2009 PLP 1427 (YLR)
ADNAN AHMED KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 1427 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Faisal Arab and Bin Yamin, JJ |
| Parties | ADNAN AHMED KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 1427 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 1427 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Faisal Arab and Bin Yamin, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 1427 (YLR) (ADNAN AHMED KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Learned counsel for respondent has vehemently opposed the grant of this application on the ground that sufficient opportunity was given to the defence counsel and they want to harass the witness by subjecting him for further cross-examination, which might shutter the case the prosecution as one of the witnesses who is also victim is only seven years of age.
Judgment & Decree
Through this Criminal Revision Application learned counsel for the applicant seeks recall of prosecution witness for further cross-examination. Application under section 540, Cr.P.C. which was moved before trial Court was dismissed on the ground that once an opportunity is given to the defence counsel to cross-examine at length he is not entitled to seek recall of the witnesses. Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant only intends to confront the witness with the statement made. Under section 161, Cr.P.C. only to point out the contradictions between the Examination-in-Chief and such statement. He further contends that in the impugned order it has been wrongly stated that the witnesses have already been confronted with the 161, Cr.P.C. statement. Learned counsel for respondent has vehemently opposed the grant of this application on the ground that sufficient opportunity was given to the defence counsel and they want to harass the witness by subjecting him for further cross-examination, which might shutter the case the prosecution as one of the witnesses who is also victim is only seven years of age. Learned counsel for the applicant in reply contended that he does not seek recall of all the witnesses as has been prayed in his application but only the witness who is also victim namely Arsalan be recalled for cross-examination. He contends that the purpose of recalling Arsalan is only to confront him with 161, Cr.P.C. statement. In support of his contention he has relied upon 1991 PCr.LJ
877. In this judgment it was held that through inadvertence of defence counsel, the witness of the prosecution was not confronted with his previous statement. We have examined the cross-examination of witness Arsalan and found that he was not confronted with his previous statement. Hence this application is allowed only to the extent that the victim Arsalan shall be recalled for cross-examine only for the purpose of confronting the statement made under section 161, Cr.P.C. In case the defence counsel seek unnecessary adjournment and do not proceed with the cross-examination of Arsalan, then the opportunity to cross-examine him again shall stand recalled. Respondent Apprehends that Arsalan is minor boy of seven years of age and he will be harassed. This apprehension would be taken care of by the trial Court itself as no one is be unnecessary, harassed. This application is allowed to the extent stated. H.B.T./A-61/K Application allowed.