1992 P Cr (PLP)

Aziz Ahmad Chughtai for the State. Date of hearing: 16th December, 1991. The present criminal revision petition is filed against the order, dated 20‑1‑1981 passed by Special Judge Central, Lahore, whereby the application of the present petitioner for resummoning the prosecution witnesses for cross examination was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, being accused of offence under sections 409, 468, 471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was being tried by the learned trial Court and that during the trial, at one stage the petitioner had himself cross examined the prosecution witnesses in the absence of his counsel, but thereafter had submitted the application under section 540, Cr.P.C. as stated above, for resummoning the said prosecution witnesses for recross examination. The learned trial Court had rejected the same, vide impugned order, dated 20‑1‑1.981, as stated above, by observing that the case had been kept pending on the relevant date till 2‑00 p.m. but as the petitioner had expressed his willingness to cross‑examine the prosecution witnesses if their evidence was to be recorded, only then the proceedings in respect of the same had been undertaken and that the petitioner had duly cross‑examined the prosecution witnesses whose evidence had been recorded.

3. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel has put in appearance to prosecute the present revision petition but as it is an old case pertaining to the year 1981, therefore, it has been taken up for hearing with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.

4. The order, dated 20‑1‑1981 has been impugned on the sole ground that the cross‑examination of the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner has resulted in the petitioner's being deprived of his valuable right of cross examining the prosecution witnesses, which has resulted in badly prejudicing his case. To support the said contention, reliance was placed on Allah Bakhsh v. The State 1977 P Cr. L J

63. However, the said precedent is of no help to the petitioner as therein the P.Ws. had not been cross‑examined at all. Further reliance was placed on Muhammad Hanif v. The State 1977 P Cr. L J 333, wherein it was held that putting few questions to witnesses by the accused A himself could not be termed as cross‑examination but, nevertheless, the criminal revision was dismissed as being premature as it was submitted before the accused had entered upon his defence. Even this precedent fails to advance the case of the petitioner as in the instant case, the petitioner had been able to cross‑examine the witncsscs to his satisfaction of his own free‑will without the assistance of a counsel.

5. In view of the aforestated reasons, the present criminal revision petition merits to be dismissed.

6. A pericular aspect of the present case is that the last time it was fixed before the Court on 19-4-1981, and that the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed only upto 25-3-1981. Eversince 19-4-1981, the present case has not been fixed fir hearing before any Bench. Therefore, the non-appearance of the petitioner and his counsel today may be the result of the trial in question having been concluded a long time ago.

7. In view of the discussion, stated above, the present criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed for being without any merit. S.A./M-184/L Revision dismissed.