission of crime. On our query, he pointed out that after passing of order of the High Court dated 14th November, 2001 statement of the complainant Rana Irshad Ahmed has been recorded. Therefore, in such view of the matter we are of the opinion that as now the trial has commenced and statement of one of the witnesses has also been recorded on oath, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to interference in the proceedings which are pending on the file of the Court having jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence so produced before it.
' Thus for the foregoing reason, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference by this Court with the impugned judgment. Thus petition is dismissed and leave declined. However, trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
Leave declined. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.