Joint Trials under sections 411 and 457, held to be legal where it did not appear that the theft and the receiving of stolen property were parts of the same transaction. In revision conviction was set aside though no objection was taken in the lower Courts. 2 Cr.LJ 30; Gurditta etc. v. Emp. 2 Cr.LJ 37 King Emp. v. Sunder Singh.
Joint trial. Two cases requiring to be tried together. One case committed to Sessions for trial. No legal bar to the other case being also sent up for trial to the same Court. (SC) 1973 SCMR 134 Muhammad Umar Khan. v. Yousaf.
Joint trial illegal when sub-registrar and moharir are accused at one trial of independent acts of bribe taking in the course of registration of the same document. Question of prejudice is irrelevant. (SC) PLD 1958 SC 131. Muhammad Mosaddar Haque etc.
Joint trial of two different truck-drivers involved in the same accident is not permissible u/s. 239, Cr.P.C. Retrial ordered. NLR 1988 Cr. 535 Hakim Muhammad.
Joint trial for offence u/Ss. 396 and 412, PPC. (Cr.P.C. Sec. 239), A person cannot be tried upon a charge u/S. 412, PPC jointly with others who are being tried for the offence of dacoity u/S. 396. (DB) AIR 1926 Lah. 132. Achpal.
Joint trial of offences u/S. 156 of Customs Act and Article 4 of Prohibition Order for recovery of heroin by Special Judge Customs held to be illegal. Denovo trial under Article 4 of Prohibition Order ordered by the Federal Shariat Court. PLJ 1995 FSC 6, Khuda Bakhsh.
Separate commitment but joint trial is legal when the offence had been committed jointly by all the accused in the same transaction. (FB) 47 Cr.LJ 279, Sardara etc. v. Emp. 222 Ind. Cas. 224 = AIR 1945 Lah. 286 - ILR 27 Lah. 483.
Counter-case. Criminal trial of counter-cases by the same Judge. Judgment is not to be pronounced unless both the cases have finished. (DB) PLD 1962 Dacca 576 Shahid Ali.
Challan case and complaint cases to be consolidated if story is same but the number of accused is different. However, if story is different in both the cases the procedure laid down in Nur Elahi's case: PLD 1966 SC 708 is to be followed. PLD 1987 Lah. 245 Aziz-ur-Rehman = NLR 1987 Cr. 362.
Complaint case and challan case about the same occurrence with different versions and different sets of accused. Committing Magistrate making two commitment orders. Procedure to be adopted, as laid down by the Supreme Court is that the complaint case be taken up first and prosecution witnesses listed in the Police challan be also examined as "Court witnesses" under section 540-A, Cr.P.C. Police challan to be taken up only if complaint case result in acquittal, and in case of conviction. Police case is to be withdrawn by Public Prosecutor under section 494, Cr.P.C. (SC) PLD 1966 SC 708 Noor Elahi. NLR 1986 Cr. 896. Rashid Ahmed v. Asghar Ali etc.
Complaint case and challan case, trial about the same occurrence but with different versions, and different accused persons. Held, both the cases cannot be tried together. Complaint case is to be tried first. 1981 SCMR 361. Syed Muhammad Hassan Shah v. Abdul Hamid etc.
Trial of complaint case and challan case about the same incident when the versions, witness, and the accused are the same in the complaint as well in the challan case, the principle laid down in Noor Elahi's case (PLD 1966 SC 708) which was to avoid prejudice to the complainant, it did not amount to a declaration of law. PLD SC 53 (at page 77-EE) Z.A. Bhutto.
Trial of complaint case and challan case. Nur Elahi's case (PLD 1966 SC 708) does not lay down an invariable rule that the complaint case is always to be tried first. Where the version and the accused are practically the same in both the complaint and the challan cases even a separate trial may not be necessary. NLR 1985 Cr. 1. Raja Khushbakhat-ur-Rehman etc. 1985 SCMR 1314.
Complaint case to be taken up first and challan case afterwards when accused persons different and also the role ascribed to them. PLJ 1980 SC 168. Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah v. Abdul Hamid.
Two cases about same incident, one challan case and the other a complaint case. Same accused in both the cases. Order consolidating both the cases for trial not set aside. PLJ 1981 Cr.C. (Kar.) 244. Mst. Aziz Begum v. Muhammad Khush Dil. 
Murder trial, Plea of insanity. Culprit at some stage subsequent to incident suffering from fit of insanity is no presumption of his being insane at the time of the commission of the crime. Death sentence maintained. (SC) 1973 SCMR 295 Fazal Waheed. 1974 SCMR 414 Jalal Din.
Accused not claiming that something else had happened which infuriated him, yet lower court observing that something must have happened enraging the accused and making him lose self-control. Held,  Court could not add to what accused himself stated during the trial. No justification for surmises. (SC) 1973 SCMR 300 Muhammad Nawab v. Muhammad Sadiq.
Dead body exhumed under orders of Deputy Commissioner, challenged under Article 199 of the Constitution & Sec. 174, 176 Cr.P.C. High Court ordered that the Magistrate will disinter dead body for post mortem examination after joining petitioner and son of the deceased. PLJ 1996 Lah. 139, Mst. Ghazala Begum etc. v. D.M. Khanewal.
Dead body not recovered. Connection of the accused with crime not to be made on ocular testimony of interested and impeachable character. (SC) PLJ 1974 SC 12 = PLD 1974 SC 37, Muhammad Ismail v. Khushi Muhammad.
Evidence not produced in a case under the Arms Ordinance, but taken in connected murder case, could not be treated as evidence in the Arms case. Conviction set aside. PLD 1973 Note 137 Ghulam Jilani.
Evidence copied from other case. Common witness in three cases. Evidence in one case simply copied out in other cases. Held, trial illegal. PLD 1953 Lah. 321 Muhammad Younis v. Crown.
Statement of witnesses recorded in one case cannot be utilized in another case. Appellants acquitted. PLJ 1992 Cr.C. (Kar.) 396. Hameer etc.
When statements of the complainant and the witnesses not recorded by the Magistrate himself but were recorded by his clerk or his reader, the order whereby cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate was quashed. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 430, Muhammad Ali Qazi etc.
Shorthand notes by Trial Courts. Trial Courts advised by the Supreme Appellate Court to avoid the practice of recording evidence through short hand for safe dispensation of criminal justice. 1992 SCMR 754, Arbisatn etc.
Additional Sessions Judge acting on evidence recorded by Magistrate and allowing cross-examination of witnesses only in his Court. Held, Sessions Court should have held trial afresh. Case not remanded for retrial as the case was 20 years old. Appellant acquitted. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.) 174, Guloo alias Gul Hussain etc. = 1994 Cr.LJ 116.
Copying out statement from one case and imported into trial of another case vitiates trial. Retrial ordered (DB) PLJ 1981 Cr.C. (Lah.) 134 Noor Muhammad etc.
Previous statements of PWs copied verbatim at the trial of co-accused named in column No. 2 of challan and summoned later on. Trial vitiated. Retrial ordered. (DB) PLJ 1988 Cr.C. (Lah.) 575. Ijlees Ahmed.
Dead body not found and not produced. Death not proved by independent evidence. Eye-witnesses inimical. Accused acquitted. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 391 Rasool Bakhsh etc.
Dead body not found. Corpus delicti, even though missing homicidal death in circumstances, held, proved. (SC) PLD 1978 SC 1. Allah Dad.
Place of trial. Home Secretary cannot fix a place of trial, it is the jurisdiction of the Magistrate only. PLD 1976 Lah. 132 Hafeez Ahmed.
Complaint case and challan case having same set of accused but version and motive in two cases totally different. Held, the trial Court was perfectly justified in trying both the cases and taking up complaint case first. NLR 1991 Cr. 190. Mukhtar Ahmed v. Muhammad Khursheed Rawal
Police challan and complaint case in trial Court are not to be tried separately when there are the same set of the accused and same version in both the cases. A particular procedure had been devised in the case of Nur Elahi; PLD 1966 S.C. 708, only to avoid prejudice to the complainant but to say that invariably it should be followed even if the facts are distinguishable is not correct and it does not amount to alteration of law. 1997 SCMR 334, Karim Bakhsh v. Zulfiqar etc. = PLJ 1997 SC. 139.
Proceeding before Court Martial under the Army Act are not Civil or Criminal Proceedings under section 270 (1) Government of India Act, 1935. (SC) 49 Cr.LJ 660 Albert West Meads v. King. PLD 1948 PC 182.
Accused from armed forces. Where the attention of the Magistrate who tried the accused was not drawn to section 549, Cr.P.C. or the rules framed thereunder and he did not act in accordance therewith, the trial is illegal and the conviction and sentence must be set aside. (DB) 47 Cr.LJ 192 Captain Hugh May, 221 Ind. Cas. 487 (Mad.)
Plea of guilty misunderstood. Conviction cannot be sustained. High Court accepted the revision and remanded the case. 43 Cr.Lj (1942 Mad.) 368 Pichumani Ayyar v. Crown.
Plea of guilt on a Capital Charge can be accepted if proper safeguards are taken. The accused should be represented by a counsel, whether the accused knows what he is doing and the consequences of the plea, and medical report about the accused. The Judge should record "does not plead" when not satisfied about the plea of guilty. (FB) 48 Cr.LJ 329 (Bom.) Emp. v. Abdul Kadir.
Plea of guilty. No accused can be convicted on plea of guilty when facts alleged against the accused do not make out an offence under any section of penal law. (DB) PLD 1979 Kar. 574. Mumtaz Ali Bhutto etc. v. DMLA etc.
Criminal Proceedings not to be stayed because Civil Suit pending about the same subject-matter. Criminal Court would not be bound by the decision of the Civil Court as Criminal case is between the crown (State) representing the interests of the general public to prevent dishonesty and insecurity on one side and the accused on the other. 44 Cr.LJ 278 (All.) Panna Lal v. Emp.
Failure to exhibit stolen property. (Cycle) during trial, trial vitiated. Merely questioning the accused in case under Section 411, P.P.C. about the number and make of cycle not enough. PLJ 1976 Lah. 201 Ghulam Shabir.
Case property not produced in Court. Case property disowned by the accused. Witnesses disinterested. Trial not vitiated. Conviction maintained. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 760 Jagan etc.
When accused could not understand the evidence led against him nor could communicate with his counsel. No interpreter appointed. Retrial ordered. (DB) PLJ 1979 Cr.C. (Lah) 314. Ghulam Sakhi.
Evidence recorded in English only. Vernacular record not kept, Held, irregularity curable under Section 537, Cr.P.C. Order for resummoning P.Ws. to record evidence in vernacular set aside. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 342 Ch. Khursheed Ahmad.
Witness introduced by an affidavit of father of deceased. Neither mentioned in F.I.R. nor in list of witnesses. Court summoning such witness as Court witness at the request of A.P.P. Held, order injudicious, (DB) 1975 P.Cr. LJ 609 (Kar.) Haroon Rashid.
Closing of prosecution evidence without issuing coercive process to compel the attendance of prosecution witnesses, even the prosecution was not warned to complete its evidence. Trial Court order set aside with a direction to proceed according to principles formulated by the Supreme Court in PLD 1984 S.C. 428, State v. Sarwar Khan. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 377, Muhammad Boota v. Civil Judge Okara, etc. 
Closing of prosecution case  not proper when summons or warrants to prosecution witnesses not received back after service. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 952 Amanat Ali.
Prosecution failing to produce witnesses despite more than a dozen opportunities during 11/2 years. Held, Court fully justified in closing prosecution case. (D.B) 1970 P.Cr.LJ 649 State v. Jagmal Singh.
In production of witness. Prosecution should be given reasonable latitude. Prosecution, however, failing to produce witnesses in spite of repeated adjournments, Held, abuse of process, Proceedings quashed. PLD 1963 Quetta 13 Mushtaq Ahmed etc.
Sessions trial must continue from day to day, once it is started and till it is finished. High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. III, Part B, Chap. 24. NLR 1983 Cr. 668 Muhammad Rafiq v. Muhammad Rafiq etc.
Sessions Trial should be done seriously which they deserve. Trial Courts should fix the cases on specific dates and should not crowd their cause list for those days. Sessions cases should not be treated as theft cases because primary duty of a Sessions Courts is to dispose of Sessions cases as laid down in the High Court Rules and Orders Chapter 24, Part B III that the Sessions cases be tried from day to day. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Lah.) 1628, State V. Allah Bakhsh etc.
Piece-meal examination of eye-witness in a murder case in Sessions Court is undesirable. (DB) PLD 1957 Lah. 332. Murad.
Evidence of prosecution witnesses wholly rejected as unreliable so far as most of the accused were concerned. Unsafe to convict other accused on same evidence unless confirmed by some other circumstances. (FC) PLD 1954 FC 84 Muhammad Sher v. Crown.
Evidence partly recorded by one Judge and partly by another vitiates the trial. (DB) PLD 1950 Lah. 244 Bashir v. Crown PLD 1959 Pesh. 20 Hakim Khan v. Crown. (DB) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 371 Manzoor. 1972 P.Cr.LJ 984 Saeed Ahmad. However, in Moonda etc. v. State, the Supreme Court directed the accused to be retried from the stage of defence by any Sessions Judge selected by the High Court. (now the law has been amended).
Defence Counsel at State expense in case under section 302, PPC, given only 2 1/2 hours to prepare the case of the accused, accused, alleged that prejudice was caused to him. Case remanded for retrial. (DB) 1971 P.Cr.LJ 1047 Bhaisa Kiri Ghara.
Appreciation of evidence. Prosecution and defence versions to be considered in juxtaposition with each other. Reasonable possibility of defence version being true found on review of entire evidence. Such findings react on whole prosecution case. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 241 Ghulam Muhammad v. Allah Yar.
Weakness of defence cannot prove truth of prosecution case. (DB) PLD 1954 Sind 256 Inayat Hussain Shah v. Crown.
Trial by Military Court. Necessity to be established before case is tried by Military Court instead of civil courts. Conviction and sentence under Smuggling and Black Marketing Act (1948) set aside. PLJ 1978 Lah. 519. Muhammad Aslam (Now law is amended).
Criminal trial and diplomatic immunity. Petitioner an employee of a foreign mission in Pakistan. Immunity clause "Privilege of family and household "held, attracted in circumstances and petitioner within his right to claim immunity against his trial in Pakistan. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 686. Sher Zaman.
Prosecution found to have in case under section 302, PPC. (i) falsely implicated five persons in the case (ii) deliberately suppressed the manner in which one accused was injured, (iii) deliberately suppressed the manner of occurrence, (iv) given false evidence with regard to injuries on the accused, in the these circumstances it is wrong to hold that the prosecution version is correct. (SC) 1971 SCMR 432 Hakim Ali.
Prosecution evidence not making out a case. Judge thinking that the prosecution witnesses were withholding truth cannot arrive at conclusions not supported by evidence. (P.C.) AIR 1946 P.C. 38 Brji Boshan v. Emperor.
Decision not to be given on personal belief. It is the duty of the Court to give decision on judicial evidence and not on personal belief. (FC) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1213 Akram Khan v. Crown.
Trial under Section 302, PPC. Evidence regarding extra-judicial confession, motive or crime and recovery of crime weapons not relied on. Conviction nevertheless upheld. (FC) 1968 SCMR 510 Soomar v. Crown.
Special Law and procedure. Mere fact that a particular act is an offence under special law, it does not exclude operation of Cr.P.C. unless that law also prescribes a special procedure for such an offence. PLD 1979 Lah. 251 Muhammad Azhar Hassan etc. v. Distt. Cricket Assn. Lahore.
Certificate of trial Judge, after examination of accused. Rubber stamp is not enough. PLJ 1985 Cr.C. (Lah.) 240 Fateh Khan.
Two murders in two separate transactions. Neither community of intention nor continuity of action present. Separate Challans and separate trials ordered. NLR 1985 Cr. 463. Muhammad Ali v. Nazra.
Wrong forum tried the appellant. Trial held by Judge Anti-Corruption Provincial instead of Judge Anti-Corruption Central. Supreme Court quashed the proceedings as being without jurisdiction, even though such plea was not taken at the trial. 1985 SCMR 1054. Mirza Safdar Jang.
Accused prolonging trial by absenting themselves, the court may cancel their bails. If jail authority fails to produce them in Court on any date of hearing the Sessions Court may proceed against Jail Authority for contempt of Court. NLR 1984 Cr. 3.. Muhammad Yaqub.
Trial in Jail; Sec. 352, Cr.P.C. read with High Court Rules & Orders Vol. III Chap I Part A. Trial in jail is violative of Sec. 352, Cr.P.C. I is the Court which can take decision and not the executive, where to hold the Court. Writ issued. NLR 1991 Cr. 440. Akhtar Ahmed v. Govt. of Punjab.
High Court could try the case u/S. 476 Cr.P.C. instead of filing case u/S. 195 (b) Cr.P.C. Sec. 467 Cr.P.C. provides procedure other than the one u/S. 195 (b) Cr.P.C. 1994 SCMR 1103, Abdul Hakim.
Trial in absentia is ultra vires under Article 10 of the Constitution. When Special Court tried the appellant in absentia for offence u/S. 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and convicted, held, the conviction was not sustainable, Conviction set aside. PLJ 1989 Lah. 572 (DB) and 1992 SCMR 602 relied upon. Case remanded for retrial. PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Lah.) 441 (DB) Sahib Dad.
Trial in absentia is not trial in the eye of law and is void ab initio hence limitation does not run in appeal from such trials, as trial in absentia is violative of Article 10 of the Constitution. PLJ 1989 Lah. 572, Zia Ullah Khan's case ref. (DB) PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Lah.) 2, Tauqir Mir.
Trial and conviction in absentia, held, illegal. Petitioner treated as under trial prisoner. Sentence and conviction set aside. Case remanded to trial Court FIR trial afresh. (DB) PLJ 1998 PLJ 1998 Lah. 440 Karamat Ali.
Cases receiving excessive publicity require examination of the evidence by the Court with more than ordinary care, lest shocking nature of crime might induce an instinctive reaction against a dispassionate judicial scrutiny of law and facts. 1993 SCMR 550, Saeed Ahmed Shah.
Decision by Panchayat and evidence in its support about cattle taken into custody u/S. 550 Cr.P.C. relied upon by Court. FIR about the theft of the cattle registered one month afterwards. The trial Court relying on the decision of the Panchiayat and evidence in its support, held, had abdicated its jurisdiction to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Entire trial stood vitiated. Accused acquitted for offence u/s. 411 PPC. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 78, Shukur Shah.
Lunacy: The Court to take action u/Ss. 464 & 465 Cr.P.C. When a Court is confronted with the question during an inquiry or trial whether an accused person is of unsound mind. The Court is not bound to investigate the matter when it does not appear to it that the accused is of unsound mind. The provisions of section 465 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and if not observed the trial would be vitiated. The application by the brother of the accused that the accused was of unsound mind and had been dismissed by the Court. The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to proceed u/s 465 Cr.P.C. 1997 SCMR 239, Fauqual Bashar = PLJ 1997 S.C. 159.
Lunatic's trial (Sec. 465 Cr.P.C.) When ever question of insanity is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court shall satisfy itself in manner provided under law; whether the accused is capable of understanding trial and defending himself. For such satisfaction medical evidence is of utmost importance. High Court had vitiated proceedings on medical ground (Schizophrenia) when ailment was specifically brought to the notice of the trial Court and supported by medical-board report, as such failure of defence counsel to raise such plea would not disentitle accused to raise such plea and to be treated in accordance with law. PLJ 1997 S.C. 1621, Siraj-ud-Din v. Afzal Khan etc.