Summary: The ultimate purpose of procedural law is to give voice to human suffering, not to silence it. Principally, the procedural framework under the Cr.P.C. facilitates the observance of due process and the right to a fair trial, thereby securing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution. Section 360(2) of the Cr.P.C. provides the procedure when a witness challenges the written record of his statement, mandating the Judge to append a “memorandum” of the objection, setting out Judge’s own remarks regarding the objection, and recording the correct version of the statement of the witness. --- (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)----Condonation of delay---Criminal petition for leave to appeal---Grounds stated in application were found plausible---Delay in filing petition was condoned. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.360(1)---Recording of evidence of witness---Reading over and correction of statement---Trial Court was required, upon completion of testimony, to read over statement to witness in presence of accused or his counsel and correct any mistake, where necessary, before obtaining signature of witness---Object of provision was to ensure that testimony was reduced into writing accurately and substantially word for word---Recording of evidence through video link did not dilute statutory obligation to ensure correctness of written statement. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.360(2)---Witness disputing correctness of recorded statement---Memorandum of objection---Where witness asserted that exact narrative had not been correctly reduced into writing, Magistrate or Sessions Judge was required, after hearing parties, to make memorandum of objection, append appropriate remarks and record correct version of testimony---Provision vested Trial Court with jurisdiction to rectify discrepancies, omissions and inaccuracies in written statement and cross-examination---Such jurisdiction was required to be exercised whenever accuracy of judicial record was legitimately questioned. (d) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.10-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.360---Fair trial and due process---Accurate recording of testimony---Procedural framework governing recording and correction of evidence served vital purpose of ensuring fairness and transparency in criminal trial---Procedure was an instrument for advancement of justice and could not be applied through purely technical approach so as to frustrate ends of justice---Failure to correct material inaccuracies in statement of witness could seriously impair evidentiary value of testimony and prejudice merits of criminal case---Ultimate purpose of procedural law was to give voice to human suffering rather than silence it. (e) Criminal trial---Evidence recorded through video link---Written statement inconsistent with video recording---Rectification---Witness stated in video recording that incident occurred on 31.05.2018, whereas Trial Court inadvertently recorded date as 30.05.2018---Supreme Court examined video recording and written statement and found material discrepancies and inaccuracies---Respondent also conceded mistakes and raised no objection to correction---Video recording constituted reliable contemporaneous source for comparison and rectification of written judicial record. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss.360(2) & 435---Trial Court and Revisional Court---Failure to exercise jurisdiction---Witness specifically sought comparison of written statement with available video recording, but Trial Court declined application and High Court maintained such order---Both fora were required to exercise jurisdiction conferred by Ss.360(2) and 435, Cr.P.C. to examine and rectify irregularity in proceedings---Non-exercise of such jurisdiction, despite admitted non-verbatim recording of testimony, amounted to illegality. (g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S.360(2)---Correction of testimony---Presence of parties---Procedure after remand---Trial Court was required to re-examine video recording and compare it with written examination-in-chief and cross-examination in presence of accused, counsel for parties and Prosecutor---Where discrepancy, omission or inaccuracy was found, Trial Court was to incorporate correct version of witness’s statement through memorandum containing its remarks and make same part of judicial record---Correction exercise was to preserve transparency and protect rights of all parties rather than permit unilateral alteration of evidence. Disposition---Criminal miscellaneous application allowed and delay in Criminal Petition No.1033 of 2024 condoned---Criminal petitions disposed of---Orders of Trial Court and High Court set aside---Trial Court directed to compare video recording with written statement, prepare memorandum under S.360(2), Cr.P.C. containing correct version and complete exercise within fifteen working days from receipt of certified copy of order---Thereafter parties to be afforded opportunity of re-arguments and criminal case to be decided within thirty working days strictly in accordance with law and on merits. Mst. Nayab v. The State through Prosecutor General, Sindh and others, Criminal Petitions Nos.1033 and 1036 of 2024 along with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1207 of 2024, Supreme Court of Pakistan, decided on 23.06.2026, approved for reporting.

Summary: 1. The failure of the prosecution to substantiate its case through an ocular account does not mean the accused can go scot-free; rather, they can be legally convicted to the extent of the incident conclusively established on the sole basis of an unedited video film. 2. Since admitted facts need not to be proved, a photogrammetric test is only essential when identity is disputed, rendering it entirely redundant when the defense categorically admits the presence and identity of the accused in the video film. 3. An unedited video film serves as an incorruptible silent witness that overrides discredited eyewitness narratives, successfully redefining criminal liability and securing a conviction for proven events?such as an involuntary gunshot during a struggle?even when the broader prosecution case collapses.

Summary: 1. Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-1898. 2. Article 161 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order-1984.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Where period of tenancy is orally extended, the said extension at the most can be treated as for one month only and cannot be treated as an extension for a period beyond the said time frame unless the other party concedes to the same, hence, the ground raised by the petitioner that tenancy had been orally extended for 15-years cannot be assumed to be correct as the other side has not conceded to the same.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Proceedings arising out of ejectment petition filed under Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. Jurisdiction of review is not vested by law in the Rent Controller or Appellate Court in rent matters and the same cannot be conferred even by consent of the parties.