Sure, here is a succinct summary of a case law from the Supreme Court of Pakistan: **Case Citation: 2021 SCMR 56** **Key Point Decided:** In *Mian Haroon Riaz Lucky vs. The State*, the Supreme Court held that for the theft of natural gas by commercial consumers, FIRs under Section 462-C of the PPC can be registered, provided the procedural requirements of the Gas (Theft, Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, are followed. The 2016 Act introduced additional procedures but did not negate the applicability of the Penal Code. For The High Court ruled that evidence from one criminal case cannot be used in another without summoning, examining, and cross-examining the witnesses in the new case. This ensures the trial's fairness and adherence to due process.

The unique point decided in *2021 P Cr. L J 417* is that evidence (witness statements and documents) from one criminal case cannot be used directly in another criminal case without summoning, examining, and cross-examining those witnesses in the new case. This ensures adherence to due process and a fair trial.

bject at a later stage---Validity---Petitioners had no occasion to object when the other set of witnesses of other criminal case was not brought in the witness box and their statements had not been made part of the court record in another case---Petitioners had rightly objected at the appropriate stage and the Trial Court was under an obligation to decide the matter---Supreme Court had held that justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done---Therefore, in order to ensure that the trial was fair and in accordance with law, the witnesses and documents must be summoned and recorded as per law in the case they were relevant, with the opportunity for examination and cross-examination provided to all parties---Petitioners' application for summoning of witnesses and documents was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

**Decision:**

The High Court held that:

1. There is no legal provision that allows the deposition of witnesses from one criminal case to be used in another criminal case without summoning those witnesses.

2. Certified copies of statements from one case cannot be directly used in another case without the witnesses being summoned, examined, and cross-examined.

3. Adopting evidence from one case into another without proper legal procedures would cause a serious defect, prejudice the defense, and amount to illegality.

4. Such practices would vitiate the trial and could not be protected under Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The objection to using evidence from one case in another was rightly raised by the petitioners, and the trial court should have properly addressed the matter.

6. The principle that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done requires that witnesses and documents relevant to a case must be properly summoned and recorded with opportunities for examination and cross-examination.

Consequently, the petitioners' application to summon the necessary witnesses and documents was allowed, and the impugned order dismissing their application was set aside, ensuring the trial proceeded in a fair and lawful manner.

Object at a later stage---Validity---Petitioners had no occasion to object when the other set of witnesses of other criminal case was not brought in the witness box and their statements had not been made part of the court record in another case---Petitioners had rightly objected at the appropriate stage and the Trial Court was under an obligation to decide the matter---Supreme Court had held that justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done---Therefore, in order to ensure that the trial was fair and in accordance with law, the witnesses and documents must be summoned and recorded as per law in the case they were relevant, with the opportunity for examination and cross-examination provided to all parties---Petitioners' application for summoning of witnesses and documents was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

**Decision:**

The High Court held that:

1. There is no legal provision that allows the deposition of witnesses from one criminal case to be used in another criminal case without summoning those witnesses.

2. Certified copies of statements from one case cannot be directly used in another case without the witnesses being summoned, examined, and cross-examined.

3. Adopting evidence from one case into another without proper legal procedures would cause a serious defect, prejudice the defense, and amount to illegality.

4. Such practices would vitiate the trial and could not be protected under Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The objection to using evidence from one case in another was rightly raised by the petitioners, and the trial court should have properly addressed the matter.

6. The principle that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done requires that witnesses and documents relevant to a case must be properly summoned and recorded with opportunities for examination and cross-examination.

Consequently, the petitioners' application to summon the necessary witnesses and documents was allowed, and the impugned order dismissing their application was set aside, ensuring the trial proceeded in a fair and lawful manner.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.