Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) –– S. 539-B –– Local inspection –– Discretion of Court –– Scope and judicial review The accused-petitioner, facing trial under sections 302, 147, 148, 149 A.P.C. and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, moved an application for local inspection under section 539-B, Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the trial Court. The High Court upheld the decision, holding that the power to conduct local inspection lies solely within the discretionary domain of the trial Court. –––Held, section 539-B does not create an obligation upon the Court to conduct local inspection; rather, it empowers the Court to do so where it deems necessary for the proper appreciation of evidence. The trial Court had already recorded statements of all material witnesses, and given the 19-year lapse since the occurrence (in 2000), any inspection would likely be unreliable due to environmental and structural changes. –––Discretion exercised by the trial and appellate Courts was found neither arbitrary nor perverse. (b) Delay in seeking local inspection –– Prejudice to fairness –– Judicial restraint on reopening settled issues: The Supreme Court noted that the case had already been finalized with respect to co-accused up to the apex Court. Allowing local inspection at this belated stage could prejudice the prosecution and compromise judicial finality. –––Held, prolonged delay in raising the plea, coupled with absence of compelling grounds, disentitles the accused to seek such discretionary relief. Local inspection, particularly after a significant lapse of time and material changes in locale, may lead to unjust interference in properly adjudicated matters. (c) Conduct of accused –– Abscondence –– Relevance in exercise of judicial discretion: The petitioner had remained an absconder for a considerable period and failed to offer justification. –––Held, such conduct affects the equitable exercise of judicial discretion. An applicant seeking discretionary relief must approach the Court with clean hands; persistent evasion undermines entitlement to favorable judicial orders. (d) Case law distinguished –– Precedents cited not applicable on facts: Authorities cited by the petitioner, including PLD 1974 Quetta 28, 1999 PCr.LJ 927, 2000 PCr.LJ 372, and 2016 SCMR 2084, were held to be distinguishable. –––Held, the cited judgments involved materially different factual matrices and did not support mandatory local inspection where discretion had been judiciously exercised based on comprehensive evidentiary record already available. Disposition: Revision petition dismissed. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 48 of 2019 consigned to record.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending