{
  "id": 8618186,
  "title": "SC draws limits on trial courts' powers",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/19/sc-draws-limits-on-trial-courts-powers",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-09-19T18:20:21.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "The Express Tribune - Pakistan",
    "slug": "the-express-tribune-pakistan",
    "url": "https://tribune.com.pk/story/2630275/sc-draws-limits-on-trial-courts-powers"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The Supreme Court has set limits on the powers of trial courts in Pakistan, outlining the court's role and responsibilities. The 10-page judgement, authored by Justice Muhammad Salahuddin Ahmed Panwar, addresses the relationship between Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898 and Section 540 of the same code, as well as Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.\n\nThe court emphasized that the criminal trial is adversarial, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proving guilt, while the court must ensure a lawful and just adjudication. Section 94 of CrPC allows the court to compel the production of documents or other things necessary for the trial, while Section 540 grants the court the power to summon witnesses, examine present persons, or re-examine those already heard. The latter part of Section 540 becomes mandatory only when the evidence is deemed essential to the just decision of the case.\n\nThe bench noted that the first part of Section 540 is discretionary, while the second part becomes mandatory when the evidence is essential. Further, the court clarified that omissions from the calendar of witnesses or absence of a prior statement under Section 161 are not absolute bars to examination under Section 540. The court also stated that Section 265-C requires the timely supply of existing material when made disclosable by law, without necessitating the production of a statement never recorded. Additionally, the court warned against using Section 540 merely to strengthen a party's case or cure an evidentiary deficiency.\n\nFinally, the court emphasized that the accused must be protected against unfair surprise through disclosure, preparation, and cross-examination whenever additional evidence is received, and that a remedy for any irregularity depends on actual prejudice, and a de novo trial is not automatically triggered by every mid-trial exercise of Section 540.",
  "summary": "Lays down principles for exercise of Section 540 CrPC",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}